Jim
New Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
Posts: 3
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:33 am Post subject: The Decree |
 |
|
Dear Josh,
Josh:
Do any of you see any doctrinal issues at stake in any side of the debate for the dating of Galatians? Is there an issue about the doctrines of circumcision and works righteousness if we date it relative to the Jerusalem Council? I'm sure there are others. Can you think of any?
Jim:
I’m a year late, but here goes.
If Paul’s epistle to the churches of Galatia was written before the Jerusalem-church decree (Acts 15:23-29), then one could argue that the reason Paul did not invoke the decree as a counter-argument to the influence of the Judaizers on the Galatians was that the decree had not yet been written. This would place the incident of the hypocrisy of Peter, Barnabas and the rest of the Jewish believers at Antioch (Galatians 2:11-16) before the visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem in Acts 15:4-30, during which visit Peter stated his view that Old-Covenant law should not be imposed on believers and that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the New Covenant (Acts 15:7-11).
On the other hand, if Paul’s epistle to the churches of Galatia was written after the Jerusalem-church decree, then one must consider the fact that Paul chose not to invoke the decree as a counter-argument to the influence of the Judaizers on the Galatians – just as he chose not to invoke the decree in his epistle to the saints at Philippi as a counter-argument to the influence of the Judaizers on the Philippians (Philippians 3), this epistle most certainly having been written after the decree – because he thought that doing so would not help his argument. This would place the incident of the hypocrisy of Peter, Barnabas and the rest of the Jewish believers at Antioch after Peter’s statement in Jerusalem that Old-Covenant law should not be imposed on believers and that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the New Covenant. This would also mean that the decree had already been delivered to the Galatians and to the Philippians when Paul, Silas and Timothy first contacted them (Acts 16:4-12), Paul’s epistles to the churches of Galatians and to the saints at Philippi being written after this first contact.
If the circumstance was such that the Jerusalem-church decree had already been delivered to the churches of Galatia when Paul wrote his epistle to them in opposition to their Judaization, Paul choosing not to invoke the decree as part of his counter-argument to this Judaizing influence, then one must consider the possibility that the decree, instead of being the solution to the problem, was itself a part of the problem.
This decree (Acts 15:23-29) was directed exclusively to Gentile believers, stating that no further burden was to be imposed on them other than “these things that are necessary: to abstain from things that are sacrificed and from blood and from things that are strangled and from sexual immorality (toutwn twn epanagkeV apecesqai eidwloqutwn kai aimatoV kai pniktwn kai porneiaV).” This decree was then delivered to the churches, and the Gentile believers were glad to hear the things stated in the decree (Acts 15:30-31 and 16:4).
However, Paul did not appear to agree with the decree. Whereas he did appear to agree that abstinence from sexual immorality was a necessary thing, he did not appear to agree that the three Jewish dietary regulations imposed by the decree (abstinence from things that are sacrificed, from blood and from things that are strangled) qualified as necessary things, although he did prescribe such dietary abstinence in order not to offend the weaker conscience of those who were weaker in faith (Romans 14:1-23 and 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 and 8:1-13).
Also, the decree, while relieving Gentile believers of having to get circumcised and of having to keep the entire Old-Covenant law in order to be saved, nevertheless imposed a certain degree of legalism on Gentile believers, thus establishing a two-class, legalistic concept of the body of Christ, according to which the body of Christ was comprised of: (1) an upper class of believers who were required to be circumcised and to keep the Old-Covenant law (Jewish believers), and (2) a lower class of believers who were required to keep only those regulations stated in the decree (Gentile believers).
Thus, the decree could have been used by Judaizers to entice Gentile believers into engaging in legalistic social climbing within the body of Christ from the lower class to the upper class by getting circumcised and by keeping the entire Old-Covenant law. Paul’s counter-argument to such legalism was not to invoke the decree but to emphasize the fact that Old-Covenant regulations had no place in the New Covenant. As proof of this, Paul offered himself, a Jewish believer, as an example to follow (Galatians 4:12). Obviously, Paul, like Peter (Galatians 2:14), did not live according to Old-Covenant regulations when living among Gentile believers.
In 1 Corinthians 9:16-23, Paul says (ASV), “16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of; for necessity is laid upon me; for woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel. 17 For if I do this of mine own will, I have a reward: but if not of mine own will, I have a stewardship intrusted to me. 18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel without charge, so as not to use to the full my right in the gospel. 19 For though I was free from all [men,] I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more. 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. 23 And I do all things for the gospel's sake, that I may be a joint partaker thereof.” According to this passage, the only time Paul lived as a Jew was when he was living among the Jews; and he did so not to please God but to please the Jews.
So Paul’s counter-argument to the influence of the Judaizers is simple: NO LAW. PERIOD. Rather, the believer is to simply have faith in Christ and to live altruistically through the Spirit (Galatians 5:13-16). Paul ends his counter-argument to the influence of the Judaizers with a decree of his own, saying (ASV), “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace [be] upon them, and mercy, (even – my insertion as a plausible translation of the conjunction ‘kai’) upon the Israel of God (Galatians 6:15-16).” Here, Paul espouses a single-class, non-legalistic concept of the body of Christ in contrast to the two-class, legalistic concept of the body of Christ espoused by the Jerusalem-church decree. If the decree (Acts 15:23-29) had expressed what Peter expressed in Acts 15:7-11, Paul no doubt would have invoked the decree as part of his counter-argument to the influence of the Judaizers.
If the incident involving Peter, Barnabas and the rest of the Jewish believers at Antioch (Galatians 2:11-16) occurred after the decree (Acts 15:30-35), then this incident demonstrated that whereas the decree relieved Gentile believers of having to get circumcised and of having to keep the entire Old-Covenant law in order to be saved, it did nothing to prevent Jewish believers from shunning Gentile believers according to Old-Covenant tradition. Peter’s participation in this contradiction to the truth of the Gospel (Galatians 2:14) that God had made no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Acts 15:8) was not the result of his failure to understand that there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile in the New Covenant but the result of his fear of the Jews (Galatians 2:12). Paul publicly condemned Peter for giving in to his fear and for not standing up for the truth of the Gospel that the distinction between Jew and Gentile was an Old-Covenant concept that was no longer valid in the New Covenant (Galatians 2:14-16). The Jerusalem-church decree (Acts 15:23-29) of course did nothing to confirm this truth.
Sincerely,
Jim
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Usergroups
Calendar
REGISTER
Log in
Log in to check your private messages
