Today I am gonna answer the question, “What is New Creation Theology?” I’ve been talking about it here at the blog for the last two days, but I’m not sure the reader knows what I mean by it.
Just to recap: according to Galatians 6:15-16, circumcision nor uncircumcision (being Jew or Gentile) is insignificant; the rule or standard by which to measure a person is “new creation.” In Galatians 6:16, Paul calls this a rule (the Greek word “kanon,” from which we derive our English word, “canon”), and says that peace and mercy will be upon the one who lives by this rule.
Earlier this morning I engaged the text of Galatians 3:28 which has been used by egalitarians to argue for women in ministry. On the basis of Galatians 3:28 alone, women have a place in ministry. I showed that, in line with Gordon Fee’s interpretation, Galatians as a book is all about ecclesiology—how the Christian community should live together despite its various distinctions (be they ethnic, economic, social, gendered, etc.). I walked the reader through Paul’s confrontation with Peter in Galatians 2 and showed that Paul was concerned with more than just Peter acknowledging the salvation of the Gentiles—Paul wanted Peter to act on the soteriological position of the Gentiles by eating with them WITHOUT SHAME because they were “new creation” in Christ! Consequently, the same Paul who wanted the rule of New Creation to drive Peter’s ecclesiology wants all believers in Christ (yes, even complementarians!) to have the rule of New Creation to drive their ecclesiology as well.
Having said all this, I now want to tackle the issue at hand: what is New Creation Theology? To answer this question, we will need to look at the following passage: 2 Corinthians 5.
14For the love of Christ(T) controls us, because we have concluded this: that(U) one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15and he died for all,(V) that those who live might no longer live for themselves but(W) for him who for their sake died and was raised.
16From now on, therefore,(X) we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is(Y) in Christ, he is(Z) a new creation.[b](AA) The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18All this is from God,(AB) who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us(AC) the ministry of reconciliation; 19that is, in Christ God was reconciling[c] the world to himself,(AD) not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us(AE) the message of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:14-19, ESV)
This passage is the main passage in favor of New Creation Theology. It not only tells us that every man in Christ is “new creation,” but it also goes on to state what it means to be new creation: “the old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (v.17).
What does it mean to be “new creation”? to be new creation means to be in Christ. And, because a person is in Christ, the hierarchical distinctions (such as gender, ethnicity, and class status) are made null and void. Because of this, Paul writes in verse 16,
“From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh.”
Regarding this verse, Gordon Fee writes,
“He[Paul] asserts that the new creation brought about by Christ’s death and resurrection nullifies viewing anyone/anything from the ‘OLD AGE’ perspective (Greek KATA SARKA, ‘according to the flesh’). Why? Because Christ’s death has brought the whole human race under the sentence of death (2 Cor. 5:14), so that those who live in God’s new order do so for the One who died for them and was raised again (2 Cor. 5:15). Thus being ‘in Christ’ means belonging to the new creation: the old has gone, the new has come (2 Cor. 5:17). This radical, new-order point of view—resurrection life marked by the cross—lies at the heart of everything Paul thinks and does (cf. Phil. 3:4-14)” (“Discovering Biblical Equality,” pg. 178).
Now some may say that I am stretching this concept a bit too far. And the complementarian is probably condemning me into outer darkness at this point (where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth); however, I have proof for the claim that Gordon Fee makes (and that I believe): to demonstrate, we will now look at Galatians 3:28, along with Colossians 3:11 and 1 Corinthians 12:13. I’ll set them up here so you won’t have to worry about finding them.
28(E) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[a] nor free,(F) there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28. ESV)
11(A) Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave,[a] free; but Christ is(B) all, and in all. (Col. 3:11, ESV)
13For(AA) in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—(AB) Jews or Greeks, slaves[d] or free—and(AC) all were made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:13, ESV)
In all three verses, we find that “Jews and Greeks” are mentioned; “slave and free” are mentioned. But what we find different in these three passages concerns the designations of “male and female” and “barbarian and Scythian.” First, regarding male and female, we know that these two genders are opposites: one cannot be both male and female at the same time (seeing that “female” is the feminine “male”). However, the distinctions “barbarian” and “Scythian” are not polar opposites—rather, they are two shades of the same color:
“These two expressions are not here set in contrast to one another. The Scythians were BARBARIANS, but were generally considered to be THE MOST EXTREME FORM; THEY WERE THE WILDEST AND MOST SAVAGE OF THE BARBARIANS” (“The Believers’ Bible Commentary,” William McDonald and Art Farstad, pg. 2010).
