Jew and Gentile one in the Lord Jesus – Part 9

“Circumcision” and “uncircumcision”

Having already brought out the unique privileges of those who have accepted the Lord Jesus, and having also emphasized the need for good works (in Eph. 2:10), the Apostle addresses the Gentiles among his readers, and reminds them they had been called the uncircumcision by circumcised Israelites (v. 11). He then proceeds in verse 12 to remind converted Gentiles of what their previous position had been, and to this we shall presently come. The whole issue of circumcision had threatened to be divisive as soon as Gentiles accepted the gospel (see Acts 15:1), and we can understand why: it was instituted by God, who required Abraham to submit to circumcision himself, and who also required circumcision to be a continuing practice for subsequent generations (see Gen. 17:9-14). After the birth of the Lord, his mother Mary faithfully saw that he was circumcised the eighth day (Luke 2:21, see also Gal. 4:4).

But long before, it had been recognized that circumcision in itself, despite all the privileges by which it could be attended, was potentially meaningless. Moses stressed this in the wilderness: he called upon the people to circumcise the fore­skin of the heart and no longer to be rebellious. This same call was later taken up by Jeremiah (in 4:4) and by Paul in Romans 2:29. These reflections and pas­sages were considered at an earlier stage in our studies (see Tidings, July, 2007, pp. 277,278).

One might well ask with Paul: what advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Paul answers his own question: “much in every way!” First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God (see Rom. 3:1,2, NIV). There could surely be no more resounding endorsement of the unique value of the Old Testament than this.

Paul then turns to what is tantamount to boasting on the part of so many Jews: the latter knew they are members of a people who practice circumcision by divine appointment (as we have brought out above), and that was why their descent from Abraham became too often a subject of pride on their part and of disdain for the uncircumcised Gentile. Yet, as Paul declares, it was a practice carried out by human hands (v. 11). At the same time, in verse 12, the Apostle goes on to spell out the position of the Gentiles.

Understandably, the subject of circumcision occurs also in Colossians, because the heresy in the Lycus valley had a Jewish origin. There Paul boldly affirms the baptized believers had been “circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2:11), while in Philippians the Apostle uses withering terms to describe the advocates of the circumcision made with hands: “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision” (Phil. 3:2).

We recall “dogs” was an expression which orthodox Jews could employ about Gentiles (see Matt. 15:26, where the Lord uses the word ironically). Paul’s “con­cision” can carry the sense of “mutilation”. Having thus suitably stressed the vanity of pride merely in being circumcised, but also emphasizing what Gentiles had been deprived of by not being circumcised, Paul then spells out in detail the position of the Gentile before he had embraced the hope of life in the Lord Jesus. First, as we would expect, they had been separate from Christ, and this is a reminder from the Apostle of what it had meant for him before the Lord made his dramatic revelation on the Damascus road. Then, the Apostle declares the uncircumcised Gentiles had been “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel” (“excluded from citizenship in Israel”: NIV), by which declaration the unique status of Israel is reaffirmed.

We recall in this connection how the Lord Jesus, in a truly remarkable declaration to the Samaritan woman, affirmed that Jerusalem and Mount Gerizim in Samaria could no longer compete in claims that they were the places where God was to be worshipped. Rather, Jesus said, true worshippers, everywhere, would worship the Father “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23). At the same time, the Lord was careful to declare, “salvation is from the Jews” (v. 22). It is thus that the Lord and his apostle are united in their teaching.

Strangers from the covenants of promise

Because they had not been circumcised Israelites, the Gentiles had known nothing about the “covenants of promise”, and as such they had been in a hopeless position, without hope and without God in their lives. The reference to the covenants is highly significant. There is a first clue of their importance in the divine purpose in the opening verse of the New Testament: “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1). Indeed, we are justified in affirming it is impossible to understand God’s purpose in the Lord if we are ignorant of the Old Testament covenants.

There is independent witness to this in the earliest apostolic teaching in the Book of Acts. David figures prominently in Acts 2, for there we find a first mention of him in verse 25, in connection with the physical resurrection of the Lord. Then, in verse 30, Peter asserts that God had sworn by an oath to David that one of his descendants would occupy his throne (see 2 Samuel 23:5, where the expression “everlasting covenant” occurs; see also 2 Samuel 7:12-16).

As for Abraham, he figures in Acts 3 and there is a precise mention of the cov­enant God made with him. To his audience the apostle declares: “Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families be blessed” (v. 25). The further comment by Peter is enlightening: “Unto you first God, having raised up his Servant, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”

This interpretation of the nature of the blessing to be bestowed upon Abraham and his posterity is significant in the highest degree: the covenant is universal in its scope and relates not to material blessings but to the forgiveness of sins. Could there possibly be a more explicit anticipation of the saving work of the Lord Jesus? That this is not confined to Israelites, but to all who share the faith of Abraham, is a fundamental New Testament message. John the Baptist denounces roundly any pride in physical descent from Abraham (Matt. 3:9). Likewise, the Lord, full of admiration for the centurion’s faith, effectively declares that those who share his faith will be with the Lord in his kingdom (Matt. 8:10,11). This pronouncement is confirmed by Paul in the chapter on faith (see Rom. 4).

It is thus that so often we can discern the unity of God’s Word. A sustained study of the Scriptures serves to deepen and confirm our conviction in their truth. When the Gentiles to whom Paul is specifically addressing himself in Ephesians 2:12 became increasingly familiar with apostolic teaching, they would appreciate the wonder of the new world to which they were being introduced.

