 |
| English: Map of the Letters of Galatia (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
|
|
In
the first entry in the Bible Junkies Online Commentary on Galatians, I
discussed introductory matters concerning the founding of the churches to the
Galatians, the situation when Paul wrote to them, when the letter might have
been written and the type of letters which Paul wrote, based on the common
Greco-Roman letters of his day. In
the second post, I considered the basic content and breakdown of a Pauline
letter. I noted the major sections of the formal letter structure and, in the
context of each section, outlined the theological and ethical (as well as
other) concerns of Paul, including some Greek words which will be examined more
fully as we continue with the commentary. In
the third entry, I looked at the salutation, which is long for Paul’s
corpus (only Romans 1:1-7 is longer) and briefly commented on the lack of a
Thanksgiving, the only letter of Paul’s which does not have one. The
fourth entry discussed the opening of the body of the letter, a significant
part of the letter especially in light of the absence of a Thanksgiving. In
the fifth entry, I examined the beginning of the opening of the body of the
letter, in which Paul describes his background in Judaism and I placed this in
the context of Judaism in the Hellenistic period. In the
sixth post in the online commentary, I continued to look at Paul’s
biographical sketch of his life, this concerning his earliest life as a
Christian. In
the seventh post, I examined what Paul says about his subsequent visit to
Jerusalem to see the apostles and the Church in Jerusalem. In this, the eighth
entry, Paul confronts Cephas about his hypocrisy in Antioch.
4. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians
d) Body of the Letter (1:13-6:10):
iii) Paul's Background in the Church 3
(2:11-14):
11 But when Cephas
came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12
for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But
after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the
circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so
that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that
they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to
Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not
like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" (NRSV)
Part of Paul’s
perceived dismissal or disparagement of the other apostles (Galatians 2:6, see
entry 7) might find its origin in the event Paul describes here with Cephas
(Peter) in Antioch. Paul says that he “opposed him {Peter} to his face” (Galatians
2:11) because he was “self-condemned” (kategnôsmenos).[1] The
reason for this condemnation Paul tells us is that “until certain people came
from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles” (Galatians 2:12). When these
Jewish Christians, “from James,” came, Peter would not eat with the Gentile
Christians in Antioch “for fear of the circumcision faction” (Galatians 2:12).
There are three issues to sort out here: What was the problem with Jews eating
with Gentiles? What sort of fear did Peter have with the “circumcision
faction”? Were the “circumcision faction” the same as the people “from James”?
To answer the first
question, the basic issue with Jews eating with Gentiles, which in itself was not forbidden, had to do with
food which was not slaughtered properly or offered in sacrifice to another god,
so this concerns animal flesh, and often Gentile wine, which was considered
impure due to how it was produced. Leviticus 11 and 17 outline the animals
which were forbidden to eat and the blood of kosher animals, which was also
forbidden to eat. One can examine how these guidelines were interpreted and
applied in later rabbinic documents, such as Mishnah Avodah Zarah or Tosefta
Avodah Zarah, which outline what kind of production might lead to (otherwise
legal) food and wine being forbidden.
I offer here my
translation of some mishnahs from Mishnah Avodah Zarah which give a sense of
how certain foods were always forbidden, while some other foods were considered
forbidden to eat depending upon the their production. Some other foods Jews
were not allowed to eat, but could "gain benefit" from them, which indicates
trade in these items. Some other Gentile foods could be consumed. Notice also
that within the Mishnah there are differences among the Rabbis, as the
decisions were not always unanimous. One can see a similar concern taking place
between Peter and Paul in Antioch: what are we allowed to eat and with whom may
we eat it?
Mishnah Avodah 2:3 and 2: 4 consider foods which are
forbidden:
M.2:3- These
things of the Gentiles are forbidden and forbidden to derive benefit from:
wine, and vinegar of the Gentiles that was in the beginning wine, and Hadrianic
pottery, and skins showing a hole at the place of the heart.