To place “barbarian” and “Scythian” in relation to each other, we first have to know what a “barbarian” is. Merriam-Webster Dictionary online gives us two definitions:
(1) of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people.
(2) lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture.
Barbarians were believed to be inferior; and they were given this label because they
were usually uneducated. Barbarians were savages, those who seemed to be out of touch with human civilization (and even reality). Scythians, however, were “the wildest and most savage of the barbarians,” which means they were the ABSOLUTE WORST!
And yet, as Paul wrote in Colossians 3:11, “Christ is all, and IN ALL.” The wonderful thing for Paul was that this rule of “New Creation” included EVERYONE. No matter what societal standing one had, EVERYONE had equal standing in the eyes of God, and before God.
But, that’s not all. Not only did the New Creation Rule affect one’s standing before God, but also ONE’S STANDING BEFORE GOD’S PEOPLE! As I stated in my last post on Galatians 3:28, our soteriology—our belief that God saves all who come to Him—must influence our ecclesiology—how we carry out this New Creation Rule amongst the community of believers. In future posts, I will focus on how soteriology affects ecclesiology. Paul certainly believed it did—and what’s good for the apostle Paul is good for us, too.
Showing posts with label Galatians 3:28. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Galatians 3:28. Show all posts
Friday, May 22, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Understanding the Nature of Galatians 3:28
“But a key exegetical question, seldom noted, does beg to be answered: why does Paul add the second and third pair at all in an argument that otherwise has to do only with Jew and Gentile? And especially, why the addition of the third pair—with its formulation ‘male and female,’ not ‘man and woman’ (which could mean ‘husband and wife’)—since in similar moments elsewhere (1 Cor. 12:13, Col. 3:10) this pairing is not included? The pursuit of this basic exegetical question should give us some insight into the nature and scope of the ‘newness’ Paul sees as available in the new creation” (173).
A day or so ago I discussed the first pair of distinctions present in Galatians 3:28—“neither Jew nor Greek.” I also discussed the idea of “new creation” as a canon, a rule by which to live the Christian life. If Galatians 6:16 is correct, then complementarians have a lot of work to do.
In today’s post, I’m gonna take a look at why Paul mentions the other two groups of distinctions—“slave and free,” and “male and female.”
Fee gives us his answer convincingly:
“Appealing to the believers’ common baptism (reflecting the new creation theology of Romans 6:1-11), in which they have “clothed themselves with Christ,” Abraham’s true “seed” (Gal. 3:15-18), Paul points out the logical result: since all are now ‘children of God through faith’ and all who have been baptized are thus clothed with Christ, there is therefore ‘neither Jew nor Greek...’(Gal. 3:28)…” (Discovering Biblical Equality, 176).
It is Galatians 3:28, however, that is used to simply affirm that women are just as saved as men are. But Fee states that there’s more to it than meets the eye:
“But in fact Paul says more than this, and it is the ‘more than’ that should catch our attention…for what is at stake is NOT SIMPLY THE SOTERIOLOGICAL QUESTION OF HOW PEOPLE ARE SAVED…those involved in the struggle in Galatia are already ‘SAVED’…WHAT IS AT STAKE IS ECCLESIOLOGY: WHO CONSTITUTE THE PEOPLE OF GOD…and on what grounds are they constituted?” (176)
Once the believers at Galatia became children of God, their questions no longer consisted of “what is salvation,” or “how to be saved,” or even “Can I be saved?”. The questions now consisted of, “How do we live together as children of God despite our differences?”
