This content has been archived. It may no longer be relevant
And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures. Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard that you do not get led astray by the error of these unprincipled men and fall from your firm grasp on the truth. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the honor both now and on that eternal day.
2 Peter 3:15 – 18
You have likely heard the idiom, “robbing Peter to pay Paul”, but have you ever stopped to consider the meaning it infers? What if I told you there’s a practical theological application to this, and that it’s something to be avoided?
To clarify, I’m not pointing to a strict etymology of the phrase, but to a principle I see illustrated within it; whether that was intentional or unintentional remains to be seen.
Peter was a Galilean and as such, likely somewhat fluent in no less than three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Furthermore, he was literate, as was common throughout Judea in the day… there is ample evidence pointing to literacy as having been normative.
Consider Luke chapter 4, where we are recounted the events of Yeshua reading from the scroll of Isaiah. While other cultures may have hoarded literacy for the affluent and aristocracy, we see here a layman’s son reading aloud in the public space. We could delve deeper into the topic, but that isn’t the point of this particular line of dialogue.
Suffice it to say that Peter could speak multiple languages and could read and write Hebrew at a minimum. For those who find this objectionable, I refer you to commentaries on Acts 4, explaining why unschooled is not equivalent to illiterate.
I raise the issue to illustrate the point that, even prior to his travels throughout Judea as a disciple of Yeshua, Peter had already been exposed to far more cultural diversity and linguistic variation than many of us will experience in our lifetime. To be clear, I’m saying that Peter is far from stupid or ignorant…
Paul, on the other hand, is known to have been highly educated. He was, in fact, hand-picked to study “at the feet of” Gamaliel; the preeminent Torah scholar of his day. It is reported that, the prerequisite for one to even be considered for such an honor was that the individual had to have the Torah memorized.
Let that sink in… Paul had to have known the entirety of the Torah; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy – by heart.
What I want the reader to see is that Paul knew and understood the intricacies of the Torah on a level few of us can even begin to comprehend. He is, for all intents and purposes, a theological genius even before his encounter on the Damascus road.
Peter, who as I stated, is no dummy himself, warns us to approach Paul’s writings with careful consideration. I posit that he does so, not because he takes issue with the content therein, but because he understands full-well the error that could arise were one not to weigh out what was written.
I remind myself using far less eloquent language when approaching the writings of Paul: “Dude’s deep. Chill out and take your time…”
I submit that if we read Paul’s writings without seeking to ascertain their harmony and continuity with the rest of scripture, we will arrive at the wrong conclusion every-single-time. Furthermore, I contend that if we approach Paul’s letters casually and somehow assume that we just “get it”, we impugn Peter’s intellect and simultaneously malign Paul’s intent… we essentially rob them both.
I bring this to the forefront at this time because it is very relevant to the discussion. Paul is the author of what many would deem to be “problem passages” for someone arguing a “one law” theology (as I am clearly doing here). I contend however, that these passages are only “problem passages” if one accepts the traditional, supersessionist interpretation.
The first, and most fundamental point supporting this thesis is the very nature of God himself. Scripture reveals some extremely important details regarding the nature of our creator that must always temper our understanding as we read:
“God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a human being, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it happen?”
Numbers 23:19
“… The grass dries up, the flowers wither, but the decree of our God is forever reliable.”
Isaiah 40:8
“Since, I, the Lord, do not go back on my promises, you, sons of Jacob, have not perished. …”
Malachi 3:6
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever!
Hebrews 13:8
All generous giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or the slightest hint of change.
James 1:17
Hopefully, you get the point; God – does – not – change.
The cited portion of Isaiah (40:8) applies this unchanging nature to his “decree”. Many, if not most, English translations render this as “word”. In either case, would the Torah not be the decree, or word, of the Lord?
Some have postulated that, while God does not change, the manner in which He deals with man, does. Seriously. People believe this… they believe this and yet, claim to believe this same God is omniscient (all knowing). If this were true, why would there be a need to change his means of dealing with us? Did He not know the perfect manner of bringing about our redemption from the beginning? I contend that this assertion is a text-book example of cognitive dissonance… but I digress.
There is another fundamental issue with this (beyond that stated previously), and with that of the law no longer being a valid or binding. It basically says, that what God identified and declared to be sin at Sinai, He no longer considers to be sin. That – by definition – is change.
Let me clarify; to believe that God no longer considers those things identified at Sinai as sin, is to believe that God changed. If Paul taught that God had changed, explicitly or implicitly, then he would have been rightly accused of heresy.
While he was accused of heresy on numerous occasions, Paul himself denied the allegations and offered very cogent arguments to prove his innocence. Furthermore, James and the elders in Jerusalem denied these allegations and took measures to prove that Paul did not teach against the Torah:
… Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all ardent observers of the law. They have been informed about you – that you teach all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What then should we do? They will no doubt hear that you have come. So do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in conformity with the law.
Acts 21:20 – 24
Am I to believe that James and the elders are being devious or deceitful?
Some might argue that the allegation is false in that, Paul did not teach Jews to abandon the Mosaic law, but that he taught gentiles that they didn’t need to observe it. I submit that if he truly did so, then by his own words and actions, he branded himself a hypocrite.
So the question is, did Paul teach these things, or is he being misunderstood or taken out of context? Let us look to Paul’s own writings and allow him to speak for himself.
