It's always rather gratifying to come across someone who's come to the same conclusion(s) that you're rather leaning toward, especially if it's someone you respect. If nothing else, it lets you know you're not completely crazy. Yesterday I read this in Wuest's Word Studies on Galatians 2:11-13:
"Here the argument for Paul's apostolic independence has come to the highest level yet attained. In Jerusalem Paul faced Peter as an equal in rank and in the gospel ministry. At Antioch he faced him as his superior in character and courage.
Translation. But when Kephas came to Antioch, to his face I opposed him, because he stood condemned.
Verse twelve. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles. It is clear that these men were sent by James, men of importance as is shown by the deference with which Peter treated them, and the obsequiousness with which he bowed to their requests. They were not from the ranks of the Judaizers, for James would not send men of that stamp, but Jewish Christians of Jerusalem who like James were still most scrupulous in their obedience to the Mosaic law. James, even after the decision of the council at Jerusalem regarding the relation of the law to Gentile converts to Christianity, still held to the view that the Jewish converts were under the law. James was the occasion of Paul's lapse when the apostle at his request took upon himself a Jewish vow to show the Jews in Jerusalem that he was still a strict Jew (Acts 21:18-26). Here he was the occasion of Peter's lapse when he sent this mission to Antioch with the purpose of enforcing the Mosaic law to far as the Jewish Christians were concerned. News had reached Jerusalem that Jewish and Gentile Christians were eating together, hence the mission from James.
The words eat with are from sunesthio. The verb is in the imperfect tense. The preposition sun prefixed to the verb implies close fellowship or cooperation. The tense of the verb tells us that it was a practice of Peter to eat with the Gentiles. The preposition speaks of the fact that in the act of joining in their meals, not only in the Christian love-feast which was connected with the worship program of the local church, but also in their homes, Peter was on terms of the greatest intimacy. The love-feast was recognized as the bond of fellowship in the infant church.
The probable origin of the Antioch practice of Jew and Gentile eating together, was that the church argued that since the Jerusalem council had upheld the position of Paul on the freedom of the Gentiles from the obligation of circumcision, that all restrictions of the Mosaic economy had been set aside. This would include the Levitical legislation regarding foods. The foods previously forbidden the Jew and found on Gentile tables, now could be included in his menu. Accordingly, the Jewish and Gentile Christians welcomed the opportunity of Christian fellowship at meals. This practice could not have been in force before the Jerusalem council, for, had it been, that question would also have been dealt with. Peter, finding this situation at Antioch, fell in with it in his usual impetuous way. The church at Jerusalem, hearing of his actions, sent this deputation to investigate. These men sent by James, found Peter eating with the Gentiles."
"Translation. For before certain from James came, with the Gentiles it was his habit to eat meals. But when they came, he began gradually to draw himself back, and began slowly to effect a final separation, fearing those of the circumcision.
Verse thirteen. This verse gives the result of Peter's action in the church at Antioch. The Jewish Christians there refused to eat anymore with their Gentile brethren in the Lord. The church was split wide open on the issue. The love-feast, that bond of fellowship expressive of Christian love amongst the brethren, was divided into two groups. The friendly groups of Jews and Gentiles in the fellowship of the home were discontinued. The fact that the Jews of the Antioch church followed Peter in his withdrawal from the Gentiles, shows that the entire group had eaten with the latter.
Paul says that the Jews dissembled with Peter. The word is from hupokrinomai, which speaks of the act of concealing one's real character under the guise of conduct implying something different. The word itself means literally "to answer from under," as an actor who speaks from under a mask. Our word hypocrite comes from this Greek word. It usually referred to the act of concealing wrong feelings or character under the pretence of better ones.
But in the present case, the knowledge, judgment, and feelings which were concealed, were worse only from the viewpoint of those who had come from Jerusalem of whom Peter and the Antioch Jews were afraid. From Paul's viewpoint, it was their better knowledge which they covered up by their misconduct, the usual type of hypocrisy that proceeds from fear. Paul, by characterizing their actions as hypocrisy, implied that there had been no real change of conviction on the part of Peter and the rest of the Jews, but only conduct that misrepresented their true convictions.
