BibleTools.info

21. Are informed. Preferably, “were told,” or possibly, “were taught.” Paul’s Judaizing opponents had not only been “zealous of the law” (v. 20), but apparently had also been zealous in spreading exaggerated and damaging reports concerning his theological teachings. No wonder Paul admonishes so earnestly against judging one another concerning performance of ceremonies in religion (Rom. 14:1-10; Col. 2:16). He himself suffered severely at the hands of zealous legalistic critics. Although professing to be Christians, these self-appointed judges had no experience in the gospel of Christ, for they lacked faith. And to do the works of religion without faith, is sin (Rom. 14:23).

Thou teachest … to forsake Moses. Literally, “you are teaching apostasy from Moses.” This was the charge circulated against Paul, and no more serious charge could be laid before Jews, earnest in their religion. It aroused resentment on the grounds of patriotism, partisanship, historical tradition, social relationships, and public law, as well as the deepest religious feelings. The very fact that these multitudes (see v. 20) of Jews had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, who should restore all things, evidently made them the more eager to maintain the requirements and rites of Judaism, and to fear and repudiate Paul the more completely as an apostate from both race and religion.

Ought not to circumcise. This was a specific charge, illustrating the preceding generalization. According to this charge Paul was contravening, not a tradition, but the covenant sign of the Jews, embedded in the law itself.

Walk after the customs. Compare on ch. 6:14. Here Paul was alleged to have attacked the detailed observances growing out of the law, and the traditional practices that had come in as inevitable accretions. These were serious charges, believed earnestly by the multitude. As applied to Paul’s teaching of the Jews themselves, and as regards his personal conduct in religion, the charges were easily refuted (chs. 22:3; 23:1, 6; 24:11-16; 25:10, 11; 26:4-7, 22), though refutation was unsuccessful because of violence growing out of prejudice. Paul’s attitude toward the maintenance of the ceremonial requirements by Jews was that of the Council of Jerusalem (ch. 15); namely, let the Jewish Christians continue to practice whatever rites their conscience demanded of them. But Paul insisted that the Gentile converts be free. The man who was justified by faith would in no way be helped heavenward by legalistic practices (Rom. 2:24-29; Gal. 4:1-11; 5:1-6; Col. 2:16-22).

His own rule of personal adaptation (1 Cor. 9:19-23) led Paul to continue to live like a Jew, particularly among Jews. He allowed the Jew in the Christian church liberty to continue his ceremonial practices until he saw their meaninglessness in the presence of the gospel of faith (Rom. 14:1-10; 1 Cor. 7:17-24). Paul himself had taken the Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18). He had had Timothy circumcised (ch. 16:3). There was no basis for the charge that Paul taught the Jewish Christians “not to circumcise their children.” The charge was a fabrication of his enemies.

However, his teaching of the gospel could not but result eventually in the Jews’ also giving up performances and ceremonies as no longer meaningful. Christ’s teaching was the foundation for that of the apostle. Our Lord instructed His followers to have a righteousness that should “exceed” that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:20); He condemned outward practices of religion for their own sake (Matt. 6:1-7); and He insisted that God must be worshiped “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23). Paul negated a religion of “touch not; taste not; handle not,” as developed and enforced by men (Col. 2:20-22); of rules and scruples concerning things that had no real moral and spiritual significance (Rom. 14:1-10; Gal. 4:9-11; Heb. 9:9, 10), and which in view of the life and sacrifice of Christ had ceased to have meaning (Col. 2:8-17).

Sacrifices and circumcision had been instituted by divine command. The sacrifices ceased to have meaning when He to whom they pointed died as the guilt bearer for men. The Temple as the place of offering, and the priests as the offerers (Dan. 9:24-27; Matt. 27:51; Heb. 8:13; 9:11-15), likewise lost their significance. Circumcision was an outward sign of a covenant relation between a nation, or people, and their God (Rom. 4:11). Although the rite was individually applied, the reception was not by faith on the part of the infant recipient, and circumcision was only a tribal or national sign. Hence it lost its meaning when the worship and service of God, in Christ, was shown to be no longer a matter of tribe or nation (Gal. 3:28, 29; Col. 3:11), but one of individual acceptance, by faith, of Christ Jesus the Saviour (Rom. 3:22-24; Gal 3:26, 27; Eph. 2:8). Again, with the revelation in Christ of the new covenant of salvation, the way of faith (Jer. 31:31-34; 2 Cor. 3:6-9; Heb. 8:6-13), the old covenant sign, circumcision, was no longer significant. The Jew who would “follow on to know the Lord” (Hosea 6:3) by faith must inevitably cease to regard circumcision as having any meaning in the spiritual life.

Hence “circumcision is nothing,” Paul taught, so far as a man’s relationship to God is concerned (1 Cor. 7:19; cf. Rom. 3:31; 8:4; 1 John 2:3). In the presence of the gospel of Christ, circumcision (and, for that matter, any performance for its own sake) has no reason for being (Gal. 5:6; 6:12-17). Jew and Gentile are all one in Christ (Gal. 3:16, 27-29; Col. 2:9-14), who has broken down the “middle wall of partition” between them (Eph. 2:11-17). All must be saved by Christ alone, “by grace … through faith” (Eph. 2:4-10; cf. Rom. 3:26-30). Paul did not tell the Jew not to practice circumcision, but if the Christian Jew of faith and spiritual insight should ask, “Why, being a man of faith, saved by Christ through grace, should I circumcise my child?” the answer would have to be, “For no reason, in Christ, but only for the sake of your brethren who do not yet understand.” So Paul believed and practiced. It can be said, therefore, that the accusations of the Judaizers against Paul were false, but that their fears concerning the future of all Jewish rites were justified.