I was asked to teach a class Wednesday night as part of a series on the Missional Church. I got a little outside of the notes I was provided (you are surely not surprised to learn), but I tried to stick with the essence of the lesson. Contextualization — teaching and practicing the gospel in the cultural context where you are — is a critical element of the gospel — as shown by the scriptures. But it’s an area where we often get confused, because we get confused as to whose context we are to work within.
Let me explain. I think we have to start in —
(1Co 9:20-23 ESV) 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
What did it mean for Paul to become “as a Jew” to “win Jews”? What did he do?
Well, he was already circumcised, of course, but he surely honored Jewish practices, both those required by the Law and those required by custom. He would have dressed as a Jew, honored kosher food laws, honored the Sabbath, etc. He would have been regular in synagogue attendance and would have taught out of the Law and the Prophets from the Moses Seat there. Late in his career, he even prepared to offer sacrifice in the temple and to have his hair shaved as part of a cleanness ritual.
And this is, of course, the reason he had Timothy circumcised.
(Act 16:1-3 ESV) Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
Now, circumcision of an adult in those days was a serious matter. There was no germ theory or concept of sterilization. There were no antibiotics. Anesthesia might have been a bottle of wine. Surgical steel wasn’t available; they likely used a flint or an iron knife. Being circumcised would have been painful in the extreme.
But Timothy agreed to this for the sake of the gospel — so that he could preach to the Jews, that is, become as a Jew in order to win Jews.
Now, Paul also “became as one outside the law” to “win those outside the law.” He could hardly become uncircumcised! But he likely did eat whatever the Gentiles served, without asking questions, and he mastered the Grecian and Roman philosophers in order to discuss Jesus in terms the Greeks could understand and appreciate.
But Paul refused to let Titus be circumcised —
(Gal 2:1-5 ESV) Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in — who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery — 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
Paul took the Grecian Titus to Jerusalem to meet with James and the apostles, and he refused to allow Titus to be circumcised even though there were church members — “false brothers” — who demanded that he be circumcised. Why not? Because to submit to circumcision would “bring us into slavery” and destroy “the truth of the gospel.”
Why was it permissible, even commendable, to circumcise Timothy — for the sake of the gospel — and yet enslaving and destructive of the gospel to circumcise Titus? Think about it.
1. Timothy was circumcised so he could reach Jews who were outside the kingdom and who wouldn’t otherwise hear the gospel. The circumcision was done to reach the lost.
2. The “false brothers” in Jerusalem demanded that Titus be circumcised, not as a matter of contexualization or the gospel, but because they believed circumcision was a salvation matter. To submit to their demands would have been to make circumcision a condition of salvation — or at least would have submitted to those who so taught.
Now, Paul’s refusal to teach circumcision led to great strife in the churches. Judaizing teachers followed him around Asia and Europe seeking to compel his converts to be circumcised. Why not avoid the fight and division by having his converts submit to circumcision? Many of Paul’s epistles were centered on this controversy. Why shouldn’t the Gentile converts submit to the scruples of the Jews for the sake of peace? Isn’t that what we do today? Don’t we “solve” most church disputes by submitting to those with the scruples? Why didn’t Paul act as wisely as we do?
a. Circumcision would have been a significant barrier to conversion. We can hardly allow Christians with scruples to interfere with our evangelism!
b. The legalists would have added additional requirements. If Paul had yielded to circumcision for the sake of peace, they would have then demanded submission to kosher food laws. And then Sabbath observance. Etc. There’d have been no end of it, because it’s the nature of legalism to pile on more and more rules. (That’s why God invented a faith/grace system. Legalism is a dead end.)
c. The legalists had heard the gospel. They’d been converted. Paul would submit to the scruples of the lost to convert them, but not to the saved — especially when the saved were undermining faith in Jesus as the essence of salvation. He didn’t need to circumcise Titus so they’d hear the gospel. They’d heard it — and then perverted it. Submitting to them would only encourage further perversion of the gospel.
d. Notice that Paul says that submission to the circumcision party would “bring us into slavery.” There are two powerful images here —
i. Many Greek converts were in fact slaves under Roman law. They were taught by Paul that Jesus had redeemed them — paid the price to free them from slavery. To return to slavery would be to surrender their redemption!
ii. Jews would recognize the allusion to the Exodus. Paul was, in effect, saying, “You’ve crossed the Red Sea and are headed toward the Promised Land. Circumcision would undo all this and take you back to Egypt! And remember what happened to the Israelites who wanted to return to Egypt!”
Now, of course, Moses commanded circumcision of those very same Israelites, and so Paul’s teaching has a powerful irony — the very things that God required of the Israelites will return Christians to slavery if insisted on as a condition of fellowship or salvation. Rather, salvation is by the hand of God, through faith in Jesus, not by a return to a legal system.
e. Paul’s major point is that submission cannot be allowed so “the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.” Submitting to the legalists would undermine the gospel itself, because the gospel is all about being saved through faith in Jesus! And you can’t mix a faith salvation with a works salvation.
