David and Bathsheba: Another Consideration

 
DAVID AND BATHSHEBA
 
“It happened, late one afternoon, when David arouse from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing: and the woman was very beautiful. And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, ‘Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?’ So David sent messengers and took her, and she came to him, and he lay with her. (Now she had been purifying herself from her uncleanness).” (2 Sam 11:2-4, ESV)
 
One of the most famous stories of personal failure in scripture is that of David and Bathsheba. Typical commentary about the encounter place Bathsheba bathing in the nude in the courtyard of her own home, but is that really what scripture conveys? I credit Mark with the following insight.
 
Mark was recently reading the story of David and Bathsheba and noticed the phrasing in relationship to Bathsheba, “Now she had been purifying herself from her uncleanness.” This translation from the ESV implies that the purifying of Bathsheba came prior to her relationship with David. This is different from the wording of the NASB, “He lay with her: and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house,” (2 Sam 11:4). The NASB implies an original bath which caught the eye of David, followed by a subsequent bath after her relationship with David. The ESV implies a single bath taken for “purifying herself”, i.e., the act of mikvah.
 
Most translations support the English Standard Version including the KJV, “For she was purified from her uncleanness” and the Tanak, “She had just purified herself after her period.” Rather that scandalously bathing to entrap David, as is sometimes the interpretation, Bathsheba was performing the commandment of a faithful Jew and purifying herself. This understanding is supported by commentary from the publishers of the ArtScroll,
 
“The bathing that David had witnessed was her ritual immersion, as required for a woman following menstruation.” (The Prophets (The Rubin Edition), 2002 Edition, page 265)
 
The fact that Bathsheba was purifying herself after her monthly cycle removes any doubt as to her condition at the time of her encounter with David. Further, the mikvah where Bathsheba purified herself offered witnesses to the fact that she was not pregnant. This made the matter much more urgent for the king when she told David, “I am pregnant,” (2 Sam 11:5). Without these witnesses at the mikvah, the matter might have been easily concealed. So where did Bathsheba mikvah? Somewhere in the proximity of David's palace.
 
David lived in a palace in the City of David. Some archeologists place the palace of David in the northeastern slope, at the highest point in the city. In addition, it was common practice for kings to build the tallest structures both for protection and status. One example of this approach comes from Josephus during the times of the apostles. According to Josephus, “King Herod Agrippa could look out from his Hasmonean Palace…and view the sacrifices at the Azarah, at the altar of the Second Temple. This incensed the Jews, who then built a wall extending the height of the western rear wall of the Temple proper in order to block the view.”  (www.temlemount.org/theories.html).
 
David’s palace was adjacent to Mount Moriah and overlooked one of the ascents to the future Temple and the location of mikva’ot for priests and pilgrams who would enter the temple complex. However, at this time, the temple had not been constructed and the ark resided in a tent “which David had pitched for it” (2 Sam 6:17), in the city of David. The exact location of this tent is unknown, but it would be reasonable to expect that it was in close proximity to the palace of David. It would also be reasonable to expect mikva’ot in the proximity of the tent containing the ark so that those who carried the ark or ministered before the ark could maintain a state of holiness.
 
Mikva’ot required for purification were primarily public structures since few homes could afford access to the “living water” required for purification. It is probably into a mikva’ot close to the palace of David that Bathsheba went to purify herself. From David’s vantage point, “walking on the roof of the king’s house,” he had opportunity to look down on all the structures, including mikva’ot, within the City of David. On the roof, David was standing on the highest point of the tallest structure built on the highest geographic elevation in the City of David.
 
Rather than bathing to attract the attention of David, as some have speculated, Bathsheba should be seen as a faithful Jew purifying herself in a public mikva’ot “late one afternoon,” according to the commandments. In this context, Bathsheba was doing exactly what she was commanded to do. This can be a lesson for us. Sometimes bad things happen even when we are performing acts of worship and obedience consistent with the word of God.
 
Had David looked down on the mikvah before or just this one time? Scripture does not say. Although thousands of woman presumably passed through this mikvah monthly, Bathsheba was the one in the wrong place at the wrong time that caught David’s eye. David’s actions are unrighteous as seen in the rebuke of Nathan and the punishment of God on David and his household. However, the actions of Bathsheba should not be seen as sinful since she had been acting righteously and had no power to resist the will of David. For this reason, Bathsheba was permitted to be the mother of Solomon and elevated by name, along with her righteous husband Uriah, in the genealogy of the Messiah, (Matt 1:6).
 
(Scott and Mark - Austin)

Without Faith(fulness)...(Part 1)

  
This post begins an 8-part series on faith.  The intention is to broaden the understanding of the word to the biblical pattern, which I believe is more correctly understood as "faithfulness".

