Paul Opposed Peter For the Sake of Heaven - Part 4 of 4

Everything probably went well during Peter’s time in Antioch until, “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 “certain men from James” (Gal 2:12), may have been those who disagreed with Saul and Barnabas, when they had been in Jerusalem two years earlier. Although they came to discuss the issue of circumcision, these men may have also come to inform Peter that Herod Agrippa was dead and that it was safe to return to Jerusalem. When they arrived, Peter apparently reverted to the more orthodox positions of his faith that focused on the washing of hands and the potential exposure to meats sacrificed to idols. In Peter’s defense, the Second Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 was still in the future, leaving the Gentile question unresolved and Peter’s actions understandable. Separation of Jews from Gentiles had been the norm for 1500 years and nothing had been “loosed” for Peter to think differently and so other Jews followed.

 

When Saul 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 ultimately led to the parting of Saul and Barnabas, and the latter probably heard an earful from the former on the return trip. When Barnabas and Saul 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 until “the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas…should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue,” (Acts 15:2). During the debate, 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).  (It is probably not surprising that Barnabas was ready for a break from Paul after the John Mark episode, but its always easier to focus on a different cause than blame ourselves for a problem.)

 

Paul was extremely hard on Peter, saying Peter “stood condemned” (Gal 2:11) held “himself aloof” and was a “hypocrite,” (Gal 2:13). These are strong accusations that run contrary to Paul’s own teaching, “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” (Rom 8:1). Further, Paul expressed his disagreement in public and not one-on-one following the pattern Jesus outlined in Matthew, (Matt 18:15-17). Was Peter right? Not necessarily. Was he wrong? Not completely. We need to appreciate that Peter’s actions preceded the decision of the Second Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 and were understandable for a Jew trying to maintain the dietary laws and the laws of cleanliness.

 

As with all disputes for the sake of heaven, much understanding and good resulted from the episode between Paul and Peter.  That most people think the dispute reflects “poorly” on Peter is understandable.  However, I think if framed in the proper perspective, it is Peter who comes out reflecting the best response to a difficult situation.

 

If Peter argued back against Paul, his argument is not recorded in scripture. In fact, Peter was apparently able to hear Paul’s message behind the harsh rhetoric, “If you (Peter), being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Gal 2:14). Peter listened to Paul on that day and later repackaged the concept to use in his closing argument at the second Jerusalem Council, “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?,” (Acts 15:7-10).

 

Although Paul and Barnabas related the signs and wonders God had done through them, it was ultimately the words of Peter, not Paul, that formed the basis for James’ decision.

 

“Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. With this the words of the Prophets agree…Therefore it is my judgement that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,” (Acts 15:13-19).

 

Peter does not get the credit he desires for listening to Paul. We can only surmise what would have happened if Peter’s anger had kept him from hearing out the words of Paul. This is a lesson for us when a brother uses harsh words, yet, there may be truth we need to hear.

 

 Did Peter forgive Paul? There is no need to ask. It was Peter who referred to Paul 15 years later as, “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Pet 3:15). Still even then Peter would say that Paul’s words are sometimes “hard to understand.”

 

However bad the situation, we must always remember that good resulted out of one of the most contentious confrontations between believers in the Greek text; not just good for Gentiles living in the first century, but for Gentiles living in the twenty-first century. The turmoil in Antioch forced the elders in Jerusalem to decide once and for all on the status of the Gentiles in the growing body of believers. The Second Council at Jerusalem (A.D. 48-50?) forever determined, in the words of Paul, that, “Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called,” (1 Cor 7:20). Saul and Barnabas, took the letter written by James and the elders back down to Antioch.

 

“When they had read it, they (the congregation) rejoiced because of its encouragement,” (Acts 15:31).

(the end - Scott)

Paul Opposed Peter For the Sake of Heaven - Part 3 of 4

The first encounter between Saul and the elders (Acts 11:28)(Gal 2:6-9) still left open the question of circumcision and Torah observance on the Gentiles in the growing body of believers. Although Saul indicated some pressure by the brethren who “spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage…,” Saul insisted, “we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour,” (Gal 2:4-5). In Jerusalem, the believers apparently agreed to disagree, at least for the moment. After the meeting, “Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission,” (Acts 12:25).