Consider —
(Gal 5:1-6 ESV) For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Paul again compares legalism to slavery. You see, freedom that can’t be exercised isn’t freedom. Ultimately, it’s not good enough to say that, in theory, circumcision isn’t required but for the sake of peace we’ll require circumcision, because this utterly undermines freedom. There is no freedom when the only way to get along is to let the most legalistic members have their way! Indeed, Paul said he didn’t “yield in submission even for a moment”!
Another way of saying it is: A little slavery is still slavery.
Now, there are, of course, circumstances where we yield for the sake of love — but temporarily, to have an opportunity to teach. As Paul taught in Romans 14, we shouldn’t tempt our brother or sister to sin by our exercise of freedom. But Titus wasn’t tempting anyone to sin by refusing circumcision! Those who wanted him circumcised were already circumcised!
We don’t submit to the scruples of others to avoid a fight or prevent slander. Rather, when submitting might encourage legalism, our position has to be the same as Paul’s: “we did not yield in submission even for a moment.”
Rather, the real cure is what Paul taught earlier in Romans 14 —
(Rom 14:1 ESV) As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
(Rom 14:3-4 ESV) 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
(Rom 14:13 ESV) 13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
Yes, we don’t tempt others to sin by following our example of freedom against their consciences. No, we don’t let the legalists make up the rules for the rest. Paul refers to the rulemakers as “weak” in the faith — obviously not the ones who get to run the church. Plainly, it’s wrong to turn control of God’s church over to the weak.
2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
Wow! Paul makes himself very clear.
3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
Why the whole law? Why can’t we just add, say, 20 commands to “faith in Jesus”? Why not add just one? Because you have to pick; it’s either saved by faith or saved by works. There is no salvation by faith plus works.
4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
Even though the Galatians believed in Jesus, and only wanted to add circumcision to the gospel, Paul says this is seeking salvation “by law.” And the result is damnation. No wonder Paul refused to submit to the legalists!
5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.
Our hope comes simply “by faith” and our salvation is assured “through the Spirit.”
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
Paul now clarifies that it’s not damning to be circumcised. If your wife prefers that you be circumcised or you want to be circumcised to honor your cultural heritage, no problem — just don’t dare claim to be superior to others because of it. Don’t make it a mark of salvation.
Rather, Paul plainly declares that there are but two things that “count” — faith and love coming from faith. We want to add to these and make salvation difficult and complicated, but it’s not. And it’s deadly dangerous to teach otherwise.
Thus, Timothy was circumcised as an act of love for the lost. And Paul refused to circumcise Titus — as an act of love for the saved — because submission to circumcision would have taught the wrong lesson, encouraging a damning doctrine. How could you love your brothers in Christ and submit to a teaching that might just damn them?
(Gal 5:13-15 ESV) 13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.
Freedom, of course, doesn’t mean freedom to indulge our sinful nature. Rather, we are freed to “serve one another” through love. Salvation produces freedom, which frees us to love, which causes us to serve — all by the power of the Spirit, as Paul explains in the next several verses.
Therefore, the law binding on Christians is reduced to “love your neighbor as yourself.” And if we’d understand this simple truth, we’d no longer bite and devour each other.
Now, in today’s church, biting and devouring and destroying are all common place. It’s how many do business, and they do business this way because they’ve allowed themselves to be enslaved all over again. They’re returned to Egypt, surrendering their redemption and freedom. We should neither follow nor empower them.
Some do this because they think this earns their salvation, utterly misunderstanding grace and sometimes even becoming “false brothers” alienated from Christ. Others submit to this, knowing it’s wrong, but figuring this at least buys peace. And it does — just not peace with God. And we need to seriously consider who we want to serve — the legalists who wish to enslave us all over again or the One who saved us from slavery.
I think this is a much more significant issue that we give it credit for being.
On a broad basis, Christianity behaves as if faith in Jesus can only be manifested in Jewish or Western context.
This view is essentially central to the legalist's interpretation of the Text.
David, I think the same thing can be said of a southern context. There is the assumption among many southern Christians, across denominational lines, that the southern culture and genuine Christianity greatly overlap.
I am not expressing anything negative regarding the southern way of life. I grew up in the south and thoroughly enjoy the memories. It is only to say that regardless of the warmth that the Southern culture gives a Sunday, it is not the spiritual superior one.
An example of what I am pointing out is once I mentioned to a relative down south that there are very, very few Gospel or Revival meetings in the Northeast. His response was if that is the case then the NE congregations are not grounded.
The truth is that most Christians in the Northeast do not see that attending services 5-7 nights a week to listen to an out of town minister is any more helpful than any other number of activites the local church may use to strengthen the body.
There was a time, a few decades ago, that Christians in the north viewed southern transplants as the force and "authority" of the way the church should be. But I think that is changing…thank God.
No disagreement from me on that point, John
I would have to say I agree Northern Christianity and Southern Christianity are different. One part of that difference is acceptance and forbearance. In the Northern states its more like ( in the churches) you have to win people over to who and what you are about. But in the South Christians tend to take you at face value. I remember going many years ago to a Men's retreat in Alabama I was very timid about the whole event and I was taken back by the camaraderie and paling around and worship. Men in Oregon don't get that chummy. But it was a good experience.
Jay,
How do you think the letter written by the Council in Acts 15 fits into this discussion?
–guy