Voice of all Israel

Circumcision and Citizenship in Remant Israel

2010-08-12T09:09:00.000-07:00

Here is an portion of my upcoming commentary on Romans 2:26 relating to the meaning of "circumcision" in Paul's usage.

26 So when the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Torah, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

כו לָכֵן אִם בֶּן־הָעָרְלָה שֹׁמֵר אֶת־צִדְקוֹת הַתּוֹרָה, הַאִם־לֹא עָרְלָתוֹ לְמוּלָה תֵחָשֵׁב׃

§2.26.1 Now Paul is speaking of the physical uncircumcision of the proselyte or new convert who has not yet been circumcised; he he using the word to refer to the period of time between the moment that a pagan renounces falsehood and faithfully commits to Yeshua, and a later time when he is circumcised, i.e. Paul is equating the circumcstance of the new, but uncircumcised, citizen of Israel, who is still in the exile, with Abraham before he was circumcised. Paul shows that it is faithfulness that results in salvation status, not physical circumcision. Paul is contrasting the situation in which circumcision cannot save one (if one is a transgressor) with the situation in which lack of circumcision is not regarded as unfaithfulness to the Almighty.

2.26.2 Once again the text does not mean "if" as a purely imaginary condition that is assumed never to be true. Under Hebrew influence, the Greek means "when". See above 2.25.3. So Paul is assuming that the new convert will be showing his faithfulness to the Almighty by keeping His commandments.

2:26.3 The word "circumcision" at the end of the verse is used to mean saved status. It clearly cannot mean physically circumcised. The uncircumcision cannot in the circumcstance where the pagan has become faithful be regarded as indicating unsaved status, because faithfulness does not require perfection on our part; it only requires heart loyalty to Yeshua. The uncircumcision of the outsider only becomes an issue if its continuance is understood as faithlessness, and there is a refusal to repent or correct the situation. This goes for any other commandment as well, though with the violation of some important commandments it would be hard to maintain that that the person sinning was still faithful. Uncircumcision may be a sin of circumstance or ignorance due to poor teaching or none at all. For example, the Rabbis went about teaching that Gentiles only had to follow the Noachide commandments. Therefore, neglect of non-Noachide commandments by many Gentiles could not be regarded as faithlessness. The blame is on the incorrect teaching. Therefore, uncircumcision is to be regarded as circumcision, i.e. unsaved status is really saved status in other words.

2:26.4. In the preceding section, I identified "circumcision" with saved status, and "uncircumcision" with unsaved status, but Paul showed that actual circumcision does not determine the status. Only faithfulness determines the status, because Paul says that uncircumcision can be regarded as circumcision so long as the uncircumcised man approaches Torah with faithfulness, and Paul has also shown that physical circumcision cannot determine the status because so many that have physical circumcision are transgressors.

The key to Paul here is that he is using "circumcision" as a synonym for remnant Israel. This is the Israel that has saved status, wherein citizenship is based on faithfulness. It does not include all of Israel, but only the part approaching the covenant through faithfulness. So when he says that the physical circumcision of the transgressor is regarded as uncircumcision, he is saying that this Israelite is not part of remnant Israel. (He is not saying is not an Israelite though.) And when he says the uncircumcision of the man approaching in faithfulness is counted as circumcision, he means that person is reckoned as a citizen of remnant Israel. It does not make the former Gentile ethnically Jewish, but by faithfulness the non-Jew gains the same rights, privileges, and citizenship status, in the kingdom of the Almighty as fellow Jews who are part of the remnant by Israel by faithfulness.

So when Paul says the uncircumcised is reckoned as circumcised he means that person belongs to remnant Israel. Many Rabbis base their doctrine not in faithfulness, but in election and chosen status, claiming to be members of remnant Israel. It is clear from Paul's teaching that faithfulness alone was the sole criteria for citizenship in the remnant of Israel. The non-Jew who is faithful will be regarded as circumcised, i.e. joined with the remnant of Israel. This means Rabbinic control of the gates of the Kingdom by means of tradition, ritual, formal conversion under the authority of man, or any other criteria of election not in accord with faithfulness is nullified. And the truth is, they themselves shut the gates to others, but will not themselves go through them.

Since a faithful non-Jew is reckoned as circumcised, which is to say a member of remnant Israel, it logically follows that there is no legal discrimination between the non-Jewish faithful and the Jewish. The Rabbis cannot say the non-Jew must first become Jewish in order for the sabbath or food laws to be embraced with true conviction. The Rabbis cannot legislate a two-tier legal system, one for them, and one for the non-Jewish faithful on the basis of their doctrine of election. Paul has shown how that doctrine is nullified with respect to the remnant of Israel.

