In Ephesians 2:14 and 15 Paul says, “He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition, the enmity, having abolished in His flesh the law of the commandments in ordinances, that He might create the two in Himself into one new man, making peace.” I believe that what Paul saw and experienced in Acts 15 through 28 caused him to write such a strong word. As he was writing this, Paul may have been saying to himself, “All the ordinances of the law have been abolished. Circumcision, the Nazarite vow, and even the vow I had have been abolished.”
Paul may have regretted his vow in Acts 18 and also his circumcising Timothy in Acts 16. If I had been with Paul when he wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians, I might have said, “Brother Paul, I would like to learn of you. Since Christ abolished all the ordinances, why at Lystra did you still circumcise Timothy?” It is possible that if Paul had been asked such a question, he might have said, “I did that quite a while ago, and I am sorry about it. Never again will I circumcise anyone.”
By the time Paul wrote Ephesians 2, he was much more thorough than he was when he circumcised Timothy in Acts 16. His experiences in chapters fifteen through twenty-eight of Acts caused him to be more thorough regarding circumcision. I do not believe that apart from his experience in these chapters, Paul could have written such a chapter as Ephesians 2.
It is profitable to compare Paul’s word about circumcision in Galatians to what he says concerning the abolishing of the ordinances in Ephesians 2. Probably Galatians was written before Acts 16. In Galatians 6:15 Paul said, “For neither is circumcision anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.” Actually, this word still leaves some amount of ground for the practice of circumcision. But in Ephesians 2 Paul’s word is absolute, and not one bit of ground remains for the practice of circumcision.
Paul learned from all that happened in Acts 15 through 28. I believe that while he was in custody for two years in Caesarea, he reviewed all that had taken place. As he made such a review, Paul may have said to himself, “If there is an opportunity, I would like to write another letter and say something more thorough concerning circumcision than I said in Galatians. I shall not say simply that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything. Instead, I shall say that all the ordinances, especially the ordinances regarding circumcision, have been abolished. If I could rewrite the Epistle to the Galatians, I would tell the believers that circumcision has been abolished on the cross. I would tell them not to practice circumcision, for it is offensive to the Lord, an insult to Him. We should not continue to practice anything that the Lord has abolished on the cross.”
In studying the Bible, we may compare Ephesians and Galatians with respect to the ordinances concerning circumcision. If we make this comparison, we shall see that what Paul says in Galatians is not as strong or as thorough as what he says in Ephesians. In Ephesians 2 Paul does not leave any ground for circumcision.
In Philippians 3 Paul uses a very strong negative term for circumcision: concision. In Philippians 3:2 he says, “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision.” The word “concision” here, meaning mutilation, is a term of contempt for circumcision. Since there is no conjunction used in this verse between these three clauses, they must refer to the same class of people. Dogs are unclean (Lev. 11:4-8), the workers are evil, and the concision are those deserving contempt. The “dogs” refer to the Judaizers. In nature they are unclean dogs, in behavior they are evil workers, and in religion they are the concision, people of shame. Paul certainly is very strong in charging the Philippians to beware of the dogs, the evil workers, the concision. Here Paul is saying that the Judaizers, those who promote circumcision, are dogs.
What do you think Paul would have said if, in the light of his word in Philippians 3:2, he were asked about James? Paul might have said, “James surely is not a dog, but he acted somewhat like a dog. James is my dear brother. Because I respected him, I went to see him. But when he spoke to me, I heard something that was like the barking of a dog.”
As we read Philippians 3, we see that Paul was strengthened through his experiences in Acts 15 through 28 and especially through his time in Caesarea. Because of this strengthening, he told the believers to beware of dogs, to beware of the concision. In Philippians he would not even speak about circumcision, but instead used the contemptuous term “concision.” How strong he was in writing this Epistle!
When Paul was writing Philippians 3, he was stronger than he was in writing both Galatians and Romans. In Romans 2:28 and 29 Paul said, “He is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither the circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter, whose praise is not from men, but from God.” Here Paul’s word about circumcision is actually not very strong. Once again, some ground remained for the practice of circumcision. But in Philippians 3:2 there is no ground for circumcision, which now is called concision, a practice promoted by “dogs.”
In Philippians 3:8 Paul says, “But surely I count also all things to be loss on account of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, on account of whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them refuse that I may gain Christ.” The word “refuse” denotes dregs, rubbish, filth, what is thrown to the dogs; hence, dog food, dung. First, Paul charges the believers to beware of dogs, and then he indicates that what these dogs, the Judaizers, minister is dog food. Once again, we see Paul’s improvement in his writings.
When Paul was in Caesarea reviewing the past, he may have regretted that he was not thorough enough in his previous writings concerning the Judaic things. He may have said to himself, “Why did I write in such a vague manner? Why was I not more clear and thorough concerning the Judaic things? These things are dog food, circumcision is actually concision, and those who promote these things are ‘dogs.’” As we have seen, in writing Philippians Paul was much stronger than he was when he wrote Galatians. In Galatians he spoke of “false brothers” (2:4), but in Philippians he told the saints to beware of the dogs. Paul seemed to be saying, “They are not brothers or even men—they are dogs!” How thorough Paul was in his later writing!