WITHOUT FAITH(FULNESS), IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE GOD: INTRODUCTION

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, ‘But the righteous one shall live by faith.” (Rom 1:16-17) 

The apostle Paul is famous for his position on faith, generally interpreted as faith over works. The foundational proof text for his position comes from the prophet Habakkuk, “The righteous will live by his faith,” (Hab 2:4).
  
Paul was not the first to see these words of Habakkuk as principle for the life of the saints. Around the time of the apostles, the Hebrew Sages set about grouping the 613 commandments into common themes to establish the foundational concepts of God’s word. Identifying the underlying principles provided an appropriate course of action for questions not specifically addressed by the commandments. The thought process of the Sages is recorded in the Talmud (Makkot 23b-24a) and concludes with the words of Habakkuk, “The righteous will live by his faith,” (Hab 2:4).

Rather than being a revolutionary idea, Paul was simply validating his arguments on a position already firmly established in Judaism.  However, the actions and teachings of the rabbis did not demonstrate an understanding that Habakkuh could be used as an eraser to remove all, or even some of the commandments in the Torah.

(Part 2 - The Original Hebrew Word: Faithfulness - Scott)

The Gentile Question - Part 7

A CONTINUING DISPUTE FOR THE SAKE OF HEAVEN

“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) 

Most believers fail to recognize that the dispute between Peter and Paul was the catalyst for significant good. Without this dispute, the technicals of Gentile redemption would have remained in question. It is reported that Hillel and Shammai had over 300 disputes. In the eyes of their disciples and the Talmudic writers who followed, these disputes were considered positive disputes because they were “for the sake of heaven”. What makes a dispute “for the sake of heaven”, according to Pirket Avot, these disputes “endure in the end.” Although believers tend to view all disputes in a negative light, many disputes motivate believers to dig deep into the word to seek an answer in scripture. In this manner, a dispute can actually lead to a mitzvah, the study of God’s word. When a dispute results in many fulfilling a positive commandment, that dispute is likely to “endure in the end.” 

After nearly 2000 years, why are believers still disputing what commandments Gentiles are obligated to keep? Because if this dispute is from the right heart and the study of scripture, it is “for the sake of heaven.” Therefore, do not expect that this or any similar dispute among believers will be settled in the next week, next month, or next year. From the right heart, disputes “for the sake of the kingdom” cause believers to grow in our understanding and “will endure to the end,” which I understand as alluding to the return of the Messiah. In summary, the sequence of events previously discussed can be roughly dated as follows, plus or minus a year: 

A.D. 30 – Passover crucifixion of Jesus 

A.D. 30 – (as late as A.D. 33) Fall persecution of Stephen. Saul’s persecution of the church and encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus 

A.D.30 – (as late as A.D. 33) Jews in Antioch first hear the word from those scattered from Jerusalem after the persecution of Stephen, (Acts 11:19). 

A.D. 33 – (as late as A.D. 36) Saul returns to Jerusalem for the first time after encountering Jesus on the road to Damascus (A.D. 30). He meets with Peter (Gal 1:18), James (Gal 1:19) and is befriended by Barnabas. Paul left Jerusalem when the Hellenistic Jews attempted to put him to death, (Acts 9:26-29). 

A.D. 42 – Men of Cyprus and Cyrene came to Antioch and preached to the Greeks and a large number believed (Acts 11:21). Baranabas is sent from Jerusalem to investigate. He then goes to Tarsus and brings back Saul who teaches for an entire year, (Acts 11:22-26). 

A.D. 43 – Men came from Jerusalem and prophesized of a world-wide famine, (Acts 11:28). 

A.D. 43 – Saul and Barnabas arrived in Jerusalem at the time of the fall feasts to deliver “a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea,” (Acts 11:29). 

A.D. 44 – Passover, James killed and Peter imprisoned by Herod Agrippa I, (Acts 12:1-19) 

A.D. 44 – Saul, Barnabas, along with John Mark returned to Antioch, (Acts 12:25) 

A.D. 45 – From Antioch, Saul, Barnabas, and John Mark began Paul’s first missionary journey, (Acts 13:1-14:28). 

A.D. 47 – (as late as A.D. 49) Paul and Barnabas, absent John Mark, return to Antioch (Acts 14:26) and find Peter separating himself from the Gentile believers, (Gal 2:11-21)(Acts 15:1). 

A.D. 47 – (as late as A.D. 50) Paul, Barnabas (Acts 15:2), Titus (Gal 2:1), and Peter go to Jerusalem to settle the Gentile question once for all time, (Acts 15:6-35). 

A.D. 50 – (or as late as A.D. 55) Paul writes to the Galatians The dates given are plus or minus a year (or two). 

To paraphrase Daniel Lancaster, you are always allowed plus or minus a year when dating biblical events.

