I want to first mention that I received this comment in a discussion at Christianforums where i am a regular nondebater :). I do participate in the Apologetics section there, but I refuse to argue or debate. Lets analyze this position. First of all, we need to go to Ephesians 1 to understand where I will be going with this argument. It is here where Paul identifies himself as the writer. It should also be worthy of note that this was written somewhere around later in Paul's ministry, around 60 A.D. This will be important to know given the context of the letter. What does Paul state here? Ephesians 1:15-16 gives us some insight to Paul's relationship with the people he is writing to. "15For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, 16I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers." So what does this tell us of significance? That Saul/Paul has visited this congregation before. So what does Ephesians 2:11 state? 11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men). The argument being made here is that this refers to all Jews because the word circumcision is being utilized here. Now, lets put some pieces together because we are going to have to understand what Paul is teaching all of the congregations he's visiting. Is Paul talking to all Jews when he states this? The answer is clearly no. Lets look at Romans, an earlier writer of Paul's, to demonstrate what he is teaching to the churches. Romans 2:28-29 states " 28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God." In other words, spiritual circumcision is more important than a literal circumcision. This is directed only at his Jewish brethren, this part of the scripture, so Gentiles are not included in this (redundant as this may be to say). Romans 2:17 clearly demonstrates the intended audience "17But if you bear the name "Jew" and (A)rely upon the Law and boast in God." Those of the two house theory, Gentiles need not apply. This tells us some valuable information. Is a Jew circumcised if only done by human hands? The answer is clearly no. What is Paul teaching here? That a man must be circumcised of the heart. Before we jump to the conclusion that Paul is redefining what it means to be circumcised, lets look at the Torah. Deuteronomy 30:4-6 states "4 Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back. 5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. 6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live." So what is being taught? That one must let God circumcise the heart in order for one to be a true and spiritual Jew. A teaching that is taught by Paul in the Brit Hadashah is also a prevaltn teaching in the Torah. So all Paul is doing is reiterating what the Torah states in Romans 2:28-29. Now lets proceed forward from here. We have learned that Paul does not include Jews who are circumcised of the heart when referencing Ephesians 2:11. So who is he referencing? The Jews who were following the halakah/oral tradition. The ones who were not following Torah. What does Ephesians 2:12 state? " 12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, (A)excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to (B)the covenants of promise, having (C)no hope and (D)without God in the world. " So what Paul teaches is that Gentiles were excluded from the covenants of the promise. Why? Because of a dividing wall of enmity. The dividing wall of enmity can't be the covenants of the promise (the Torah, or the promises given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), because these are things Paul wants to be received. I want to also demonstrate two other scriptures that fly in the face of this. What does Paul state in 1 Corinthians 9:21? 21to those who are (A)without law, (B)as without law, though not being without the law of God but (C)under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. English Wycleffe states " 21 to them that were without law, as I were without law, when I was not without [the] law of God, but I was in the law of Christ, to win them that were without law [that I should win them that were without law]." Paul says he is not without the law of God, but rather is under the law of God (we do agree that Yeshua is God right?). His purpose is to try to win those who are without the Torah, by helping them to follow the Torah. Another place we need to look at that and is of interest is Acts 24:14 "14"But this I admit to you, that according to (A)the Way which they call a (B)sect I do serve (C)the God of our fathers, (D)believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets; " Paul is still following the Torah! If Paul does away with the Torah, then why does he keep following it and believing everything that is in accordance with the Torah? No matter which way you slice it, the Ephesians 2:15 abolishment of the Torah is a matter of Christian cherry picking. There is no way in context that Paul EVER says that we should not follow the Torah. As we have even spotted in an earlier chapter, and yes this is a mistake in Strong's dictionary too, the word Nomos is not even mentioned within the Greek context of Ephesians 2:15 (see Tim Hegg, www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Eph%202.14.pdf). Dogma is used instead. So instead of doing what Christians want for Ephesians 2:11, based off of the Roman verses, it actually enhances the definition that we want it to have. That the thing that is being abolished is the halakah that divides the Jew from the Gentile. Just recall in Ephesians 2:14 the word utilized is "
perifrassein" which means "to fence about." One may find the same context within the Talmudic writings "
R. Akiba said, Jesting and levity habituate [a man] to lewdness. [The]
Tradition is a fence to the Law; tithes are a fence to riches; vows are a
fence to abstinence; a fence to wisdom is silence.41 (m.Avot 13.3) The Qumran scrolls also utilize the term "
bonei hacheitz). which means "builders of the wall." So not to the contrary it can be plainly seen that Paul is not telling us that the Torah has been abolished, but rather the fence that has been built around the Torah has been abolished. The context of
"ton nomon twn entolwn en dogmasin" has never ever been utilized to mean the Torah, and this can be evidenced by Genesis 26:5's translation from the LXX. It has always been utilized to mean the Talmud, in the LXX, Josephus and Philo.
Thus we conclude that Ephesians 2:15 abolishment of the Torah is not hurt by Ephesians 2:11, but rather enhances the claim that Paul is making that the Torah does not stand in the way of Gentiles becoming followers of Yeshua.
No comments:
Post a Comment