When Is "Law" Appropriate?

Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.  Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.  So the churches were being strengthened in the faith, and were increasing in number daily. (Acts 16:3-5 NASB)

So, Paul gets all fired up and goes to Jerusalem to get a "ruling" on Gentiles and salvation from the apostles and elders.  What he comes away with is a letter that stipulates four things for Gentiles to abstain from so that the fellowship with Jewish believers won't be interrupted or strained.  Circumcision didn't make the list.  In fact that was the crux of the issue with a certain group.  The claimed that Gentiles needed to become circumcised in order to be saved.

Paul has this letter in hand to share with the churches he and Barnabas started on their first journey, and he does.  Yet, in the first "whistle stop", he finds this man, Timothy, who has a Jewish mother and a Greek father.  He wants to take Timothy with him on his current journey, but before he does, he circumcises him.  The reasoning is that "they all knew that his father was a Greek."  But Paul has a letter in hand that says, "so what" to circumcision.

My guess (and it can ever only be that) is that Timothy had been hanging out with the Jewish crowd in Derbe and Lystra.  In that case, he might be well thought of and accepted, but only as a God-fearing Gentile rather than as a Jew.  In a sense, he had an option.  He could choose to be either one, a Jew or a Gentile.  Paul's letter pertains to Gentiles, but Jews were expected to remain Jews.  So Paul, holding a letter stating four non-circumcision things, a letter representing a victory for him among Jews, circumcises Timothy so he would be accepted as his companion by the other church members.

I suppose that Timothy's being a Jew would make it easier for him to be accepted in the Synagogues as they travel.  Yet, I think Luke is assumed to be a Gentile, and he travels with them from Troas.  I don't think Paul's decision or Timothy's acquiescence had to do with them being "traveling companions" but rather with how Timothy was perceived by the church.  If this is the case, I have a hard lesson to learn here.

I think that there are times when acquiescing to perceptions in the church, even when I disagree, is the best path.  Obviously there are several qualifiers here, one of the top ones being differences over clear statements in Scripture.  But where the Scripture is silent, where my Master has decided to not give a clear indication of His "line in the sand" on an issue, I have room to step back from a "fight".  I don't like that.  But, this is one of those things that is not about what I like.

There are a lot of "issues" and theological positions that are not "hard and fast".  Salvation by faith in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection is not one of those, that is "hard and fast".  But there are others, like how often should a church take communion, pass a plate or use offering boxes in the back, modern Christian music or hymns, pulpit or music stand, coat-and-tie or casual wear (for pastors and/or attendees), King James or modern translation, email or vellum for modern "epistles".  All of those (except the last one) are current issues in churches.  I have discussed things like the place of the Hebrew Scriptures among modern Christian believers.  I have argued for things like women in ministry as opposed to relegated obscurity, acceptance of divorced persons in positions of responsibility and leadership, and my specific view of end times.  I didn't win all or even most of them.  In fact, I suspect these sorts of "discussions" are rarely "won".

The thing I have to swallow is that these points are not points of "salvation" or "lost".  In the days of Paul and Peter, there was no "New Testament", so they "limped along" with 39 books of Scripture.  I suppose that it's possible to "limp along" today with 27 (I don't know why you would, but I suppose you could).  The King James is a fine translation, and people have been saved using that translation longer than anyone today has been alive.  I don't prefer it, but I don't think it's a poor translation, just hard to read due to language changes since it was translated.  I prefer modern Christian music, casual dress, offering boxes, no pulpit of any sort, and chairs over pews.  I believe preachers should preach to what they have studied and not wander into where they have not.  But really, so what?  I have to accept the answer to the question, "who am I" doesn't really give much weight to my "positions" or "beliefs".

The reality is that we, as a body of believers, must be unified more than any one of us must be right.  That's hard, but true.  I want to be right, dang it!  Ironically, a lot of the time, I'm not.  I may want to be really really bad, but that does not change the accuracy of the facts I use.  I simply do not know enough to be right all the time.  I am still learning, and often, learning to accept when I'm wrong.  The reality is that I need help to understand what my Master has inspired to be written.  That is one of the most important reasons I'm in a small group.  I need the perspective of others so my own will be better informed.  The truth I must live out is that my Master designed His Scriptures in such a way that any one person only gets a part; that it's only together we can better understand Scripture, and Him.  That, by the way, is the basis of "Knot-Hole Theology".  It's basically a theology of the church, or "Ecclesiology".  And obviously, I'm still trying to learn to live it out.