(THE END - Scott)

The Gentile Question (Part 5 - Again)

 

I have written a discussion on the Gentile question, but have had some technical difficulties with the posting, which I hope are resolved.  Bryan had to renew the Dusty Disciple account, which I guess expires periodically.  I noticed a number of posts were returning to my email address as undeliverable.  Please visit the blog to read parts 4 and 5 if you are interested.  The question is fascinating to me because I think the understanding of the church is incorrectly bent toward a "faith verses works" mentality, when the real question was whether or not a Gentile needed to become a proselyte to participate in the promises given to Abraham.  Up to this point the discussion sub-headings have been:

 
+ The Gentile Question
+ Go to All the Nations
+ Paul's Gospel for the Gentiles...In Christ
+ Paul's Gospel in the Jewish World
+ Paul's Gospel in the Early Church
  
The remaining chapters are:
  
+ The Determination of the Elders In Jerusalem
+ A Continuing Dispute for the Sake of Heaven



 THE DETERMINATION OF THE ELDERS IN JERUSALEM
   

As a direct consequence of the dispute between Paul and Peter, “the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas…should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue,” (Acts 15:2), and speak with those of “high reputation” (Gal 2:6). Along with Barnabas, Paul brought Titus (Gal 2:3), to the elders to press the question of circumcision for Gentile believers. Either Paul needed someone to watch the suitcases while he and Barnabas went into the temple, or Paul had an ulterior motive. If the elders were going to require circumcision of Gentile believers, they were going to begin by telling Titus face to face.

 

When Paul and Barnabas stood before the Jerusalem Council they related the signs and wonders God had done through them. However, and largely overlooked, it was the words of Peter, not Paul, that carried the day and 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 receive the credit he deserves for listening to Paul. Peter heard Paul criticism, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentles and not like the Jews” (Gal 2:14), and reformulated it to tell the elders not to place the Gentiles under “A yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” (Acts 15:10). We can only surmise what would have happened if Peter’s anger had kept him from hearing the message behind Paul criticism.

 

The Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 determined that Gentile believers would not be under the same obligation to the commandments as their Jewish brethren. Further, The council recognized that Paul “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).

 

Paul received a “commission” from the elders to the Gentiles and would hereafter, refer to himself as “the apostle to the Gentiles,” (Rom 11:13). Further, the decision of Acts 15 forever determined, in the words of Paul, that “Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called,” (1 Cor 7:20). Paul and Barnabas, took the letter written by James and the elders back to a group of Gentile believers in Antioch who anxiously waited to find out their fate in the faith.

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

(Scott)

The Gentile Question (Part 4 - Revised)

 
(Do to a previous problem with the Google Blog, I am resubmitting Part 4 to be followed by Part 5 of this series on the Gentile question motivated by Teresa's book "Paul and Rabbinic Judaism," WD Davies, 1965)
 
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, page 113)

 

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 position of access to the nation without becoming a proselyte 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.

 

To support his position that Gentile’s have access to the promises of Israel apart from circumcision, Paul developed a midrash based on the writings of Isaiah, “‘Shout for joy, O barren one, you who have borne no child…For the sons of the desolate one will be more numerous than the sons of the married woman,’ says the LORD,” (Isa 54:1). The sages understood that the barren woman was Sarah, seen as the mother of the promise and a metaphor for Jerusalem and Zion. So great would be those who ultimately came through the promise, Jews and Gentiles, that Sarah would need to, “Enlarge the place of your tent; Stretch out the curtains of your dwellings...Your descendants will possess nations” (Isa 54:2-3), which sounds like a reference to the Gentiles.  Paul used this understanding when he wrote,

 

“For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise…” (Gal 4:21-31)

 

This often misunderstood midrash of Paul was not arguing Grace verses the Law of Moses or old covenant verses new covenant, as is a common interpretation. According to Dan Lancaster, Paul was using this quotation in Isaiah to argue against the need for Gentiles to be circumcised to have access to the promises of Israel (Isaiah Audio, Lesson 9-3, 3rd – 11th minute).

 

According to Paul, Sarah allegorically represented the heavenly Jerusalem, the “Jerusalem above” (Gal 4:24), while Hagar represents the earthly Jerusalem. The earthly Jerusalem bears, “children who are slaves,” (Gal 4:24), while the heavenly Jerusalem bears children, like Isaac, “who was born according to the Spirit,” (Gal 4:28).

 

Paul argument is this; when a Gentile follows the man-made path into Israel, i.e., circumcision and becoming a proselyte, that person is not of the promise, but like Hagar who Abraham used to tried and fulfill the promise by his own human ability. However, when a Gentile is brought into Israel through faith in the Messiah, “in Christ”, he follows the path of Isaac, the son of the promise.  Those who attempt to earn the promise through their own efforts will end up having no access to the promise.

 

“But what does scripture say? ‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.’ So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.” (Gal 4:30-31)

 

Paul's midrash did not necessarily sell his position to the other apostles.  Peter called some of Paul’s teaching “hard to understand” (2 Pet 3:16), even though Peter had been an eye witness to the pouring out of the Spirit on Cornelius' household.  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 Chapter - The Gentile Question in the Church, Scott)

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)