Kingdom For All (part 2 of 2)

Once the operative realm of the concept of justification is understood, and as we are able to operate more freely and comfortably with its connection to covenant inclusion, irrespective of national origin or physical descent, we find the way that it is introduced into the letter to Galatians is more than sensible.  Paul brings the issue to the table by recounting his experience with Peter in Antioch, writing “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong.  Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles.  But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision” (2:11-12).  The “pro-circumcision” party are those that expected Gentile believers in Jesus to Judaize.  They expected these believers, in demonstration of their joining up with the elect people of God, to undergo circumcision.  Most likely, this would have included an expectation that they would adhere to Sabbath-keeping and food laws as well, with this presumption founded on Paul’s talk of Peter’s eating with Gentiles and his subsequent cessation of this practice. 

According to Paul, Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with the Gentiles was equivalent to agreeing with the need for Gentile believers to Judaize, thus devaluing the confession of Jesus as Lord as the sole necessary covenant marker that identified one as a participant in the covenant people, in the church, and as ambassadors of the kingdom of God that had been announced and inaugurated by Jesus.  Paul will later go on to point out that a devaluing of this confession, which is not to be separated from the crucifixion and the Resurrection of Jesus, is functionally equivalent to devaluing the death of Christ and making it irrelevant.  In addition, this action on the part of Peter apparently flew in the face of his own confession and that to which he had previously agreed, which was that there was no need for Gentiles to undergo the rite of circumcision in connection with their covenant-based confession, and no need for them to adopt any of the traditional covenant markers. 

As previously noted, when Paul visited Jerusalem, with Titus in tow, Titus was not “compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek” (2:3b), thus ultimately confirming the truth of Paul’s gospel (2:5).  The influential leaders of the church, in Jerusalem, as Paul said, added nothing to his message (2:6), which pronounced justification through an oath of loyalty to Jesus alone (faith alone), apart from the works of the law.  Peter had played a role in the assessment of Paul’s message, but now, by his actions, he was effectively adding to Paul’s message and even contradicting it to an extent, affirming the insistence that circumcision must take place, and treating the Gentile believers as if they were, somehow, fundamentally different and in need of making themselves look like Jews so as to participate in the covenant people (thus contradicting his experience in Acts chapter ten, which would have been well-known to all the church, and especially to Paul as the Apostle to the uncircumcised). 

For all of these reasons, Paul accuses Peter of rank hypocrisy, adding that “the rest of the Jews also joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy” (2:13).  To that, Paul adds, echoing the words of the fifth verse of this chapter, “But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the Gospel,” which finds no separation between Jew and Gentile while promoting the unity of the church of Christ under one and only one covenant marker, “I said to Cephas in front of them all, ‘If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew,’” implying that Peter himself had abandoned Sabbath-keeping and food laws, thus abandoning any pretense of the value of those in light of what God had accomplished in Christ, “’how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?’” (2:14)  This is a stinging indictment of one who had a reputation as a pillar of the church (2:9), and no doubt caused Peter to reflect on his rooftop visions, his experience with Cornelius and his household as recorded in Acts, and now his own failure to live out and live up to the truth of the Gospel. 

Kingdom People (part 2 of 3)

In case one is disinclined to believe this assertion, we’ll have to take a look at the two primary “justification” texts in the New Testament, which are found in Romans three and Galatians two.  When we see what precedes this great “justification” passage, and bear in mind the words from Paul that set the tone for chapters nine, ten, and eleven, we are clued in to the connection between chapter three and chapter ten, and we are also provided with another reminder of what justification means for Paul, which is inclusion in the covenant.  It cannot be too often said that, for Paul, justification encompasses the extension of that covenant to Gentiles, along with the lack of any need for Gentiles to adopt the covenant markers of Judaism (they do not need to Judaize---practice circumcision, keep Sabbath, or observe dietary regulations---the works of the law) in order to demonstrate their joining up with the covenant people of God and their being positioned to enjoy the blessings promised in association with that covenant.  So what precedes talk of “justification” in chapter three?

Realizing that Romans is an argument that builds upon itself, and that groundwork is laid and re-laid so as to be drawn upon as the argument progresses, answering this question forces us to backtrack to chapter two, as Paul expands on the statement from chapter one that the Gospel is “God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes,” which ties itself quite comfortably to verse eleven of chapter ten, “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (1:16b).  Remember, “salvation,” for Paul, is just one way of describing participation in the covenant people and experiencing all that is implied by such participation. Picking up on that in the second chapter, consciously holding to the idea that what we hear from Paul in chapter three is provided its color and context by what precedes it, and cannot be correctly understood in isolation from it, Paul writes “There will be affliction and distress on everyone who does evil, on the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, for the Jew first and for the Greek.  For there is no partiality with God.  For all who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law” (2:9-12). 

This talk of Jew and Greek (or Gentile), as it is attended by talk of “all who have sinned,” and “no partiality with God,” equalizes Jew and Gentile in their standing before the covenant God.  To this Paul adds “For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves” (2:14).  Without getting into all that Paul is asserting in this statement or attempting to exegete, we pair it with verse seventeen and “But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relationship to God” (2:17), and continue to recognize the obvious construct of Jew, Gentile, and covenant inclusion that receives Paul’s attention and is the reason for the coming statements concerning justification (covenant inclusion, election) in chapter three. 

Keeping in mind the importance of the then-accepted covenant markers as the distinguishing badges of the covenant people, keeping the concern for covenant inclusion (justification---notice the interchangeability of the terms) front and center, we go on to hear Paul say “For circumcision has its value if you practice the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision” (2:25).  This statement is important insofar as it is another equivocation by Paul, placing Jew (circumcision) and Gentile (uncircumcision) on the same level, as he builds the case for his theological, eschatological, and covenantal position.  More importantly, the end of this posturing by Paul (using posturing in a positive sense), is the creation of humble, self-effacing, self-sacrificial, honor eschewing unity within the church body that is composed of individuals that are said to be “in Christ.” 

To this leveling Paul adds “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” building on language from the prophets from whom and which Paul so heavily draws, “circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not by the written code” (2:28-29a).  Here, lest he be misunderstood, Paul is not attempting to insist that Gentiles become Jews.  He is perfectly satisfied with Gentiles remaining Gentiles as they join the ranks of the elect, as the tent of God’s covenant people is expanded outward, becoming ever larger.  Consequently, “Jew,” here, combined with talk of circumcision (of the heart and not the flesh), stands in for “the elect/covenant people of the covenant God.”       

The follow-on to that which concludes chapter two then makes perfect sense, as Paul continues to have covenant inclusion and bridging the divide between Jew and Gentile in purview, and says “Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision?” (3:1)  Most certainly, Paul wants to make covenant inclusion attractive.  He wants to encourage Gentiles to adopt the language of election, locating themselves within the stream of history provided by the story of Israel and climaxed in Jesus, and therefore highlights the advantages of national Israel, while also being proud of his heritage, which comes through quite strongly in the opening of chapter nine.