A World Chaning Lesson

When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life." (Acts 11:18 NASB)

This verse is the beginning of an enormous paradigm shift for the Jewish believers in Jerusalem.  The survival of Jews everywhere in the Roman Empire was made possible by the Roman law exempting them from required worship of the gods (it was considered atheism - ironic isn't it?).  This law was one of the things that made it possible for Jews to pursue holiness among Gentiles, which is obviously important in any relationship with God.  The pursuit of this holiness among Gentiles in the first century focused on two things primarily, circumcision and keeping the Sabbath.  Jesus took issue with this pursuit this way lots of times

Essentially, the Jews had defined holiness by being Jew, not by their behavior so to speak.  In other words, someone could be a cheat, liar, mean spirited, and cruel, but as long as they were a Jew, kept the Sabbath, and had been circumcised, they were still holy.  The Jews acceptability before God had been subjugated under their distinction from Gentiles.  They figured if they had the one, they automatically had the other.  Jesus said different and really upset people (and by "people" I mean religious leaders).  This is the cultural context in which comes the realization that "God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life." 

So what's a Gentile believer to do?  They aren't a Jew, so they are exempt from the atheism law.  Any guild through which they would gain employment had a patron god/goddess worshiped as part of their practices, so how could they keep their jobs?  They would quickly become illegal and unemployed in their Gentile culture.  How does a Gentile hold Jesus as Lord, believing in His resurrection from the dead, and get along in life?  It gets complicated very quickly.

A great number of Gentiles "liked" the Jewish faith in Yahweh, yet found it unreasonable to convert to Judaism (I mean, there was surgery involved - seriously, who wants that?).  So they attended the Jewish Synagogues.  They couldn't participate in what went on, but they could hear the Law and pray.  Cornelius was such a Gentile.  But not all the Gentiles who received the good news of Jesus were "God-fearing Gentiles".  The Philippian Jailer for instance did not have a Synagogue to attend even if he were a God-fearing Gentile.  There was still a cultural barrier for Gentiles that had enormous ramifications for them.

So, later on, when Jews "of the Circumcision" show up in Antioch later, even Peter and Barnabas find they are not immune to their peer pressure to disassociate with Gentiles.  These teachers Paul found so dangerous he wished they would "mutilate" themselves rather than teach the requirement of circumcision to please God (Galatians 5:12).  Paul makes some very bold statements to the believers struggling with whether or not to become Jews as well as Christians.  He tells them that if they do, they essentially loose their salvation in Jesus (Galatians 5:2-4).

So the "paradigm shift" in Acts 11:18 either did not last long, or was not passed on to others who later joined "the circumcision".  This is the lesson and warning I gain from this passage.  Sure I need to be careful not to seek acceptance to my Master by what I do.  That is clear.  But what may be missed is that this lesson must be passed on.  It's not enough to expect other believers to "catch" the lesson as we "fellowship".  For the benefit of the church, the benefit to newer believers, and the glory of my Master, this lesson must be passed on.

Here's what I mean, any casual observer of Christian behavior can easily assume that we seek to be "holy" in our behavior so that we can be acceptable to God.  When in reality, we seek to be holy in our behavior in response to our Master's acceptance.  That may sound like a semantic differentiation to make, but it's actually huge.  The very understanding of salvation, and therefore a relationship with the Maker of the universe hangs on this distinction.  Any assumption that human creatures can do anything to be acceptable to the Maker of stars and quarks is a failure of faith and will not save that creature.  We must pass on the truth of "unconditional election" of any relationship with our Master.  He elects (chooses) us, we respond to that divine choice.  That's it.  There can be nothing else.

Think about it, we are saved by grace, through faith, and even that is a gift of God!  How can there be any action on our part that somehow entitles us to a relationship with the Master of all matter?  What could we possibly do that could get His attention?  Do we seriously expect that we can somehow be "good enough" that He will stop forming a star in some corner of the universe and pay attention to us?  What hope can we have to somehow impress One who forms quarks out of nothing, then organizes them into atoms, arranges those into molecules, and connects those molecules into a pattern that lives and breathes?  Seriously, what are we going to do to impress such a Person?  Go ahead, ride your unicycle, trim an appendage of your body, refrain from eating certain things, whatever.  It won't work.  He will still say He never knew you.