Go back to Paul’s words regarding his confrontation with Peter in Galatians 2. What was Peter’s issue? Did it have anything to do with teaching that the Gentiles weren’t saved? Or that they needed to be circumcised? No—instead, Peter’s problem was that “he was eating with the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:12) before certain men returned to Antioch; then, his fear drove him to retreat from them, “fearing the circumcision party.” The issue here had nothing to do with salvation—but instead, the outworkings of salvation. Peter realized that God brought salvation to the Gentiles—for he proclaimed this idea in Acts 15 before the Jerusalem Council:
7And after there had been much(T) debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you,(U) that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear(V) the word of(W) the gospel and believe. 8And God,(X) who knows the heart,(Y) bore witness to them,(Z) by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and(AA) he made no distinction between us and them,(AB) having cleansed their hearts(AC) by faith. 10Now, therefore, why(AD) are you putting God to the test(AE) by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples(AF) that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we(AG) believe that we will be(AH) saved through(AI) the grace of the Lord Jesus,(AJ) just as they will." (Acts 15:7-11, ESV)
So the problem with the Gentiles was not that they were unsaved and Peter felt sinful for eating with heathens; the problem was that the Gentiles, although saved, were considered to be SOCIALLY SEPARATE from the Jews, the circumcision party, and Peter wanted to avoid any social stigmas that came from eating with the Gentiles. Peter wanted to “disown” his Gentile brothers in practice, while “embracing” them in theory!
So, if the issue had nothing to do with soteriology, then what was Paul confronting Peter about? I’ll tell you—he was confronting Peter about ecclesiology—how to embrace fellow believers who were Gentiles. And eating with Gentiles was a sign of acceptance into the body of Christ. So Paul’s confrontation of Peter demonstrates that he was concerned with not just soteriology, but also ECCLESIOLOGY—showing God’s people how “one body in Christ” was to be displayed in the church’s everyday life.
“This is precisely why here alone in Galatians Paul adds the otherwise extraneous ‘neither slave nor free, neither male nor female.’ These pairs are NOT inherent in an argument about ‘justification by faith,’ but they are crucial to PAUL’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD AS BEING NEWLY CONSTITUTED BY CHRIST AND THE SPIRIT. For these three pairs represent the primary ways people were DIVIDED/SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER IN THE STRUCTURES OF THE PRESENT AGE THAT WAS NOW PASSING AWAY(1 Cor. 7:31; cf. 1 Cor. 2:6): ON THE BASIS OF RACE, SOCIAL STANDING, AND GENDER. But ‘in Christ Jesus’…these categories have lost their STRUCTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AND RELEVANCE…these very things…HAVE BEEN RELATIVIZED IN THE BODY OF CHRIST…” (176, 177).
How were fellow believers, Jews and Gentiles, to look as one body in Christ? The answer is simple—they were to come together and unify in activities such as eating at the table. How were slaves and freedmen to look in the body of Christ? As though they were brothers. How were men and women to look in the body of Christ? As though they were brothers and sisters. The world order was not to creep into the order of the church (which, hinting at the coming “new creation,” would become the New World Order—the prevailing rule of the “new earth” of Revelation 21).
In my next post, I will unpack New Creation Theology and examine the other two “egalitarian” passages Paul wrote (1 Cor. 12 and Colossians 3) to show Paul’s deep understanding of the implications of this New Creation Rule.
A day or so ago I discussed the first pair of distinctions present in Galatians 3:28—“neither Jew nor Greek.” I also discussed the idea of “new creation” as a canon, a rule by which to live the Christian life. If Galatians 6:16 is correct, then complementarians have a lot of work to do.
In today’s post, I’m gonna take a look at why Paul mentions the other two groups of distinctions—“slave and free,” and “male and female.”
Fee gives us his answer convincingly:
“Appealing to the believers’ common baptism (reflecting the new creation theology of Romans 6:1-11), in which they have “clothed themselves with Christ,” Abraham’s true “seed” (Gal. 3:15-18), Paul points out the logical result: since all are now ‘children of God through faith’ and all who have been baptized are thus clothed with Christ, there is therefore ‘neither Jew nor Greek...’(Gal. 3:28)…” (Discovering Biblical Equality, 176).
It is Galatians 3:28, however, that is used to simply affirm that women are just as saved as men are. But Fee states that there’s more to it than meets the eye:
“But in fact Paul says more than this, and it is the ‘more than’ that should catch our attention…for what is at stake is NOT SIMPLY THE SOTERIOLOGICAL QUESTION OF HOW PEOPLE ARE SAVED…those involved in the struggle in Galatia are already ‘SAVED’…WHAT IS AT STAKE IS ECCLESIOLOGY: WHO CONSTITUTE THE PEOPLE OF GOD…and on what grounds are they constituted?” (176)
Once the believers at Galatia became children of God, their questions no longer consisted of “what is salvation,” or “how to be saved,” or even “Can I be saved?”. The questions now consisted of, “How do we live together as children of God despite our differences?”