R. Simeon ben Gamaliel says,
when the tear of it is round, it is forbidden, and (when it is) elongated it is
allowed. And flesh which is being brought into (a place of) idolatry is
allowed, and that which has entered is forbidden, because they are idolatrous
sacrifices.
According to R. Aqiba, (when)
journeying toward an idolatrous festival it is forbidden to have business
dealings with them, and when returing (home) it is allowed.
M.2:4-
Gentile wine-skins and wine-casks, and Jewish wine which is put in them, are
prohibited and their prohibition is a prohibition of benefit according to R.
Meir. But the sages say, it is not forbidden to derive benefit from them.
Brine and cheese and a theriak[2]
of the Gentiles are forbidden and (it is) forbidden to derive benefit from them
according to R. Meir. But the Sages say it is not forbidden to derive benefit
from them.
The must of grapes and the
inside of Gentile grapes are forbidden and (it is) forbidden to derive benefit
from them according to R. Meir. But the Sages say, it is not forbidden to
derive benefit from it.
In Mishnah Avodah Zarah 2:6, we find the second category: items which a Jew cannot eat or drink, but from which he or she might gain benefit.
M 2:6- These
things of the Gentiles are forbidden and their prohibition is not one of
benefit: milk that a Gentile milked and which no Israelite saw; their bread and
oil; and all boiled foods. Rabbi and his court allowed oil. And preserved
vegetables whose manner (of preservation) was to put them in wine and vinegar;
and chopped pickled fish; and brine in which there is no fish; and a helek
fish; and a grain of assa foetida[3];
and salt of lumpy salt[4]:
behold, these things are forbidden and their prohibition is not one of benefit.
Finally, in
Mishnah Avodah Zarah 2:7 we find a list of foods produced by Gentiles which
Jews may eat and drink.
M.2:7- These
things are permitted to eat: milk which a Gentile milked and which an Israelite
saw; honey; and lumps of dripping grapes, which even though dripping, there is
in them no prohibition even though it renders them susceptible under laws of
kosher liquids; and preserved vegetables whose manner of preservation was not
to put them in wine and vinegar; and pickled fish which was not chopped; and
brine in which there is fish; and a leaf of assa foetida; and a
white olive which is already pressed. R. Judah says pitted olives are forbidden
and locusts from a shopkeeper are forbidden and from a store-house are
permitted as a heave-offering.
I cannot here go into all of the particular reasons these
foods might be forbidden or allowed, but the general issues have to do with whether
a food has become impure during its production or whether the meat was from an animal
which was offered in a pagan sacrifice or whether one can tell whether a particular
fish was forbidden (“pickled
fish which was not chopped” is allowed, supposedly because one can tell what
kind of fish it is). Now the Mishnah was compiled over a century after
Galatians was written, but the sorts of issues discussed here might be the same
issues discussed in Galatians, except with the context of the Jerusalem Council
guiding the deliberations.
This indicates that
the Christians in Antioch were eating food that fell into one of four
categories: it was not kosher in itself (a forbidden animal); it had been
produced in a manner that rendered it unclean or potentially unclean; it had
perhaps been offered to a pagan deity before being purchased and consumed; or it
was kosher meat but not slaughtered according to the kosher rules. It seems
that the Jewish Christians of Antioch, such as Paul, had no problem with eating
“forbidden” food, but that when the people came “from James,” that is,
Jerusalem, Peter became worried. Is this because the Jerusalem Council did not
outline a response to what foods were now able to be eaten by Christians?
According to Acts 15:20, the Gentile Christians are told, “to abstain only from
things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been
strangled and from blood.” Apart from “fornication” (porneia), everything listed here
instructs Gentile Christians not to eat meat that was sacrificed to idols or
slaughtered improperly (“strangled,” which might also be for pagan sacrifice),
or “blood” (outlined for Jews in Leviticus 17). What is not clear in Antioch is
if the Christians there are not adhering to these regulations or if Peter and
the people “from James” believe that they must go farther than these
regulations and follow all of the Laws of Moses, since they are still Jews.