The lesson is that we have nothing with which to "pay" for our salvation, nothing to bargain with for a relationship with God.  The joy of the lesson is that we don't need anything either.  Consider this, the Maker of stars and quarks wants to have this relationship with me.  I don't have to earn it.  I'm so busy trying to get his attention that I miss the joy of the attention I already have.  Pity me!  But remember that it is my selfish heart, my self-focused "paradigm" that drives me to this "performance" mentality.  I have to accept the humiliation of my condition before my Master in order to then receive the glorification of His transformation of me.  I am the wonder (whatever wonder) that I am only because of the grace and mercy of my Master.  I didn't work for it, He gave it to me.  The wonder that I am (the only wonder that I am) is the wonder of my Master; the Wonder of His grace in accepting one such as me, the Wonder of His mercy in pursuing me when I ran from Him, the Wonder of His power in transforming me to make me fit for His heaven.

So, now, the life I now live in the body I live by faith in the One who loves me and has given Himself up for me.  But I can only live such a life if I have been and continue to be crucified with Jesus, and I no longer live.  It's is a resurrected life that my Master wants for me.  So, here I go, it's time for this "zombie" to obey my Master.

No, Seriously, What's Really Bothering You?

Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.  And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him, saying, "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them." (Acts 11:1-3 NASB)

When Jesus ministers on earth, several of his most poignant services are to Gentiles.  For instance, Matthew records the centurion who came to Jesus asking that his servant be healed, but only that Jesus say so, not that he come to the centurion's house.  Jesus makes an interesting comment in this account (Mat. 8:11-12) where He says that "many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness"

You might be led to believe that Jesus was referring to Gentiles.  After all, the context was His comment on the faith of a Gentile.  Yet, we find that Jesus' disciples seem to miss this reference, even after His resurrection, after the filling by the Spirit on Pentecost, and after Jesus tells them to spread His good news to the ends of the earth.  So, why the confusion?  Perhaps it lies in that there was an assumption that the disciples carried with them as they heard these words, saw these things, and looked around them to follow suit.

Those in Jerusalem in this passage are referred to as "the circumcision" (literally, "the ones from out of circumcision").  It is an odd designation to give to disciples in Jerusalem.  It gives the impression that it doesn't refer to all of the disciples, but to some.  Yet weren't they all Jews?  Why refer to some of them as "from out of circumcision"?  I suspect that this group was marked by views that were specifically tied to this distinguishing feature of Judaism.  It was one of two that marked Jews distinctly from the people around whom they lived.

When they hear of Gentiles receiving the word of God, they go to Peter, but ask a different question.  It's not that Gentiles heard the word of God.  It's not that Gentiles had faith in Jesus.  Their issue is that Peter ate with the Gentiles.  He had crossed a line of demarcation between the Jews and Gentiles.  He had ignored a separation that this group held sacred.  An assumption is revealed:  To come to God through Jesus, one must first be a Jew.  Peter's testimony reveals that God has accepted these Gentiles as they are without requiring them to separate from the rest of the Gentile world into Judaism.  Suddenly the comment made by Jesus that many would come from the east and west and that the children of the Kingdom would not takes on a more dire meaning.

Two thousand years later, it's easy to look back at these people and scoff.  But don't I do that?  Don't I assume that my Master only accepts people like me?  Seriously, if I don't go to all sorts of people, (and I live around all sorts of people) then am I really declaring that my Master calls and draws people of all sorts?  Or is it that I really want to reach people like me, people in my comfort zone who are easy for me to talk with?  It is difficult for me to say that I believe as Jesus said, that many will come from all over (east and west, not just west) and dine in the Kingdom of my Master, yet withhold myself from those from all over.

I admit that I hear of the work of my Master and rejoice.  That's good.  These of the circumcision didn't, so I'm better off right?  And this issue isn't over for them, they cause trouble over and over throughout Acts.  So, I'm totally better off, am I not?  I'm not.  I'm can't speak for you, but I can tell you that I haven't gone to the weird people around me.  I can tell you that those around whom I'm not comfortable, I keep quiet about the amazing truth in which I live.  Jesus, the Maker and Sustainer of this universe, loves me.  But He loves them too.  They need to know that.  They may reject the knowledge, but they need to at least hear it to reject it.  I've kept quiet.  Shame on me.