Go back to Paul’s words regarding his confrontation with Peter in Galatians 2. What was Peter’s issue? Did it have anything to do with teaching that the Gentiles weren’t saved? Or that they needed to be circumcised? No—instead, Peter’s problem was that “he was eating with the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:12) before certain men returned to Antioch; then, his fear drove him to retreat from them, “fearing the circumcision party.” The issue here had nothing to do with salvation—but instead, the outworkings of salvation. Peter realized that God brought salvation to the Gentiles—for he proclaimed this idea in Acts 15 before the Jerusalem Council:
7And after there had been much(T) debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you,(U) that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear(V) the word of(W) the gospel and believe. 8And God,(X) who knows the heart,(Y) bore witness to them,(Z) by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and(AA) he made no distinction between us and them,(AB) having cleansed their hearts(AC) by faith. 10Now, therefore, why(AD) are you putting God to the test(AE) by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples(AF) that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we(AG) believe that we will be(AH) saved through(AI) the grace of the Lord Jesus,(AJ) just as they will." (Acts 15:7-11, ESV)
So the problem with the Gentiles was not that they were unsaved and Peter felt sinful for eating with heathens; the problem was that the Gentiles, although saved, were considered to be SOCIALLY SEPARATE from the Jews, the circumcision party, and Peter wanted to avoid any social stigmas that came from eating with the Gentiles. Peter wanted to “disown” his Gentile brothers in practice, while “embracing” them in theory!
So, if the issue had nothing to do with soteriology, then what was Paul confronting Peter about? I’ll tell you—he was confronting Peter about ecclesiology—how to embrace fellow believers who were Gentiles. And eating with Gentiles was a sign of acceptance into the body of Christ. So Paul’s confrontation of Peter demonstrates that he was concerned with not just soteriology, but also ECCLESIOLOGY—showing God’s people how “one body in Christ” was to be displayed in the church’s everyday life.
“This is precisely why here alone in Galatians Paul adds the otherwise extraneous ‘neither slave nor free, neither male nor female.’ These pairs are NOT inherent in an argument about ‘justification by faith,’ but they are crucial to PAUL’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD AS BEING NEWLY CONSTITUTED BY CHRIST AND THE SPIRIT. For these three pairs represent the primary ways people were DIVIDED/SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER IN THE STRUCTURES OF THE PRESENT AGE THAT WAS NOW PASSING AWAY(1 Cor. 7:31; cf. 1 Cor. 2:6): ON THE BASIS OF RACE, SOCIAL STANDING, AND GENDER. But ‘in Christ Jesus’…these categories have lost their STRUCTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AND RELEVANCE…these very things…HAVE BEEN RELATIVIZED IN THE BODY OF CHRIST…” (176, 177).
How were fellow believers, Jews and Gentiles, to look as one body in Christ? The answer is simple—they were to come together and unify in activities such as eating at the table. How were slaves and freedmen to look in the body of Christ? As though they were brothers. How were men and women to look in the body of Christ? As though they were brothers and sisters. The world order was not to creep into the order of the church (which, hinting at the coming “new creation,” would become the New World Order—the prevailing rule of the “new earth” of Revelation 21).
In my next post, I will unpack New Creation Theology and examine the other two “egalitarian” passages Paul wrote (1 Cor. 12 and Colossians 3) to show Paul’s deep understanding of the implications of this New Creation Rule.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Galatians 3:26-29 and New Creation Theology
26for in Christ Jesus(A) you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as(B) were baptized(C) into Christ have(D) put on Christ. 28(E) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[a] nor free,(F) there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And(G) if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring,(H) heirs according to promise” (Galatians 3:26-29, ESV).
I realize that I haven’t suggested very many books on the blog; but I wanna suggest to you, the reader, that you read the book “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy” by General Editors Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, as well as the Contributing Editor Gordon D. Fee. I’ve only read five chapters of the book, but I’ve enjoyed all five of them immensely.
