The Gentile Question (Part 5)

 
THE GENTILE QUESTION IN THE CHURCH
 

“When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.” (Gal 2:11-12)

 

Paul’s gospel brought conflict and dispute even among the other apostles. We are fortunate to have the encounter between Paul and Peter preserved for posterity. Galatians also gives us some insight into the timing of Paul’s conversion and subsequent trips to Jerusalem. For the timing to work, Paul’s encounter with Jesus had to occur within the first several years of the resurrection. I personally believe that Stephen was martyred as soon as during the 40-day period of repentance leading up to the Fall Festivals or only six months after the Passover crucifixion in 29 or 30 A.D. In place of the expected Kingdom arrival and the joy of the Fall Festivals, the believers were met with death and persecution.

 

Under this scenario, the first nine chapters of Acts only cover the first six months of church history. Sometime between A.D. 33 to A.D. 40, more likely toward the latter, Cornelius became the first Gentile believer. After Peter’s recounting of the Cornelius’ story to brethren in Jerusalem, the gospel began to spread among the Gentiles when, “men of Cyprus and Cyrene… came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks…preaching the Lord Jesus” (Acts 11:20-21), probably around A.D. 40.

 

When word reached Jerusalem that many Greeks were turning to the Lord, the elders in Jerusalem sent Barnabas, not Peter, to Antioch to investigate. When Barnabas saw the grace of God among the Gentiles, he rejoiced and left for Tarsus to find Saul. Barnabas had previously met Saul (Acts 9:27), when Saul came to Jerusalem three years after his encounter with Jesus, (Gal 1:18-19)(Acts 9:23). Barnabas certainly knew of Saul’s calling and quickly surmised that the day of Saul’s ministry had arrived.

 

Saul came to Antioch and remained there for one year, teaching “considerable numbers” and “the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch,” (Acts 11:26). Preaching in Antioch was a continuation of Saul’s initial teaching in Syria that had occurred 10 years earlier, (Acts 9:20). The arrival of Saul is dated to around A.D. 42 based on the two historical events that closely follow in Acts. First, prophets came down from Jerusalem and prophesized of a world-wide famine that occurred during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54), (Acts 11:27). Historians generally date this famine as early as A.D. 43 to as late as A.D. 47. The Hebrew Roots scholar, Dan Lancaster, dates the famine as beginning in A.D. 43 and lasting three years.

 

In response to the prophesized famine, Barnabas and Saul journeyed to Jerusalem to bring contributions from the saints at Antioch, (Acts 11:29). Following Saul’s pattern elsewhere in Acts (Acts 20:16), his trip to Jerusalem likely coincided with one of the major Jewish festivals. The most likely festival was Passover A.D. 44, since the next chapter of Acts (12th) details the imprisonment of Peter during Passover/Unleavened Bread, and the subsequent death of Herod Agrippa in A.D. 44. Some scholars surmise that Paul’s vision of being caught up to heaven occurred during this trip to Jerusalem. If so, Paul’s vision could have coincided with the traditional ten-day period when the gates of heaven are opened between Rosh Hashanah (Trumpets) and Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) in the fall of A.D. 43.

 

Saul’s trip to Jerusalem in late A.D. 43 or early A.D. 44, was the second of four trips recorded in Acts. If Saul and Barnabas expected to experience the joy of Passover, their reality was much different. It was shortly before or just after their arrival that James, the brother of John, became the first of the original twelve to be martyred. Peter, was subsequently imprisoned by Herod Agrippa, while believers prayed in the house of Mary for Peter’s deliverance, (Acts 12:12). The Mary in question is the mother of John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10), the associate of Saul. The unnamed group of believers praying for Peter’s release likely included Barnabas and Saul. This view is reinforced by the fact that Barnabas and Saul took John Mark along with them when they left Jerusalem some time later, (Acts 12:25).

 

After describing how the Lord led him out of the prison, Peter said, “‘Report these things to James and the brethren,’ then he left and went to another place,” (Acts 12:17). It is interesting to note that Luke does not tell us where Peter went. The implication is that Peter left and went to an “undisclosed location,” a place out of the sight and out of the reach of Herod Agrippa. Although Peter had been miraculously saved by an angel of the LORD, he remained in danger as long as he stayed in Jerusalem and Judea. Agrippa did search for Peter the next morning and executed the guards when he failed to find Peter, (Acts 12:19).