 

Probably during or shortly after Saul’s visit, James the brother of John was killed. Peter, who had been present during the meeting between Saul and elders at Jerusalem, was subsequently imprisoned by Herod Agrippa (A.D. 44). An angel of the LORD miraculously delivered Peter from prison and he immediately went to the house of Mary where many were gathered praying for him. The Mary in question is the mother of John Mark, the cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10), the associate of Paul. This gathering occured prior to Saul’s first missionary journey (A.D. 45-47) and the unnamed group of believers could have easily included Barnabas and Saul.

 

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). The implication is that Peter went to an “undisclosed location,” a place out of the sight and out of the reach of Herod Agrippa. Peter needed to leave Jerusalem because Herod Agrippa would certainly search for Peter. The next day Agrippa did search for Peter and when he failed to find him, he ordered the guards to be executed.

 

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. Just like the parents of Jesus who fled from the presence of Herod the Great, Peter had to flee from Herod Agrippa. The logical place for Peter to travel was north through the believers who he had earlier discipled in Samaria and Galilee. In northern Galilee, Peter was just 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 just seen in Jerusalem and may have even recommended this strategy to Peter.

 

Peter may have arrived in Antioch before or concurrent with the return of Barnabas and Saul. It was shortly after their return to Antioch from Jerusalem that the Holy Spirit set Barnabas and Saul apart for taking the gospel to the Gentiles. From Antioch, Barnabas and Saul, along with John Mark, begin the first of Paul’s three missionary journeys in scripture (A.D. 45-47). If Peter was in Antioch at the time of Saul’s departure, Saul probably felt good leaving the church in the hands of such a capable apostle as Peter. (I have to place Saul away from Antioch at some point during Peter’s visit because it is difficult for me to understand how the problem among believers at Antioch would have begun in Saul’s presence.)

 

I suspect Peter found Antioch to be an inviting place to live. Although he was away from the brethren in Judea, Peter found Jewish believers in Antioch who felt blessed to have the fellowship of one who walked with the Master. In this way, Peter was still fulfilling his ministry to the circumcised. Peter may have even found the time and opportunity to visit other believers in Galatia. Over time, Peter assimilated into the Hellenistic culture of Antioch. Did Peter abandon the kosher commandments or the laws of cleanliness, unlikely, but eating with Gentile believers was not a common practice among Jews with a Pharisaic background. 

(to be continued - Scott) 

Paul Opposed Peter For the Sake of Heaven - Part 2 of 4

After the story of Peter and Conelius (Acts 10), the focus of Acts turns to the Gentiles. Some believers who came to Antioch began “speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord," (Acts 11:20-21). When news reached Jerusalem that a large number of Gentiles believed, the elders sent Barnabas, not Peter, to Antioch to investigate. When Barnabas arrived, he rejoiced at the “considerable numbers” that were being brought to the LORD. Barnabas left Antioch for Tarsus to bring back Saul, who then instructed the growing body of believers for an entire year. The new body of Gentile disciples “were first called Christians in Antioch,” (Acts 11:26).

 

At this time (A.D. 42-43), some prophets came down from to Antioch and prophesized of a world-wide famine that occurred during the reign of Claudius, (Acts 11:27)(Gal 2:2). Historians generally date this famine as early as A.D 43 to as late as A.D. 47. Dan Lancaster dates the famine as beginning in A.D. 43 and lasting three years. Shortly into the beginning of the famine, 14 years after Saul’s Damascus road encounter (Gal 2:1), Barnabas, Saul, and Titus journeyed to Jerusalem to bring contributions from the saints at Antioch, (Acts 11:29).

 

 In Torah Club 6 “Va’era”, Daniel Lancaster dates the trip of Barnabas and Saul to coincide with a Festival, which Lancaster identifies as Shavuot (Pentecost) in the year 44 A.D. My timing shifts the trip of the apostles back seven months to Sukkot (Tabernacles) at the beginning of the Hebrew year in September 43 A.D. This follows the Lancaster rule, “You are always allowed plus or minus one year in dating biblical events.” Some scholars surmise that Paul’s vision of being caught up to heaven occurred during this trip to Jerusalem. If so, Paul’s vision would best coincide with the traditional ten day opening of the gates of heaven between Rosh Hashanah (Trumpets) and Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). Although only seven months earlier, Sukkot A.D 43 moves the meeting between Saul and the elders to a time before the death of James and the imprisonment of Peter.