One chapter, however, caught me in particular: chapter ten, called “Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians 3:26-29,” was written by Contributing Editor Gordon D. Fee. In all the books, chapters, and articles I’ve read on Galatians 3:28, I’ve never read a chapter so spell-binding, so captivating on a text that has been so widely discussed among egalitarians and complementarians. I had such a worship experience reading this chapter that I thought I would share some of its goodness with you.
Gordon Fee gets right to the point with Galatians 3:28:
“But a key exegetical question, seldom noted, does beg to be answered: Why does Paul add the second and third pair at all in an argument that otherwise has to do only with Jew and Gentile? And especially, why the addition of the third pair—with its formulation ‘male and female,’ not ‘man and woman’ (which could mean ‘husband and wife’)—since in similar moments elsewhere (1 Cor. 12:13[cf. 7:17-24]; Col. 3:10) this pairing is not included? The pursuit of this basic exegetical question should give us some insight into the nature and scope of the ‘newness’ Paul sees as available in the new creation” (173).
In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, Paul has spent all his time tackling the subject of circumcision. Let’s look throughout Paul’s letter to find the main idea.
Circumcision is evident in chapter 2:
3But even Titus, who was with me,(E) was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. (Galatians 2:3, ESV)
Circumcision is such the talk of the church at Galatia that Titus, although a Greek, was being forced to be circumcised.
In verse 11-14, Paul opposes Peter before the Jews and Gentiles at Antioch:
11But(U) when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him(V) to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James,(W) he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing(X) the circumcision party. 13And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their(Y) conduct was not in step with(Z) the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas(AA) before them all, "If you, though a Jew,(AB) live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Notice that the Jews are referred to as “the circumcision party” (v.12).
In Galatians 5, Paul tells the Galatians that the “yoke of slavery” or “yoke of bondage” is circumcision:
1For(A) freedom Christ has(B) set us free;(C) stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to(D) a yoke of(E) slavery.
2Look: I, Paul, say to you that(F) if you accept circumcision,(G) Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that(H) he is obligated to keep the whole law.
In verse 6, Paul tells the believers what counts as valuable before God:
6For in Christ Jesus(M) neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but(N) only faith working through love.
In Christ, in the eyes of the Lord, circumcision nor uncircumcision matter at all. Neither of those conditions have anything to do with a person’s walk with Christ, what giftedness they have, or where God will place them in the body of Christ. The only thing that God looks at with regards to the Jew and Gentile is whether or not they have faith in the work of Christ, whether or not they believe Christ died for their sins and rose from the dead.
So all throughout Galatians, we see that Paul’s use of neither “Jew nor Greek” in Galatians 3:28 is a common theme. But Paul ends on a fascinating note in Galatians 6:15-16 regarding Jews and Gentiles that will aid us in discovering Paul’s reason for mentioning “slave” and “free,” “male” and “female”:
15For(AB) neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but(AC) a new creation. 16And as for all who walk by this rule,(AD) peace and mercy be upon them, and upon(AE) the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:15-16, ESV)
Paul says that circumcision and uncircumcision do not matter in God’s scheme of things; what matters to God is that a person is a “new creation.” These words echo Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 5:
16From now on, therefore,(X) we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is(Y) in Christ, he is(Z) a new creation.[b](AA) The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18All this is from God,(AB) who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us(AC) the ministry of reconciliation;
Notice that Paul said of the “new creation” concept that “this is from God” (v.18). So “new creation” theology is something modern-day believers should take seriously. We should seek to understand what new creation theology was all about.
Go back to Galatians 6:15-16 above. Notice that Paul calls “new creation” a “rule.” The Greek word for “rule” used here is “kanoni,” coming from the Greek word “kanon.” The word “kanon” is the parent term to our English word “canon.”
Merriam-Webster online defines the word “canon” as:
“an accepted principle or rule; a criterion or standard of judgment.”
Therefore, when Paul calls “new creation” a rule, he means that this concept is to be used to evaluate everyone in the body of Christ, regardless of societal distinctions.
If Paul spent most of his time discussing “neither Jew nor Greek,” what do we do with the rest of the distinctions (slave vs. free, male vs. female) in Galatians 3:28? That is a subject I’ll discuss in my next post.
I realize that I haven’t suggested very many books on the blog; but I wanna suggest to you, the reader, that you read the book “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy” by General Editors Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, as well as the Contributing Editor Gordon D. Fee. I’ve only read five chapters of the book, but I’ve enjoyed all five of them immensely.
