Calvin and Jewish Badges in the Law (Ephesians 2:14-16)

One of the ongoing debates amongst Christians is the question around the place of Mosaic law (torah) under the "new covenant" in Jesus. How and to what extent does it still apply to Christians? And what was the purpose of it for the Jews?

This is massive question, and it is an important one. One of the classic ways to handle the question is to understand that there are three different ways to categorise the various commands and regulations under Moses: moral, ceremonial, civil. This is an approach that Calvin uses.

In recent times there have also been fresh ways to think about the "works of the law", by proponents such as N T Wright. Is this phrasing more about morality and merit, or is more about some kind of badge of identity? Interestingly Calvin also uses this terminology of "badge" or "mark" in relation to ceremonial law.

Below are some pertinent quotes from Calvin's commentary on Ephesians 2:14-16, where Paul speaks about law and commandments being abolished:

And breaking down the middle wall of partition. To understand this passage, two things must be observed. The Jews were separated, for a certain time, from the Gentiles, by the appointment of God; and ceremonial observances were the open and avowed symbols of that separation. Passing by the Gentiles, God had chosen the Jews to be a peculiar people to himself. A wide distinction was thus made, when the one class were “fellow-citizens and of the household” (Ephesians 2:19) of the Church, and the other were foreigners...

Bounds were thus fixed by God to separate one people from the rest; and hence arose the enmity which is here mentioned. A separation is thus made. The Gentiles are set aside. God is pleased to choose and sanctify the Jewish people, by freeing them from the ordinary pollution of mankind. Ceremonial observances were afterwards added, which, like walls, enclosed the inheritance of God, prevented it from being open to all or mixed with other possessions, and thus excluded the Gentiles from the kingdom of God.

But now, the apostle, says, the enmity is removed, and the wall is broken down. By extending the privilege of adoption beyond the limits of Judea, Christ has now made us all to be brethren...

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity. The meaning of Paul’s words is now clear. The middle wall of partition hindered Christ from forming Jews and Gentiles into one body, and therefore the wall has been broken down. The reason why it is broken down is now added — to abolish the enmity, by the flesh of Christ. The Son of God, by assuming a nature common to all, has formed in his own body a perfect unity.

Even the law of commandments contained in ordinances. What had been metaphorically understood by the word wall is now more plainly expressed. The ceremonies, by which the distinction was declared, have been abolished through Christ. What were circumcision, sacrifices, washings, and abstaining from certain kinds of food, but symbols of sanctification, reminding the Jews that their lot was different from that of other nations; just as the white and the red cross distinguish the French of the present day from the inhabitants of Burgundy. Paul declares not only that the Gentiles are equally with the Jews admitted to the fellowship of grace, so that they no longer differ from each other, but that the mark of difference has been taken away; for ceremonies have been abolished. If two contending nations were brought under the dominion of one prince, he would not only desire that they should live in harmony, but would remove the badges and marks of their former enmity. When an obligation is discharged, the handwriting is destroyed, — a metaphor which Paul employs on this very subject in another Epistle. (Colossians 2:14.)

Some interpreters, — though, in my opinion, erroneously, — connect the words, in ordinances, with abolished, making the ordinances to be the act of abolishing the ceremonies. This is Paul’s ordinary phrase for describing the ceremonial law, in which the Lord not only enjoined upon the Jews a simple rule of life, but also bound them by various statutes. It is evident, too, that Paul is here treating exclusively of the ceremonial law; for the moral law is not a wall of partition separating us from the Jews, but lays down instructions in which the Jews were not less deeply concerned than ourselves. This passage affords the means of refuting an erroneous view held by some, that circumcision and all the ancient rites, though they are not binding on the Gentiles, are in force at the present day upon the Jews. On this principle there would still be a middle wall of partition between us, which is proved to be false.

That he might make in himself. When the apostle says, in himself, he turns away the Ephesians from viewing the diversity of men, and bids them look for unity nowhere but in Christ. To whatever extent the two might differ in their former condition, in Christ they are become one man. But he emphatically adds, one new man, intimating (what he explains at greater length on another occasion) that “neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision, availeth anything,” (Galatians 6:15) but that “a new creature” holds the first and the last place. The principle which cements them is spiritual regeneration. If then we are all renewed by Christ, let the Jews no longer congratulate themselves on their ancient condition, but let them be ready to admit that, both in themselves and in others, Christ is all.

About Adoption: Have you heard of Augustus Caesar?

My ancient history is pretty weak, and I was just reading recently about the Roman Emperors, or Caesars. I was surprised to discover that the great Augustus Caesar, who was emperor from 27BC to 14AD, and said to be the founder of the Roman Empire, was actually adopted by the Emperor Julius Caesar in his will, and Augustus Caesar became emperor of Rome by virtue of that adoption after Julius Caesar's assassination. So what?