Colossians 2:16

2010-07-04T14:15:00.000-07:00

Colossians 2:16

Intralinear:

Colossians 2:16 עַל־כֵּן (Therefore) לֹא־יָדִין (let no one judge) אֶתְכֶם (you) בְּמַאֲכָל (in eating) וּבְמַשְׁקֶה (and in drinking): אִם (whether) בְּחֵלֶק (when partaking of) חַג (a feast) אוֹ (or) רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ (new moon) אוֹ (or) שַׁבָּתוֹת (Sabbaths) — v17 אֲשֶׁר (which) הֵם (are) צֵל (a shadow of) הַדְּבָרִים (the things) לָבֹא (to come):

Hebrew:

עַל־כֵּן לֹא־יָדִין אִישׁ אֶתְכֶם בְּמַאֲכָל וּבְמַשְׁקֶה, אִם בְּחֵלֶק חַג אוֹ רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ אוֹ שַׁבָּתוֹת אֲשֶׁר הֵם צֵל הַדְּבָרִים לָבֹא׃

English:

Therefore, let no one judge you in eating and in drinking, either when partaking of a feast or new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of the things coming.

Greek:

Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει καὶ ἐν πόσει ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νεομηνίας ἢ σαββάτων, ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων.

Comment:

The Byzantine and Critical texts differ; NA-27th edition reads "eating and in drinking" while the Byzantine text reads "eating or in drinking". Which text is correct? The Byzantine text would go as folows, "Let no one judge you in eating or in drinking, or in part of a feast, or new moon, or sabbaths...."; This would make the instruction not to judge to apply equally to eating, drinking, feast day observance, new moon observance, and sabbath observance. It would declare that if someone were to work on Sabbath, then nobody should judge that as sin. The problem with this is that it contradicts the Torah! Yet, the Byzantine translation is what is read in most bibles, even bibles that claim they are following the critical text.

On the other hand, if "eating and in drinking" are coordinated by the conjunction, "and", then the rest of the text is an explanatory clause that explains at what times eating and drinking is not to be judged. The conjunction sequence, "ἢ ... ἢ ... ἢ" should be translated "either ... or ... or", (or "whether ... whether ... whether" for linguistic purists); "either ... or .. or" is the gloss supplied by the third edition of BDAG. This sequence is illustrated in 1Corinthians 14:6 of the KJV: "except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?" The Greek word not only conjunctionally coordinates, it subordinates clauses. Also, the words "ἐν μέρει" literally mean "in part of"; this is another clear indicator that the clause after eating and drinking is explanatory. Yet many translations can be faulted for ignoring the literal sense with circumlocutions like "in respect to" (NAU) or "with regard to" (NIV). Also it should be noted that the Greek word "ἐν" is used in the sense of "when" or "while" in temporal clauses.

Eating and drinking primarily does not refer to the kind of food eaten and the kind of drink. It refers to feasting rather than fasting. The context of the passage indicates that Paul was dealing with ascetics who advocated, "Touch not; taste not; handle not" (Col. 2:21), which are characterized as "commandments and doctrines of men" (Co. 2:22). There were Jewish groups in the first century that advocated fasting on holy days. These were a minority, but they existed even though the majority of Rabbis disapproved of their practices. Somehow the thinking of these groups infiltrated the Western Church, which instituted the practice of fasting on the Sabbath. The tradition was justified as a measure against the Jews. But the Eastern Church refused to fast on Sabbath and staunchly opposed the Western Church until the issue, among other issues, resulted in the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope excommunicating each other.

Therefore, let no one judge you in eating and in drinking, either when partaking of a feast or new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of the things coming.

The text is actually a defense against divisive teachers teaching that the Sabbath should become a day of mourning by fasting. (The argument was that since Yeshua lay in the grave on the Sabbath while the Jews feasted, then Christians should fast and mourn.) We should take Paul's negative statement about what not to do concerning feasting and draw positive implications. Paul implies that we should eat and drink on biblical feast days. He implies that we should enjoy new moons and sabbaths, because they are a shadow of blessings and joys that are coming in the age to come. With this last clause, Paul implies that the holy days serve us well to remind us of the future. But this only works if we are obeying the commandments to keep and guard them.