 

Just as the parents of Jesus fled from the presence of Herod the Great, Peter likely fleed from Herod Agrippa. This is speculation based on the wording of Acts and the fact that Peter disappears from the Acts narrative until the Jerusalem Council. The logical place for Peter to travel was north through the believers he had earlier discipled in Samaria and Galilee. In northern Galilee, Peter was only a short distance to Antioch in Syria beyond the jurisdiction of Herod Agrippa. In Antioch, Peter would find support among believers including Barnabas and Saul, who he had recently seen in Jerusalem. Peter, the apostle to the Jews (Gal 2:7) in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee (Acts 9:31-32), now left the land of Israel.

 

Shortly after they returned to Antioch, Barnabas, Saul, and John Mark, set out on the first of Paul’s three missionary journeys in scripture (~A.D. 45-47). Peter may have arrived shortly after their departure or maybe Peter was in Antioch at the time of their departure. If so, Saul probably felt fortunate to leave the Antioch believers in the hands of such a capable apostle as Peter. It seems unlikely that Paul was present when men from Jerusalem later arrived at Antioch. If Paul had been present, he could have quickly addressed the situation before it spiraled out of control resulting in his dispute with Peter.

 

Sometime during Peter’s stay at Antioch, “Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved,’” (Acts 15:1). These men may have come to tell Peter that Agrippa was dead and that it was safe to return to Jerusalem. Paul saw a more threatening objective, these men “sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage,” (Gal 2:4). After they arrived, Peter reverted to a more orthodox position that probably included the washing of hands, etc. in addition to eating apart from sinners, i.e., Gentiles. Overlooked by most believers, and in Peter’s defense, the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 was in the future leaving the Gentile question unresolved.

 

When Saul, now Paul, returned to Antioch, he was probably already on edge because John Mark had left them in Pamphylia on the journey, (Acts 15:38). This separation later led to the parting of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:39), and the latter probably heard an earful from the former about his relative on the return trip. When Barnabas and Paul arrived back in Antioch, they found a body of believers split by the circumcision question. Turmoil on the trip and in Antioch “great dissension and debate” on the circumcision question.

 

Since Paul had come to Antioch, he had enjoyed some anonymity from the church in Jerusalem. In Antioch, Paul had preached “my gospel” (Rom 2:16, 2 Tim 2:8), which derived from a personal revelation from the Lord, “for I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ,” (Gal 1:12). Even personal revelations require validation in scripture, or in Paul’s case, by the elders in Jerusalem. Paul understood that his revelation was outside the boundaries of existing apostolic interpretation and Paul feared that “I might be running, or had run, in vain,” (Gal 2:2). How long Paul would have preached “my gospel” before being compelled to go to Jerusalem is not known. It can even be suggested that Paul had at least one opportunity to convey his gospel to the elders in Jerusalem when he earlier brought contributions in A.D. 44 to relieve the famine. On the other hand, the recent death of James during the A.D. 44 trip probably removed any desire to discuss a contentious issue that might cause division among the brethren.

 

During the argument at Antioch, Paul was extremely hard on Peter, saying Peter “stood condemned” (Gal 2:11), effectively calling Peter a “hypocrite,” (Gal 2:13). These accusations run contrary to Paul’s own teaching, “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” (Rom 8:1). (Sometimes scripture gives us the impression that Paul could be a little harsh at times.)  Further, Paul expressed his disagreement in public and did not follow the one-on-one pattern Jesus outlined in Matthew, (Matt 18:15-17). Paul blasted Peter for letting the situation get out of hand to the point that “even Barnabas was carried away by the hypocrisy,” (Gal 2:13). Although Paul would have been reluctant to admit it, Barnabas may have been ready for a break from Paul after the John Mark episode. It is always easier to turn the focus of disagreement on another party rather than examine our own motives.

 

Paul’s harsh treatment of Peter reflected the importance of Antioch in Gentile salvation. Antioch was the beginning of mass Gentile salvation. The Gentile “disciples were first called Christians in Antioch,” (Acts 11:26). As the fate of Antioch Gentiles went so would be the fate of all Gentiles from that point forward.