Well, I don't really know how big a deal it was in those days, but given that Augustus Caesar was so important (ie top dog of the whole Roman Empire), I'm guessing people were aware of that fact of his adoption. It made me wonder about all of the apostle Paul's use of adoption language in the Scriptures. As Christians we become adopted sons of God, and co-heirs with Christ. I wonder if Paul thought about Augustus Caesar's situation when he talked about that. Certainly a powerful illustration of what he was talking about. Surely the Christians in Rome would have recognised this real-life example? Here are Paul's words from his letter to the them:

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. [Romans 8:14-17]

You can't get much better than adopted son and heir of Caesar can you? Oh yeah, you can actually become sons of the one true and living God, and if you are already a Christian, then you already are. Yes, that does sound better :)

Should every Christian Speak in Tongues?

There are always those groups within Christianity who claim that every Christian should speak in tongues (GLOSSOLALIA is the transliteration from the Greek). It seems to have been a problem during the apostolic church, and history has a tendency to repeat itself, often (because humans continue to have the same nature, giving rise to the same problems...) The precedent of course are the instances in Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, Acts 19, and perhaps 1 Corinthians 14:5. However, there is always increased difficulty (although not complete invalidity) in proving your case from the implications of narrative accounts as in Acts (compare for example the question of precedent regarding multiple wives from Old Testament narrative accounts), as compared to more direct teaching of say the Epistles (although these are not without their complexities either, and context etc must always be taken into account). Without at this point touching on the question of "What is tongues" and when and how it should be exercised etc, we must surely say that the clearest teaching regarding the spiritual gift must come from 1 Corinthians 12 (assuming, as seems to make the most sense, that the teaching on tongues in 1 Corinthians is also relevant to the manifestations of the Spirit evidenced in Acts), where certainly not everyone is expected to have that gift...

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.   

[1 Corinthians 12:4-31; ESV]

Without doubt Paul is making a strong point that there is unity in one Spirit, through whom the spiritual gifts are given, but there is variety and not uniformity regarding who has what gift, as to "each one" the Spirit gives "individually as he wills". To "one" is given "various kinds of tongues", not to all. And the answer to the question "Do all speak with tongues" is clearly intended to be "no". And with tongues and interpretation at the end of the lists in verses 8-10 and 28-30, Paul is also intending that these are not the "higher gifts" that we should most "earnestly desire".

And so even when we come to 1 Corinthians 14:5, where Paul says "Now I want you all to speak in tongues", we must allow him at least to complete his sentence, "but even more to prophesy". Do tongues advocates equally, or rather more so (according to Paul), advocate that all should prophecy? Perhaps some do (and perhaps some others don't because it is easier for someone to appear to speak in tongues than to speak prophetically...). But I strongly doubt Paul is contradicting his emphatic point already established earlier, in chapter 12. I think it is more likely that he is simply saying in other words "I am happy for anyone to speak in tongues, and receive that gift, and don't want anyone to forbid or discourage a genuine gift of the Spirit". And further, "But if you want my opinion as to whether tongues or prophecy is better, go for prophecy" (and that may have been one of the issues from the Corinthians to which Paul was responding, 1 Corinthians 12:1, "Now concerning...", cf 1 Corinthians 7:1, "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote"). Again, not that Paul really though all would become prophets (chapter 12), but if you are going to emphasise wanting something, at least aim high (and asking for more prophets is about as high as you can go, I don't think it is realistic for everyone to ask to become an apostle...).

May the Scriptures always be our guide.

Paul's formula, of Christ's love and giving of himself

There is a phrase Paul uses three times in the New Testament, almost like a formula, and I can't help but think it is a favourite phrase or expression of his, something he loved to dwell-on, and a "game-changer" for his life. It is simple but profound, and occurs these three times:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me [Galatians 2:20]

And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. [Ephesians 5:2]

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her [Ephesians 5:25]

Often the Scriptures speak of God giving his one and only Son, and also of the those evil men who gave Jesus over to be crucified. But in Paul's expression he makes clear that Jesus gave himself, and that was a measure of his great love for sinful, undeserving people. The LXX uses some similar wording in Isaiah 53:12, and perhaps Paul's phrase arose out of a meditation upon that verse, as well as a consideration of Jesus' own words in John 10:18 etc. Whatever the origin may have been in Paul's thinking, it is a truth that God has recorded in the Scriptures to change our lives. How much are we willing to give to him who loved us so?