In answer to the
second question, it seems that the “fear” Peter had emerged from not knowing
what the standards were for eating and whether he was breaking either the
Church’s own guidelines as determined by the Jerusalem Council or whether he
ought to follow the Law of Moses fully. It is an odd scene in light of Acts
10-11, which indicates that Peter had a vision in which Jesus declared to him that
all foods were clean and that Gentiles ought to be accepted as Gentiles into
the Church; these chapters in fact form a major impetus for the calling of the
Jerusalem Council in the narrative of Acts of the Apostles. So maybe Peter had
no problem with eating any food, but with being judged by some of his fellow
Christians.
And that leads to
the third question: was the “circumcision faction” the same group as the people
“from James”? It seems they must be in this case, though, I think it is
important to distinguish them from the “false believers” or “false brothers” of
Galatians 2:4, who demanded the circumcision of the Gentile Christians.
According to Acts 15, James agreed that Gentile Christians did not need to be
circumcised, but he sent a letter with guidelines regarding expectations for
eating food and for sexual behavior. Circumcision did not seem to be an issue
for the Christians in Antioch. There were Christians in Jerusalem, though,
described in Acts 15:1 and 5 who demanded that Gentile Christians had to be
circumcised and follow the entire Law of Moses. The people who influenced Peter
in Antioch seem to be Christians who felt that perhaps Gentiles did not have to
follow the Law of Moses, but that Jewish Christians still had to do so. What
this indicates is that the Jerusalem Council might not have fully explored the
implications for the Church of table fellowship among Jewish and Gentile
Christians. The people “from James” might have had one interpretation of what
this meant – separate tables – while Paul interpreted it otherwise – we all eat
together. The “circumcision faction” might be then the people “from James,” or
more inclusively the people “from James” with those Jewish Christians who
joined with them in Antioch to eat apart from the Gentile Christians.
This seems to be
supported by Galatians 2:13, when it says that “the other Jews joined him
{Peter} in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their
hypocrisy.” Paul names it as “hypocrisy” and so he clearly felt it, being betrayed,
it would seem, by his good friend and co-worker Barnabas. It is entirely
possible, though, that Peter and Barnabas felt this was the right thing to do
according to the Jerusalem Council, or even a proper compromise in light of the
people “from James” and their views, or, as Paul said earlier, perhaps it was
genuine “fear,” whether of insulting their visitors or of doing the wrong thing
or just being cowardly. Paul sees it as a misreading of the Gospel
theologically and a division of the Church sociologically, as a separation of
who can eat with who would ultimately lead to a divided Church, with Gentile
Christians not even being considered true Christians.
Paul accuses Peter
and the others of “not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel”
(Galatians 2:14). The verb Paul uses here, orthopodousin,
means “walking straight,” so Peter is “not walking straight with the truth of
the Gospel” or we might say, Peter is “walking away from the truth of the
Gospel.” In Galatians 2:4-5, Paul had spoken of the “freedom we have in Christ
Jesus” and the “truth of the Gospel,” which he sees as incongruent with forcing
Gentiles to follow the Law of Moses or making them feel that they are not
genuine or full Christians.
As a result Paul
challenges Peter publically: “I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though
a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles
to live like Jews?’” This is a strong public declaration of Paul’s
understanding of the Gospel to defy Peter in front of their fellow Christians.
Paul is clear, however, that the Christian life does not demand the Law of
Moses, whether one is a Jewish Christian or a Gentile Christian, and that
Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians can eat together regardless of the food
they are eating.
Next entry, works of the Law or faith in Christ?
John W. Martens
I invite you to follow
me on Twitter @Biblejunkies
I encourage you to
“Like” Biblejunkies on Facebook.
This entry is cross-posted at America
Magazine The Good Word
[1] “Self” does not actually appear in the Greek –
“he stood condemned” or “he was condemned” is the more literal reading.
[2] Theriak is a type of sour cream, used as
an antidote for poisonous bites and a remedy in general.
[3] A
resin used for spice or medicinal purposes.
[4] It
was believed that the entrails of unclean animals were used to polish its
surface.
0 comments:
Post a Comment