 

Was Paul right? Not necessarily. Was Peter wrong? Not completely. What believers need to appreciate is that Peter’s actions preceded the decision of the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 and were consistent with a Jew trying to maintain the dietary laws and the laws of cleanliness. If Peter argued back, his argument is not recorded in scripture. In fact, we later see that Peter heard Paul’s message behind the harsh rhetoric and used it to the benefit of Gentiles living and unborn.

 
(Next Part - The Determination of the Elders in Jerusalem, It's hot in Austin - Scott)




 

The Gentile Question (Part 4)

 
PAUL’S GOSPEL IN THE JEWISH WORLD
 
“When the Apostle (Paul) claimed that it was the being ‘in Christ’ that was fundamental, and not the being ‘in Israel’, for sharing in the Age to Come, and that is was the dead ‘in Christ’ who were to be raised up to share in its glories, and therefore that it was not Israelites as such but only those ‘in Christ’ who were being ingathered into the people of God, he was running counter to an integral part of the message of the great prophets as well as of his Rabbinic contemporaries.” (Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, WD Davies, 1965, page 85)
 
Paul’s “gospel” may have come by a divine revelation, but it ran contrary to Paul’s contemporaries and Rabbinic tradition. The frequent disputes between believers in Jesus and other Jews were not disputes about “faith verses works,” as is the common interpretation. Most disputes centered around the technicals of how a Gentile could enter into the promises given to the nation of Israel. By the first century, the Pharisees had largely accepted complete conversion to Judaism as the only way to receive the promises of Israel.
 
The position of the Pharisees was derived from the example of Abraham who received the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:13), and circumcised “All the men of his household who were born in the house or bought with money from a foreigner,” (Gen 17:27). This understanding was reinforced by the commandment requiring any male who partakes of the Passover meal to be circumcised, (Ex 12:48). For someone, even with the halachic credentials of Paul, to suggest that entry into the promises of Israel was possible apart from circumcision and complete obedience to the commandments of Moses was completely heretical to the Pharisees.
 
To the first century Pharisee, Paul’s approach might be comparable to a believer preaching salvation apart from Jesus. It simply goes against all that believers have been taught and read in scripture. It should not be surprising that many Pharisees and synagogue members strongly opposed the message of Paul. However, they did not oppose Paul’s message because Paul preached faith as greater than works, but because Paul preached redemption apart from conversion to Judaism. Even Paul’s contemporaries in the faith questioned his teaching.
 
Peter called some of Paul’s teaching “hard to understand” (2 Pet 3:16), even though Peter had been present when the Spirit had been poured out on Cornelius. James the Elder had to deal with rumors that Paul was “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to walk according to the customs,” (Acts 21:21). Even Paul acknowledged that after receiving his revelation, “I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me,” (Gal 1:16-17). In other words, for a time Paul’s revelation was unique to Paul and not validated by two of three witnesses as scripture instructs the believer to do. Until Paul’s “gospel” could be validated in Jerusalem, he worried “that I might be running, or had run, in vain,” (Gal 2:2).
 
Paul may have been running against his contemporaries, Rabbinic tradition, and even the understanding of most believers, but he found support in scripture and the words of Jesus, “Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age,” (Matt 28:18-20).
 
The words of Jesus are directed to “the nations”, which we understand as the Gentile world, but the obligations placed on the “disciples” were not those of traditional proselytes, which “was threefold: it consisted of circumcision, immersion in water (i.e. baptism), and the presentation of an offering in the Temple.” (Ibid, page 121).  The obligations placed on Jesus’ Gentile disciples were consistent in the call for baptism, but circumcision was noticeably absent and the standard for living was not the Torah, per se, but observing “all that I commanded you”. The words of Jesus are consistent with the Messianic expectations of the Rabbis,
 
“When the Rabbis taught, moreover, that the Messiah when he came would bring a new Law, they thought of the Law as new not in the sense that it would be contrary to the Law of Moses but that it would be explained more fully. True to this expectation Jesus had come and preached a new Torah from the mount and had yet remained loyal to the old Torah, displaying ‘universalism in belief and particularism in practice.’” (Ibid, page 72-73)
 
(Next Part - The Gentile Question in the Church, Hi from Austin - Scott)