Calvin on "works of the law"

Here is a quote from Calvin, concerning Paul's phrase in Romans 3:20, "works of the law":

Therefore by the works of the law, etc. It is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean. Some extend them to the observance of the whole law, while others confine them to the ceremonies alone. The addition of the word law induced Chrysostom, Origen, and Jerome to assent to the latter opinion;for they thought that there is a peculiar intimation in this appendage, that the expression should not be understood as including all works. But this difficulty may be very easily removed: for seeing works are so far just before God as we seek by them to render to him worship and obedience, in order expressly to take away the power of justifying from all works, he has mentioned those, if there be any, which can possibly justify; for the law hath promises, without which there would be no value in our works before God. You hence see the reason why Paul expressly mentioned the works of the law; for it is by the law that a reward is apportioned to works. Nor was this unknown to the schoolmen, who held it as an approved and common maxim, that works have no intrinsic worthiness, but become meritorious by covenant. And though they were mistaken, inasmuch as they saw not that works are ever polluted with vices, which deprive them of any merit, yet this principle is still true, that the reward for works depends on the free promise of the law. Wisely then and rightly does Paul speak here; for he speaks not of mere works, but distinctly and expressly refers to the keeping of the law, the subject which he is discussing.

As to those things which have been adduced by learned men in defense of this opinion, they are weaker than they might have been. They think that by mentioning circumcision, an example is propounded, which belonged to ceremonies only: but why Paul mentioned circumcision, we have already explained; for none swell more with confidence in works than hypocrites, and we know that they glory only in external masks; and then circumcision, according to their view, was a sort of initiation into the righteousness of the law; and hence it seemed to them a work of primary excellence, and indeed the basis as it were of the righteousness of works. — They also allege what is said in the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul handles the same subject, and refers to ceremonies only; but that also is not sufficiently strong to support what they wish to defend. It is certain that Paul had a controversy with those who inspired the people with a false confidence in ceremonies; that he might cut of this confidence, he did not confine himself to ceremonies, nor did he speak specifically of what value they were; but he included the whole law, as it is evident from those passages which are derived from that source. Such also was the character of the disputation held at Jerusalem by the disciples.

But we contend, not without reason, that Paul speaks here of the whole law; for we are abundantly supported by the thread of reasoning which he has hitherto followed and continues to follow, and there are many other passages which will not allow us to think otherwise. It is therefore a truth, which deserves to be remembered as the first in importance, — that by keeping the law no one can attain righteousness. He had before assigned the reason, and he will repeat it presently again, and that is, that all, being to a man guilty of transgression, are condemned for unrighteousness by the law. And these two things — to be justified by works — and to be guilty of transgressions, (as we shall show more at large as we proceed,) are wholly inconsistent the one with the other. — The word flesh, without some particular specification, signifies men;though it seems to convey a meaning somewhat more general, as it is more expressive to say, “All mortals,” than to say, “All men,” as you may see in Gallius.

(from Calvin's Commentary on Romans)

Here Calvin argues against those who confine "works of the law" to "the ceremonies alone". But Calvin says "that Paul speaks here of the whole law". I find this interesting because of recent controversies over the phrase "works of the law", as interpreted by those branded as "New Perspective". Some (along the lines of N T Wright) speak of "works of the law" as those distinctive aspects of Torah which marked out the Jews as the people of God, things such as circumcision, food laws etc. It is not about a moralistic righteousness, a "pulling oneself up by his own moral bootstraps". Particularly they are arguing against an interpretation of "works of the law" which read into Paul a context of medieval merit-emphasising theology.While probably not exactly the same, this seems similar to the interpretation of "works of the law" as referring to "the ceremonies alone" (which, significantly, Calvin attributes to pre-medieval writers, like "Chrysostom, Origen, and Jerome"). Yet it seems that to hold a more confined view of "works of the law" is branded as unorthodox in some circles, and one is liable to come under fire for holding such a view, as if nobody in their right mind could think that Paul didn't mean some kind of 100% perfect, moral self-meriting of justification before God. While Calvin certainly held to a position which would perhaps be more popular amongst Reformed Evangelicals today, yet we would be wise to recognise with him that, "It is a matter of doubt, even among the learned, what the works of the law mean".

Circumcision and Keeping the Law

I've been working through 1 Corinthians in four different settings this year, and here is another comment related to chapter 7, having looked at it again recently. But this post is about 7:19. I think the verse has significant relevance to distinguishing between ceremonial and other aspects of the "Law" (e.g. threefold or tripartite division of the Law), and reminds me of of Romans 2:26-27. Here are the two references in full:

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (1 Corinthians 7:19; NKJV)

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? (Romans 2:26-27; NKJV)

What is significant is that Paul distinguishes between being circumcised and keeping the commandments of God, or fulfilling the requirements of the law. Someone can be said to keep God's commandments and law, without having to be circumcised. Yet, in other places, such as Galatians 5:3, circumcision seems to be identified as a part of the law. Hence Paul can sometimes speak of "the law", not including particularly Jewish markers like circumcision. Sounds a bit like distinguishing between "ceremonial" and "moral" aspects, doesn't it? There are those those who don't like dividing up or distinguishing between different aspects of the law, treating it as all or nothing, saying that is more "Biblical". But in doing so they are not actually being true to Paul's own non-simplistic references to the law (Torah)...