I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to agree together, to end your divisions, and to be united by the same mind and purpose. For members of Chloe’s household have made it clear to me, my brothers and sisters, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,” or “I am with Christ.” Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name! (I also baptized the household of Stephanus. Otherwise, I do not remember whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless.
1 Corinthians 1:10 – 17
Throughout this passage, Paul makes the implicit, yet clear argument that no one is to be a follower of anyone other than Yeshua. “Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he?” Though phrased as a question, it is in fact a rhetorical statement, and a powerful one at that.
The text goes on:
For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will thwart the cleverness of the intelligent.” Where is the wise man? Where is the expert in the Mosaic law? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made the wisdom of the world foolish?
1 Corinthians 1:18 – 20
Though it is again implicit, we are presented with an argument that proves to be thematic throughout most, if not all of Paul’s letters; that the law does not save. Paul does not accuse the “experts in the law” of foolishness for having studied the law, but for having put their faith in that law as a means of attaining righteousness and thereby, salvation.
Nevertheless, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each person, so must he live. I give this sort of direction in all the churches. Was anyone called after he had been circumcised? He should not try to undo his circumcision. Was anyone called who is uncircumcised? He should not get circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Instead, keeping God’s commandments is what counts. Let each one remain in that situation in life in which he was called. Were you called as a slave? Do not worry about it. But if indeed you are able to be free, make the most of the opportunity. For the one who was called in the Lord as a slave is the Lord’s freedman. In the same way, the one who was called as a free person is Christ’s slave. You were bought with a price. Do not become slaves of men. In whatever situation someone was called, brothers and sisters, let him remain in it with God.
1 Corinthians 7:17 – 24
Now this is an interesting passage. In it we see both an admonition to keep God’s commandments and a statement decrying circumcision. This from the hand of the same man who circumcised Timothy…
He also came to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple named Timothy was there, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but whose father was a Greek. The brothers in Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was Greek.
Acts 16:1 – 3
This passage, in light of the previous citation from 1 Corinthians raises a question (for me at least); whose idea was this? Did Paul encourage Timothy to undergo circumcision as some have claimed, or did Timothy choose to do this of his own volition? The answer, at least with regards to continuity, makes all the difference.
The truth is, we don’t have hard evidence to say one way or another, but if we look further into the life and ministry of Paul, we do receive vicarious indication:
Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas, taking Titus along too. I went there because of a revelation and presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did so only in a private meeting with the influential people, to make sure that I was not running – or had not run – in vain. Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. Now this matter arose because of the false brothers with false pretenses who slipped in unnoticed to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, to make us slaves. But we did not surrender to them even for a moment, in order that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
Galatians 2:1 – 5
In this passage we see that Titus was “not compelled” to be circumcised; therefore, no circumcision is performed. While the astute may observe that Titus was Greek, and Timothy was of Jewish descent through his mother, I doubt that this is what’s at issue here.
Consider the words of John the Baptist:
… “You offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Therefore produce fruit that proves your repentance, and don’t think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that God can raise up children for Abraham from these stones!”
Matthew 3:7 – 9
We are told that Titus wasn’t circumcised, but that Timothy was. Obviously, in order to have the procedure performed, Timothy had to have been in agreement with this, and I believe that it was Timothy’s desire to do so. Some have claimed that Paul compelled Timothy, while “refusing” to circumcise Titus. Given Paul’s rhetoric regarding the doctrine of grafting, or adoption, this too would be blatant hypocrisy.
In fact, no passage indicates the source of Timothy’s compulsion, nor the lack of Titus’. I submit that the only logical and cohesive conclusion to this is that of the Holy Spirit (Ruach haKodesh in Hebrew). I further submit that this is the only possible source of compulsion that wouldn’t call Paul’s motives into question.
The net effect of this, whether you accept or reject the previous suppositions, is something to which I think we can all agree – circumcision is not a requirement for salvation.
No one would argue the fact that there is, and has always been, no shortage of circumcised people who weren’t and aren’t saved. This is implied when Paul writes “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing” (1 Cor. 7:19). Paul never backed down and never recanted from his message, the truth of the gospel for which he stood; that salvation is by grace, through faith (Ephesians 2:8 – 9).
Returning to the citation from Galatians 2:
Now this matter arose because of the false brothers with false pretenses who slipped in unnoticed to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, to make us slaves. But we did not surrender to them even for a moment, in order that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
Galatians 2:4 – 5
To be clear, the slavery Paul is addressing here is not that of adherence to the law. That would, in-fact, be antithetical to the claims of scripture itself. Reference Deuteronomy 11:26, 30:11 and Psalm 119 verses 24, 92 and 174 to name a few.
What Paul is addressing here is slavery to Pharisaic interpretation and tradition, something the Messiah regularly decried. These are the very traditions the “false brothers” sought to impose by way of circumcision.
Paul made his views on circumcision, and obedience to the commandments of God, as given through Moses at Sinai very, very plain:
For circumcision has its value if you practice the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcised man obeys the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised man who keeps the law judge you who, despite the written code and circumcision, transgress the law? For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh, but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not by the written code. This person’s praise is not from people but from God.
Romans 2:25 – 29
Here again, Paul makes the point that it is not circumcision of the flesh that provides evidence of salvation, but of the heart. This again echoes the prophesies of Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36.
Sadly, the controversy regarding the writings of Paul, or those of the other epistles, does not end here. Like it or not, circumcision is only the beginning of the debate…
שלום עליכם – Shalom Aleichem – Peace Be Upon You