One chapter, however, caught me in particular: chapter ten, called “Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians 3:26-29,” was written by Contributing Editor Gordon D. Fee. In all the books, chapters, and articles I’ve read on Galatians 3:28, I’ve never read a chapter so spell-binding, so captivating on a text that has been so widely discussed among egalitarians and complementarians. I had such a worship experience reading this chapter that I thought I would share some of its goodness with you.
Gordon Fee gets right to the point with Galatians 3:28:
“But a key exegetical question, seldom noted, does beg to be answered: Why does Paul add the second and third pair at all in an argument that otherwise has to do only with Jew and Gentile? And especially, why the addition of the third pair—with its formulation ‘male and female,’ not ‘man and woman’ (which could mean ‘husband and wife’)—since in similar moments elsewhere (1 Cor. 12:13[cf. 7:17-24]; Col. 3:10) this pairing is not included? The pursuit of this basic exegetical question should give us some insight into the nature and scope of the ‘newness’ Paul sees as available in the new creation” (173).
In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, Paul has spent all his time tackling the subject of circumcision. Let’s look throughout Paul’s letter to find the main idea.
Circumcision is evident in chapter 2:
3But even Titus, who was with me,(E) was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. (Galatians 2:3, ESV)
Circumcision is such the talk of the church at Galatia that Titus, although a Greek, was being forced to be circumcised.
In verse 11-14, Paul opposes Peter before the Jews and Gentiles at Antioch:
11But(U) when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him(V) to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James,(W) he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing(X) the circumcision party. 13And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their(Y) conduct was not in step with(Z) the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas(AA) before them all, "If you, though a Jew,(AB) live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Notice that the Jews are referred to as “the circumcision party” (v.12).
In Galatians 5, Paul tells the Galatians that the “yoke of slavery” or “yoke of bondage” is circumcision:
1For(A) freedom Christ has(B) set us free;(C) stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to(D) a yoke of(E) slavery.
2Look: I, Paul, say to you that(F) if you accept circumcision,(G) Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that(H) he is obligated to keep the whole law.
In verse 6, Paul tells the believers what counts as valuable before God:
6For in Christ Jesus(M) neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but(N) only faith working through love.
In Christ, in the eyes of the Lord, circumcision nor uncircumcision matter at all. Neither of those conditions have anything to do with a person’s walk with Christ, what giftedness they have, or where God will place them in the body of Christ. The only thing that God looks at with regards to the Jew and Gentile is whether or not they have faith in the work of Christ, whether or not they believe Christ died for their sins and rose from the dead.
So all throughout Galatians, we see that Paul’s use of neither “Jew nor Greek” in Galatians 3:28 is a common theme. But Paul ends on a fascinating note in Galatians 6:15-16 regarding Jews and Gentiles that will aid us in discovering Paul’s reason for mentioning “slave” and “free,” “male” and “female”:
15For(AB) neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but(AC) a new creation. 16And as for all who walk by this rule,(AD) peace and mercy be upon them, and upon(AE) the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:15-16, ESV)
Paul says that circumcision and uncircumcision do not matter in God’s scheme of things; what matters to God is that a person is a “new creation.” These words echo Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 5:
16From now on, therefore,(X) we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is(Y) in Christ, he is(Z) a new creation.[b](AA) The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18All this is from God,(AB) who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us(AC) the ministry of reconciliation;
Notice that Paul said of the “new creation” concept that “this is from God” (v.18). So “new creation” theology is something modern-day believers should take seriously. We should seek to understand what new creation theology was all about.
Go back to Galatians 6:15-16 above. Notice that Paul calls “new creation” a “rule.” The Greek word for “rule” used here is “kanoni,” coming from the Greek word “kanon.” The word “kanon” is the parent term to our English word “canon.”
Merriam-Webster online defines the word “canon” as:
“an accepted principle or rule; a criterion or standard of judgment.”
Therefore, when Paul calls “new creation” a rule, he means that this concept is to be used to evaluate everyone in the body of Christ, regardless of societal distinctions.
If Paul spent most of his time discussing “neither Jew nor Greek,” what do we do with the rest of the distinctions (slave vs. free, male vs. female) in Galatians 3:28? That is a subject I’ll discuss in my next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)