 

Although Saul came to Jerusalem to deliver contributions to the saints, he clearly had an ulterior motive because he brought Titus the Gentile, who did not accompany Paul on either of his two subsequent trips to Jerusalem. Either Saul needed someone to watch the suitcases while he and Barnabas went into the temple, or Saul brought Titus to the elders to press the question of circumcision for new Gentile believers. If the elders were going to require circumcision on Gentile believers, they were going to have to begin by telling Titus face to face.

 

While in Jerusalem, Saul took the opportunity to speak to those of “high reputation” about his ongoing work among the Gentiles. It was probably during this visit that Paul first laid out “my gospel” (Rom 2:16), which was the known gospel with a Pauline twist. Gentiles could remain Gentiles and be saved by faith through adoption, apart from circumcision. Although Paul had received his ministry by Divine revelation, he still remained concern “that I might be running, or had run in vain,” (Gal 2:2). At the conclusion of their meeting, the elders in Jerusalem recognized “that I (Saul) had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised…and recognizing the grace that had been give to me, James and Peter and John…gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles,” (Gal 2:6-9).

 

If Saul sought an unconditional endorsement from the elders for his position on the Gentile question, he apparently did not receive it during this First Jerusalem Council (A.D. 43-44), but neither did the elders hinder the work of Saul among the Gentiles. (This only goes to show that even apostles did not get the answer they sought in the timeframe they desired.) In summary, Saul received a “commission” from the elders to the Gentiles and would hereafter, refer to himself as “the apostle to the Gentiles,” (Rom 11:13).  

(to be continued - Scott) 

Paul Opposed Peter For the Sake of Heaven - Part 1 of 4

“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)

 

It is reported that Hillel and Shammai had over 300 disputes. These disputes were considered positive disputes because they were "for the sake of heaven." (Much thanks to Sandi for this thought in our discussion last night because it was pertinent to what I was writting about.)

 

“Every dispute that is for the sake of heaven will endure in the end, but one that is not for the sake of heaven will not endure in the end. Which dispute was for the sake of heaven? The dispute between Hillel and Shammai.” (Ethics of the Fathers 5:17)

 

The number of disputes recorded between Paul and Peter is considerably less than 300. One thing all four men had in common, their disputes were “for the sake of heaven.”

 

After 2000 years, why do we, like Paul and Peter, still find ourselves disputing what commandments a Gentile is obligated to keep?  Because if we dispute from the right heart, these disputes are "for the sake of the kingdom."  Therefore, do not expect that the disputes among believers will be settled next week, next month, or even next year.   In the right heart, these disputes are “for the sake of the kingdom,” because they cause us to grow in our understanding, and “will endure to the end,” which I understand as the return of the Messiah.

 

One of the great disputes among the apostles is recorded between Paul and Peter. Most see this encounter as the pinnacle of the great debate between “works and faith” where Paul “did not yield in subjection…for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain,” (Gal 2:5). Commentary from my Community Bible Study states the common interpretation, “Paul’s…action is so crucial to the preservation of the truth of the gospel – justification by faith in Jesus Christ – that he confronts Peter and exhorts the Galatian believers who are foolishly following Peter’s example.” While justification by faith is a fundamental principle of our belief, it must always be held in tension with our obligation toward obedience and the call to perform good works. While it is true that this encounter between Paul and Peter became the catalyst for the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council, I begin with a totally different question. What was Peter doing in Antioch in the first place?

 

Most scholars, Daniel Lancaster included in Volume 6 of the Torah Club, simply believe that Peter was visiting the church in Antioch. However, Peter’s visitation to Antioch before Acts 15 runs contrary to his other recorded travels and his ministry to the circumcised, (Gal 2:7). Antioch was primarily a Gentile community in Syria. Although Antioch has a Jewish community, the primary concentration of the circumcision was found in Israel. Scripture records that Peter traveled throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria (Acts 9:31-32), but not north of Galilee. Even Peter’s encounter with the Gentile Cornelius came at Caesarea, on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, in Israel.

 

In the Book of Acts, you always find Peter in Israel and most often in Jerusalem. Following the stoning of Stephen (A.D. 30), “they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles,” (Acts 8:1). Later, Peter went up to Samaria only after word reached Jerusalem that “Samaria had received the word of God,” (Acts 8:7). Three years after Saul’s Damascus road encounter, Saul found Peter in Jerusalem and spent fifteen days with him (A.D. 33), (Gal 1:18). Over a decade later, on Saul’s next visit to Jerusalem, he met with the “pillars,” James, Peter, and John (A.D. 44), (Gal 2:9).