But now regarding Barnabas, the fact that he was swept off his feet and carried away with their hypocrisy. It was bad enough for Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles and the champion of Gentile liberty from the law, to have Peter act as he did. But the hypocrisy of Barnabas was the cruel blow. With the single exception of Paul, Barnabas had been the most effective minister of the gospel in the conversion of the Gentiles. He had been deputed with Paul by the Antioch church to the council at Jerusalem as its representative. He had come back with the news that the position held by Paul and himself with regard to Gentile freedom from circumcision had been sustained by the Jerusalem apostles. Now, his withdrawal from social fellowship with the Gentiles, came with the force of a betrayal to Paul and the church at Antioch. The defection of Barnabas was of a far more serious nature with regard to Gentile freedom than the vacillation of Peter. Barnabas was Paul's chief colleague in the evangelization of the Gentiles, and now to have him play the hypocrite and deserter, was a bitter blow to the great apostle. This may well have prepared the way for the dissension between them which shortly afterwards led to their separation (Acts 15:39). Barnabas, the foremost champion of Gentile liberty next to Paul, had become a turncoat.
Translation. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite jointly with him, so that even Barnabas was swept along with their hypocrisy.
Verse fourteen. The word translated uprightly is from orthpodeo. Orthos means straight, and pous, which has the same root as the verb podeo, means foot, literally "to walk with straight feet," thus "to walk a straight course." It speaks of straightforward, unwavering, sincere conduct in contrast to a crooked, wavering, and more or less insincere course such as Paul had said Peter and the other Jews were guilty of. Keeping in mind the foregoing definition of the Greek word we could say, "But when I saw that they walked not orthopedically," that is, in a straightforward, unwavering, and sincere way.
The words according to are from pros, and put definite limitations upon the words walked uprightly. The sense here is not that Peter failed to walk in conformity to the precepts of evangelical truth, but that his attitude towards the truth of the gospel was not straightforward. The idea is, "He did not pursue a straight course in relation to the truth of the gospel." He did not deal honestly and consistently with it. His was an attitude that led him to juggle with its sacred truth, to warp it, to misrepresent it, to deal crookedly with it. What an indictment of Peter.
Before all is from emprosthen panton. Paul's rebuke of Peter was in the sight of the whole Antioch church, in the presence of everybody. The fact that the article is absent before the word all make it a general statement. The rebuke was not given before the officers of the church only, or before a specially convened and restricted number of people, but right in open church meeting and before all the members of the Antioch church who were present. Augustine said, "It is not advantageous to correct in secret an error which injured openly."
If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? The word live here, from zao, does not refer to the moral living according to Gentile or Jewish fashion, but to the shaping of the life with reference to the external social observances in the Christian fellowship, such as Levitical restrictions on eating. The present tense of live must not be pressed to to the point of teaching that Peter at the time of this rebuke, was living as the Gentiles do, for he was not. It describes a mental attitude or habit which had in times past shown itself in outward actions, and which was still in force, but which was being hypocritically covered up by Peter's action of withdrawing from fellowship with the Gentiles. It shows that Peter had not in principle abandoned it, but had trimmed his sails to the sudden change of wind that came from Jerusalem. Paul, in his rebuke forcibly sets forth Peter's inconsistency in compelling the Gentiles to obey the Levitical legislation regarding foods, for the Gentiles had only one of two choices in the premises, either to refuse to obey the law in this respect and thus cause a split in the Christian Church, or to preserve harmony by coming under the law. And the apostle Peter did all this with a full understanding of the vision God had given him which clearly taught him that the Levitical legislation for the Jew was now a thing of the past (Acts 10:28), and that the line of separation had been broken down between Jew and Gentile by the Cross.
Peter's action of refusing to eat with the Gentiles, did not merely have the effect of maintaining the validity of the law for Jewish Christians, but it involved the forcing of that law upon the Gentile Christians, that, or creating a wide-open division in the Church. This latter was what concerned the apostle Paul. He deemed it of utmost importance to maintain the unity of the Christ Church as against any division into Jewish and Gentile groups. At the Jerusalem council he had agreed to a territorial division of the missionary field into Gentile and Jewish divisions, but to create a division between Jew and Gentile in a Gentile community and church, was out of the question and was something not be be permitted.
At the Jerusalem council, it was agreed that the Jewish Christians should continue to keep the law, and that the Gentile Christians were to be free from the law. But this arrangement left the question undecided as to which decision of the council should take precedence when an issue arose such as we see at Antioch where Peter's action brought pressure to bear upon the Gentiles. Paul insisted that in such an instance, the Jews were not obligated to keep the law."
The questions, then, are these: Why was it decided that the Jewish Christians should continue to keep the law? When were they no longer required to? And why? What was the determining criteria?
No comments:
Post a Comment