Beyond The Pain, Why This Mark?

God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.  This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.  And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.  And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.  A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.  But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."  (Genesis 17:9-14 NASB)

The custom of circumcision among Jews is the most well known of the practices, but it seems it isn't necessarily the oldest.  Herodotus wrote of it in the 5th Century BC and considered an ancient custom then.  The date of this custom with Abraham would be over 1000 years prior, almost 2000 years.  If that is considered ancient by the standards of Herodotus this could pre-date the Egyptian custom.  There is a wall depiction in the tomb of a priest/physician which depicts the custom in detail, and dates from the 6th Dynasty.  That would put the custom fairly well established somewhere between 2500 and 2000 BC, right around this time.  So it could have been in common practice when Abram visited there right after entering Canaan.

As my wife would say, "So what?"  The reason I look at this custom is made up of a couple of elements.  The elements answer the questions, "why this?" and "why now?"  I don't want to argue for or against the practice, but rather grapple with the question of why use this as a sign of a covenant.  The covenant it signifies has already been bound by God through a semi-Hittite covenant ratification ritual where God bound Himself to the promise.  Here it is Abraham who is bound to the promise.  But he's bound in a way that imposes this sign on the entire household, actually only the males of the household.  How involved were they in this promise prior to this?  If nothing else it would be a sign of their dedication to Abraham.

Another part of my reason for considering this important is that the custom is not typically something commonly observable in normal interactions.  It's a sign that would be private, as if between the person and God.  And yet it is something that Abraham had to know as customary in the cultures around him.  So while it would mark to him and his household the sign of the covenant for people and the land to his people, that would not be obvious to others, even if they found out about Abraham's custom.  What I mean is that when it was established, it wasn't that unique.  It became unique as the Greeks swept through the nations around the Jews, and the practice died out everywhere else.  That was 1500 years at least after this dialogue between Abraham and God.

So, this private sign of a covenant, a sign not that uncommon in Abraham's world, signified for his entire household that he believed in covenant between God and him.  It also signified that his household was now intimately involved in the promise contained in the covenant.  So, why this, and why now?

I believe the answer lies in the intimate nature of the sign and the timing of Isaac's coming.  The intimate nature of the sign on the household of Abraham meant that it was a sign that each of them understood, but those outside the household knew little of.  It was personal and bound them tightly distinguishing them from other households, even if not from other cultures (like the Egyptians).  Everyone entering the household either through birth or money entered into this custom and were a part of the covenant promise. 

A year after this custom is initiated, Isaac is born.  So after the required healing, after the household returned to some semblance of normalcy, Sarah is with child.  The household could care for her special needs effectively, and Isaac knows nothing of an uncircumcised life.  For him, the covenant is an eternal thing beginning before him and continuing on well after.

I believe the point of application for me is in acknowledging the same desire my Master has for intimate private relationship with me.  Not that I need this sign, but perhaps my heart does.  Perhaps, as the prophet Jeremiah says, I need to circumcise my heart (Jeremiah 3:4).  The sign of my belief, a sign that is private and intimate between my Master and me, may be the best application of this passage.  Am I unwilling to take painful steps?  Am I against personal pain?  Of course!  But it shouldn't keep me from honoring my Master.  In fact withholding such an offering because of personal pain would, I believe, dishonor myself and my Master; or possibly even worse.  I could lose the very thing I seek to save by saving myself from the pain! 

Essentially, my belief is that my heart must be circumcised, set apart for my Master, focused energetically on my Master's face, and constantly seeking His pleasure rather than my own comfort.  I don't see other options.  Walking in the path of Abraham in his relationship with the same Master, I will probably do things that make little sense to those around me and will even hurt my own heart.  For my Master, there can't be any reservation.  Again, I'm not a fan of causing myself pain, I don't endure it well either.  But circumcision of heart means painfully removing those secret intimate things that no one else sees, but still keep me from my Master.  And so I hand my Master the stainless steel circular saw, lay back on the table, and get ready for the quadruple bypass of cardiocircumectomy.  It just sounds fun doesn't it?  What anesthesia?