 

When Paul and Barnabas returned to Jerusalem several years later for the Acts 15 Council (A.D. 48), Peter is present. Only on Paul’s final trip to Jerusalem (A.D. 58)(Acts 21), is Peter not present. Peter’s first epistle, addressed “To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Pet 1:1), implies that Peter knew believers from these areas. However, the Book of Galatians is the only source in scripture, that I am aware of, which shows Peter outside of Israel prior to Acts 15. So when and why did Peter leave Israel since the largest concentration of the “circumcision” lived in Israel?

 

(to be continued - Scott) 

Sin, Suffering, and Righteousness - Part 1 of 9

The tragedy at the Sandy Hook elementary school evokes a universal question, “Why did such suffering happen to the innocent and defenseless of our society?” Even closer to home, the daughter of Erv Miller, a man who has done extensive remodeling and repair to our structures at Trails End Ranch in Colorado, died on Thursday (1/31/2013). Her death was the result of a genetic disorder whose final consequences were known in advance, but that can hardly make the passing of a child any easier. Why do bad things happen to the innocent, or as the disciples asked nearly two thousand years ago, “Rabbi, who sinned…that he would be born blind?”

 

“As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. 2 And His disciples asked Him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?’ 3 Jesus answered, ‘It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him’”. (John 9:1-4)

 

“Why Bad Things Happen to Good People” is a universal question men have asked from creation. In one sense the answer is straight forward and easy to understand, while on the other hand, the explanation is quite complicated and the specifics much more elusive. At least Adam was privileged to have an answer, “Cursed is the ground because of you,” (Gen 3:15).

 

It can be said with some certainty that sin is the primary source, if not the only source, of suffering. If Adam had not sinned in the Garden, suffering on the magnitude we observe would not occur. It was only as a result of Adam’s sin that the ground became cursed, “In toil you will eat of it…till you return to the ground…for you are dust, and to dust you shall return,” (Gen 3:17-19). The close relationship between sin and suffering is expressed by the words of the disciples, “who sinned…that he would be born blind.” For the disciples, the first century Pharisees, and even the friends of Job, there was a simple cause-and-effect relationship between sin and suffering. The Jewish Sages assumed that all suffering, in some way or another, resulted from sin:

 

“There is no suffering without iniquity, for it is written, ‘Then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with strip,’ (Psa 89:32). There is no death without sin, for it is written, ‘The person who sins will die,’” (Ezek 18:20). (b Shabbat 55a)(Everyman's Talmud, 1949 Ed, page 111).

 

SUFFERING THAT RESULTS FROM SIN

 

In the gospel accounts, Jesus often associated the suffering of an individual with the sins of that individual. When healing the paralytic on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, Jesus said, “Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven,” (Matt 9:2). To the man who was lowered by his friends though the roof of Peter’s house Jesus said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven,” (Luke 5:20). The words of Jesus clearly angered the teachers of the law who said, “who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7). Not only did Jesus demonstrate that He has the authority from the Father to forgive sins, He validated the understanding that personal suffering can originate from personal sin. After healing the lame man by the pool of Bethesda, Jesus warned the man,

 

“Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you,” (John 5:11).

 

In the story of the man beside the pool of Bethesda, Jesus directly connects the suffering of this man to the man’s own personal sin. Later in the gospel of John, Jesus defends a woman caught in the act of adultery. After the woman’s accusers have left, Jesus said, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more." (John 8:10-11). For a second time, the apostle John gives us an example of personal suffering that originates from personal sin. The stories from the gospel of John summon the reader to examine his own life and “sin no more.” The Book of John is the favorite gospel account of many believers because of John’s emphasis on love and grace, but John also provides some of the strongest correlations between personal sin and suffering.

 

The association between sin and suffering is consistent with the biblical principle of “measure for measure,” reflected in the words of Moses, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,” (Ex 21:24). The Jewish sages said,

 

“All the judgments of the Holy One, blessed be He, are on the basis of measure for measure.” AND “There is no suffering without iniquity.” (Ibid) 

 

The correlation between sin and suffering is reflected in the epistles where Paul wrote, “whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption,” (Gal 6:7-8). The ultimate reaping of sin results in death, as Paul wrote, “The wages of sin is death,” (Rom 6:23), and “death spread to all men, because all sinned,” (Rom 5:12). James tells us, “Sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death,” (James 2:15).