Brought near in the blood of Christ

Paul proceeds to inform his Gentile readers that, before they had been baptized into the saving Name of the Lord, they had been “far off” (v. 13), but now they have been brought near “in the blood of Christ”. Thus Paul stresses the univer­sal character of the cross, in reconciling the world to God (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19). The expression “far off” occurs in Isaiah 57:19; and the same expression recurs in Ephesians 2:17. We hope to give it more extended treatment when we come to that passage.

“Our peace”

When the Apostle, following the mention of the blood of Christ, declares the Lord to be “our peace”, he is again evoking the passage in Isaiah 57: “I create the fruit of the lips: Peace, peace to him that is far off and to him that is near” (v. 19). While peace can be a situation in which there is no war, what Paul here is thinking of is the removal of the estrangement between God and mankind, an estrangement that arose because of human transgressions. This applied with full force to the Israelites, for interestingly we read in Isaiah 59:2: “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.” It is the same prophet who twice declares, “There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked” (Isa. 48:22; 57:21).

The one who is called “Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6) is the same one of whom it was prophesied that “he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isa. 53:5). We encounter here a special use of the term “peace”: it speaks of the alienation between God and mankind through human sin and its removal in the person of our Lord, both by his blameless life and his eventual submission to the cross. Thus the unity of mankind with their God has been brought about by God, acting through His Son. There is a recurring expression in John’s Gospel: “lifted up” (see 3:14,15; 8:28) and then in 12:32,33: “ ‘And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.’ But this he said signifying by what man­ner of death he should die.” This latter momentous declaration was made in the presence of Greeks who had sought to be introduced to him (vv. 20,21). It was by this chain of passages that the Lord throws a flood of light upon the strange episode in Numbers 21:9. There the Hebrew word for “standard” (RV) is “nes”, and it recurs in Isaiah 11:12: “And he shall set up an ensign (‘nes’) for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel…” That standard or ensign was the Lord Jesus, and he understood perfectly the significance of that strange episode in the wilderness and its relevance to his own work of redemption.

The dividing wall of hostility

When Paul wrote his Ephesian letter, the Temple and its associated ceremonies had been superseded. However, Herod’s imposing architectural achievement was still commanding the wonder of Jew and Gentile. There was a highly visible sign of the distinction between Jew and Gentile, the so-called wall of separation (RV), “the dividing wall of hostility” (NIV) (see 2:14). Jack Finegan has much useful information concerning the Temple of this period, and he draws on Josephus for some of his information: “Proceeding… toward the second court of the Temple, one found it surrounded by a stone balustrade three cubits [about 4 and a half feet] high and of exquisite workmanship; in this at regular intervals stood slabs giving warning, some in Greek, others in Latin characters, of the law of purifica­tion, to wit, that no foreigner was permitted to enter the holy place, for so the second enclosure of the Temple was called”¹Finegan then recounts how Cler­mont-Ganneau found an inscription in 1871 testifying to the truth of Josephus’ description. It is now in a museum in Istanbul and, according to Finegan, part of a similar inscription has been subsequently discovered.

Paul was very familiar with the barrier between Jew and Gentile; apart from the time he spent at the feet of Gamaliel, he had subsequently spent time in the Jewish capital. It was the unfounded suspicion that Paul had taken Trophimus beyond the barrier which led to the riot in Jerusalem, and the whole train of events which led eventually to his confinement in Rome, and the writing of the Ephesian letter (see Acts, especially 21:27-29).

When we reflect on the fact that Ephesians was written in the early 60s AD, and Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in AD 70, history had fully vindicated Paul. Indeed, by the end of the century, the great prophecy uttered by our Lord shortly before his death had become a historical reality (see especially Matt. 21:43). One wonders how the Judaizing party in Colosse and elsewhere reacted to the momentous events that marked the time covered by Acts and later during the first century.

Abolishing in his flesh the law

We pass on to the consideration of verse 15 (in Eph. 2), where the Apostle enlarges on the teaching of verse 14: the distinction between Jews and Gentile, enshrined in the ordinance of circumcision and the practice of the Law, had been abolished by the Lord “in his flesh”. This reminds us of the real humanity of our Lord (cf. Heb. 2:14), where — while in a nature identical with ours — he had encountered sin and vanquished it. Thus he had also triumphed over the ordinances which, as Paul himself testifies, had served to exhibit human sinfulness (see Rom. 7:13). It was in this way, by triumphing over the very commandments separating Jews and Gentile, that he removed the distinction, as we have already seen, and so created “one new man”. We must not forget that these same vital truths figure in a crucial chapter (see Col. 2:13,14). In the Lord everything is “new” (a word which, if explored, would occupy much space).

As we work through Ephesians, and also look at Colossians, we can perceive how the situation of the Judaizers is exposed in all its weakness. When the two letters were read out to the disciples assembled in the home of Philemon (see Phm. 2 and Col. 4:16), we can only hope they had the humility and the grace to acknowledge their errors. As already mentioned, historical events were to undermine their case.

 

 

1. See Jack Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past (The Archaeological Background of the Hebrew-Christian Religion), Princeton University Press, 1954, pp. 246,247). Understand­ably, all modern commentators mention the discovery of the inscription so hostile to Gentiles. Armitage Robinson, in the commentary already quoted in this series, has a long passage on the discovery (see pp. 59,60). He informs us it was made in 1871 when Clermont Ganneau (sic) was acting for the Palestine Exploration Fund. He quotes this particular inscription which is in Greek characters: “No Man Of Another Nation To Enter Within The Fence And Enclosure Round The Temple. And Whoever Is Caught Will Have Himself To Blame That His Death Ensues.”