Ephesians 2:15 and Torah Abolished?

I was discussing Ephesians 2:15 on the Theology List, and thought I would include a compiled copy here. Essentially, the question being addressed is: What does Paul mean by the term 'the law' and in what sense is it abolished?

A common Reformed approach is to use the threefold division of the law and say that Paul is here really talking about the ceremonial law when he uses the term 'law'. Hence the ceremonial law is abolished, but the moral law remains. But while I think categorizing it to the ceremonial aspects of the Torah and not the moral law is a helpful simplification to explain what is going on, I don't think it does full justice to the text. In Eph 2:15 I think Paul means the Torah generally and as a whole, rather than a more theological distinction between ceremonial and moral law.

If we use the language of threefold distinction into moral law (ML), ceremonial law (CL) and civil law (SL), we would like to say that Torah = ML + CL + SL, as if it could be so neatly divided that way. Eg the decalogue would be ML, holiness code CL, and rules relating to Israel as a nation-state SL. And in fact, probably we can categorize it like that if it is helpful. But now let me make another category called Universal Law (UL), coining my own terminology, and define it as the universal expression of God's eternal character as it applies to humanity. The simplification we would like is to equate 'moral law' with 'universal law', as if we can seamlessly move between this concept of Universal Law, and what we can select out as Moral Law from the Torah, and really they are one and the same. But I don't think it is so simple. I would instead say that the kernel of this 'Universal Law' is contained within the husk of the Torah. In fact, ML, CL and SL (if we take them to be the constituent parts of Torah) are all expressions of UL within that husk, though perhaps ML seems most clearly so. But each are specially packaged expressions of UL adapted specifically to the OT Israel situation. When the Scriptures use the word 'law', I think usually it has Torah specifically in mind, but the emphasis may vary between UL, ML, CL, SL or Torah as a package possibly extending to the whole OT (though I can't think of a case where SL would be emphasized, except perhaps where the emphasis is on some of the penalties). Now this is still a simplification, but to me, a better nuanced one than simply ML, CL, SL.

Coming back to Eph 2:15, as mentioned already, I think Paul means Torah as a whole package in this case, and not even just the CL aspects, although they might be more prominent. I don't think he means you could literally cut up all the words of Torah, and just remove the ceremonial ones, and that is all that was abolished. IMO the Torah is the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14). The ceremonial law was the superficial and tangible expression of that difference, but I think it is much deeper than that. The Jews prided themselves as in possession of the Law as a whole (cf Rom 3:2, Rom 9:4, Deut 4:8) and that possession, as well as the content of the law itself, set them apart from the Gentiles, and excluded the Gentiles. But the abolishment of the husk does not mean that the kernel of 'universal law' is abolished, nor even that the Torah is abolished in some absolute sense, so as to have no direct relevance to the Christian. Rom 3:31 makes clear there is some sense in which Torah is not abolished but rather the opposite. As does Matt 5:17ff. So I think in Eph 2:15, with respect to the Gentiles, the abolishment of Torah has to do with abolishing it as a legal or constitutional document which divides Jew and Gentile, thus also separating the Gentiles from God (according to Torah).

Actually, I would clarify further and say that Paul is actually speaking at two levels at the same time. Not only did the Torah exclude the Gentile, it also condemned the unbelieving Jew, and was a burden of death to them (and I don't think it would be just the ceremonial aspects that condemned them, cf Rom 2-3). Without the Torah being written on their hearts, the Torah only condemned them, and led to hostility between Jews and God also. Hence while the Torah held the prospect of peace with God and access to God (cf Eph 2:12), in practice it still left most Jews condemned before God. And hence also in that sense Christ not only brings peace and reconciliation to the Gentile, but also to the Jew who was already 'near' (Eph 2:16-17).

So in what sense is Torah abolished, and in what sense does it remain? In the tradition of Covenant Theology, with an emphasis on continuity, I don't think things have to be repeated in the NT for something in the OT to be relevant. What the OT teaches regarding God and man (to use Calvin's paradigm) still remains relevant today, and is by no means abolished. It is only the strict legal or constitutional character that has been abolished, which by no means undermines the revelatory character of the OT. I think Paul means to talk of the Torah as a whole being abolished, but that is not to be taken as a stand-alone, absolutised statement. The best analogy I can think of is the distinction between spirit and letter of the law. The letter is abolished, but the spirit remains. Kind of like what commonly happens when one pastor replaces another in a church. In letter the old pastor may have no official relationship with the church, but in spirit he often still remains an influence (whether in person or just as a memory), though it is not usually a good thing for the new pastor ;-) But here, what remains of the Torah is a good thing and we can and should keep going back to the letter of the Torah to find that spirit. And in fact the preservation of every letter of it is important to preserve the spirit of it also.