 

Although personal suffering originates from personal sin, the lifetime smoker who contracts cancer for example, much personal suffering results from the sin of other individuals or the collective sin of the community where a person lives. More often than not, it is difficult to connect a particular sin to a subsequent form of suffering although people try to make that connection all the time. Sin and its related consequence can be compared to one person who dropped a stone into a lake.  When only one stone is dropped, it is easy to connect the subsequent ripple to the original stone. However, when multiple stones are dropped, the subsequent ripples interact with one another both altering and magnifying the original ripples into waves. It then becomes impossible to connect a wave at any location in the lake to the originating stones. In the same way, the complex interaction of many individual sins impacts a community in ways that are difficult to comprehend.

 

In the nation of Israel, all the people were held accountable when the leaders believed the evil report of the ten spies, not the good report of Joshua and Caleb. Whether or not each individual in the nation believed the account of the ten evil spies, scripture tells us that “the congregation,” i.e. Israel, complained against the LORD, (Num 14:27). As a result, all of the individuals twenty years old and older were condemned to wander for forty years and die in the wilderness, expect Joshua and Caleb.  Even the righteous man Lot, “felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds” (2 Pet 2:8), of the people he lived among.  In the first century, it was the leaders who condemned the people of that generation by saying, “His (Jesus) blood shall be on us and on our children,” (Matt 27:25).

 

The strong sense of “community” among the Jewish people is derived from their common ancestry, their common salvation, and a third aspect, the common accountability of one Jew for another. When a single individual, “Achan son of Carmi,” took some of the devoted things during the conquest of Jericho, the LORD proclaimed not just Achan, but “the Israelites acted unfaithfully,” (Josh 7:1) and “Israel has sinned; they have violated my covenant,” (Josh 7:11). When David sinned by numbering the people, all the people of Israel became subject to judgment, “wrath came on Israel on account of this numbering,” (1 Chron 27:24). Ultimately, all men suffer because we are part of a larger community that sins, though we do not always understand the interaction of each sin.

 

Abraham Lincoln saw the Civil War as a judgment on the nation for the sin of slavery. In his second inaugural address, Lincoln connected the death toll of the war to the suffering of slaves.

 

“Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God will that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, ‘the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.’”

 

Few of the men who died in the civil war owned slaves. Yet, Abraham equated the blood of those who did not own slaves as payment for the sin of slavery. So it is today. We suffer for our sins and also for the collective sins of our community where we allow sin to thrive. 

 

(to be continued.  The underlying document for this post continues to evolve.  Any comments that helps this evolution of understanding are appreciated - Scott)

What's For Dinner - Part 7 of 7

THE CALL TO GREATER COMPLIANCE

“For what does the Holy One, Blessed be He, care whether a man kills an animal by the throat or by the nape of its neck. Hence its purpose is to refine man.” (Gen.R. 44:1, Lev.R. 13:3)

 

Having argued that Gentile believers are not under the full weight of the dietary commandments, it is important to appreciate that there are great blessings from understanding and participating in these commandments. If a person can learn to control what he eats, that person can learn to muster control against all forms of physical temptation such as greed, lust, and anger. In reference to the dietary laws, Maimonides noted,

 

“These ordinances seek to train us in the mastery of our appetites. They accustom us to restrain both the growth of desire and disposition to consider the pleasure of eating as the end of man’s existence,” (Guide, 3:48).

 

Most “Christians” have a tendency to discard commandments in the law without attempting to understand the greater principles that are being taught. The commandments of God are not arbitrary and capricious, as the lawyer might argue, but are always given with the purpose of teaching a deeper truth. The goal of kashrut is holiness in the individual and the nation. Kashrut demands sacrifice, self-discipline, determination, and the courage to turn our face against the powerful current of conformity that daily strives to overcome us. It was the inability to resist the temptation of food that resulted in both the first sinful act in the Garden and the decision of Esau to sell his birthright.

 

Speaking from a personal perspective, I feel a greater calling toward obedience to the commandments of the law, but also acknowledge that I am a Gentile who has not been placed under the same obligation as the Jew to all the commandments. However, the ability to understand the commandments grows through observance. Observance both enables the believer to “walk in the same manner as He (Jesus) walked” (1 John 2:6), and moves the world closer toward a future time when “the law will go forth from Zion and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem,” (Isa 2:3).

 

The transition to greater observance does not take place overnight and consequnetly, there will always be believers in different phases of understanding at any given time. I think this was probably the norm in the early Gentile church.  Those who are farther along in their transformation should not look down on those who are just beginning, nor should beginners be discouraged by their inability to fulfill all the commandments. If I am compelled to celebrate a special day to the LORD, other believers should not be offended by my action nor should I look down with contempt on those who do not chose to adhere as I do.

 

“Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day — 17 things which are a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.” (Col 2:16-17)

THE END - Scott

What's For Dinner - Part 6 of 7

THE PRINCIPLE BEHIND THE DIETARY LAWS

“'Who eat swine's flesh, detestable things and mice, Will come to an end altogether,' declares the LORD.” (Isa 66:17)

Faithful adherence to the dietary laws is important for the preservation of the nation of Israel. For this reason, many Jews have historically maintained kashrut to the point of endangering their lives, as in the days of Antiochus IV (145 BCE)(II Macc. 6:18). The question is why the LORD would prohibit for the Jewish people what He deemed permissible for the Gentile people? The words of Moses do not provide a specific reason, although several passages closely associate the dietary laws with the concept of “holiness.”

 

“You shall be holy men to Me, therefore you shall not eat any flesh torn to pieces in the field; you shall throw it to the dogs.” (Ex 22:31)

 

“For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth. 45 For I am the LORD who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.” (Lev 11:44-45)

 

“You shall not eat anything which dies of itself. You may give it to the alien who is in your town, so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner, for you are a holy people to the LORD your God. You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk.” (Deut 14:21)

 

To be “holy” means “to be set apart” for the LORD, as it is written, “You are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine,” (Lev 20:26). The LORD called the people of Israel to be a separate and distinct people. He then gave the Law through Moses to teach the people about His nature and to keep the people from assimilating into the rest of the nations. Through the Law, the Jewish people remain as the only ancient people who can trace their ancestry back to its origin. The Encyclopaedia Judaica concluded that when the people of abandoned the Law, “A decline in traditional Jewish practice, including kashrut, accompanied the breakdown of traditional culture (shtetl), growing urbanization in Eastern Europe, and the dislocations caused by immigration to American and other havens.”

The Law calls the Jewish people to be unique through their observance of the Sabbath, the annual festivals, offerings at the temple, the laws of clean and unclean, and the dietary laws. Whereas the festivals create an annual separation and the Sabbath creates a weekly separation, the dietary laws distinguish the Jew from the Gentile three times each day. By separating the Hebrew people from the other nations, the LORD protected the nation from the unrighteous and idol worshiping people so they did not adopt the practices of the pagan world. The preservation of the nation, was, and remains, essential to God’s plan because the Messiah would come through the nation, (Gal 3:19).

 

Abraham Cohen provides two applicable quotes related to this matter. “History is largely a record of the melting of minorities into majorities, it records no instance of the survival of a group not segregated in space or not protected by a burning faith as by a frontier of fire (Zangwill).” In relation to the Jewish people, “The separateness of the Jews was one of the prime causes of the animosity towards them, especially in the miscellaneous fusion of peoples and syncretism of righteous in the Hellenistic kingdoms and the Roman world; but it accomplished its end in the survival of Judaism, and therein history has vindicated it (G.F. Moore).”

 

One of the great dangers facing the present day church is the failure of believers to live in a manner that sets the church apart from the rest of the world. Gentile believers are commanded to be holy just as the Jewish people (1 Pet 1:16), but how does that commandment translate into practical behavior that set us apart from the world? Most non-believers do not murder, do not steal, give to those less fortunate, and love their parents. Non-believers may have a high rate of infidelity and divorce, but statistics indicate that the church may be worse. Frankly, believers love participating in this world too much, acting in a way contrary to the warning of John,

 

“If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not form the Father, but is from the world,” (1 John 2:15-16).

 

Jewish people are often accused of being unsociable and standoffish. In reality, it is the word of God that commanded them to be this way and has protected them from assimilating into the nations of the world. The Christian church needs to learn this lesson before the greater body dissolves into the environment around us. To be part of the remnant that the LORD has promised to preserve, we need to “Be Holy, For I Am Holy.”

(to be continued - Scott)