Paul did not address the details of The Famine Visit in Galatians. There is no linkage between that visit and The Conference Visit of Galatians 2:1-10. The purpose of The Famine Visit was to bring relief to the mother church at Jerusalem. The purpose of The Conference Visit was to confer with the headquarters apostles about doctrinal matters. Pheme Perkins, relying on F. F. Bruce and Richard L. Longenecker, summarizes the argument of those who reject the notion that Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-30 are reports of the same event. She writes:
Scholars continue to disagree over the relationship between Paul�s account in Galatians 2:1�10 and the description of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:1�30. Those who think that two different meetings are being described emphasize the fact that Paul refers to his meeting as a private one (Gal. 2:2), Acts 15:6 clearly envisages a public meeting. If the apostolic decree referred to at the conclusion of the Jerusalem meeting were in effect, it is difficult to see how the problems in Galatians 2:11�14 or even the conflict over eating idol meat in 1 Corinthians 8 could have arisen. Conservative scholars reject the identification of Galatians 2:1�10 and Acts 15:1�30. They propose various arrangements in the actual historical order of events to harmonize the Pauline material with other accounts of his visits to Jerusalem in Acts. The usual result of such proposals is to locate all the events referred to in Galatians before the council of Acts 15.
She attributes this logic to conservative scholars, presumably because of the attempt by conservative scholars to harmonize or to reconcile these seemingly disparate accounts into a plausible whole. Two further factors need be addressed.
The two visits referred to by Paul consisted of the Conversion Visit (Galatians 1:18) and a Conference Visit (Galatians 2:1). The Conference Visit arose due to a "revelation" causing Paul to travel to the mother headquarters church at Jerusalem to confer privately with James, Peter, and John. This was in order to "set before them the gospel" that he preached to the Gentiles to be sure that he had not erred in what he preached.
The trip preserved the unity of the whole Christian community by taking the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul recounted his efforts on the private trip to Jerusalem to present his ministry to the apostles for review, evaluation, and their approval. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, traveled to Jerusalem for reevaluation lest he had "run in vain." The apostles confirmed his teaching as it was the identical to their own. Paul does not mention any relief being brought to Jerusalem. Rather the visit was the result of "a revelation" and not to bring the food relief of Acts 11. This visit was for a conference not the delivery of relief supplies.
Further, circumcision was brought up at this private meeting since Titus was not circumcised and Paul�s teaching that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcised to be Christians. Paul�s reference to the matter of circumcision indicates the topic certainly had surfaced at that time (Galatians 2:4). Nevertheless, James, Peter, and John confirmed that Paul was the "Apostle to the Gentiles" as Peter was to the Jews (Galatians 2:7) and Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. This was consistent with the decision Peter had previously announced to the mother church following Cornelius� baptism.
There is no evidence in Galatians that there was an open hearing and large public debate as described in Acts 15 regarding the deliberations of the Jerusalem Proceeding. There is no reference in Galatians to the decree of the Jerusalem Conference suggesting that Galatians had been written by Paul prior to the Acts 15 conference and before the Messianic Pharisee detractors came to Antioch (Acts 15:1-3).
The material in Acts 15 indicates that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others, went to Jerusalem at the insistance of the brethren at Antioch not by "revelation." Paul did not require a revelation to conclude that the situation was so out of hand that he needed to appeal to the apostles at the headquarters, mother church of Jerusalem. The Conference Visit (Galatians 2:1) and the Jerusalem Proceeding Visit (Acts 15:1-3) were not the same. Raymond Brown and John Meier argue this position. They hold that the incident at Galatians 2:11�14 preceded the events and decree of Acts 15 thus distinguishing between the Galatians 2:1 and the Acts 15 visits to Jerusalem. The evidence suggests that the Conference Visit occurred before the Jerusalem Proceeding which dates the epistle prior to the conference. This is consistent with Longenecker�s determination that the epistle precedes the Jerusalem Proceeding (which he calls a Council). He writes:
It seems best, therefore, to conclude that Paul wrote Galatians on the eve of the Jerusalem Council, before the issues arising from the Antioch episode had been resolved.
Following the Conference Visit account Paul preceded to provide a summary of a visit by Peter to Antioch while Paul was there. This report described what must have been a courtesy visit by the "Apostle to the Circumcision" to the headquarters of the "Apostle to the Gentiles." These events were set forth in Galatians 2:13-3:1 (NIV) as:
2:11
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.14
When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? 15 We who are Jews by birth and not �Gentile sinners� 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. 17If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
This is consistent with Lohse who firmly rejects the notion that divergent forms of Christianity. pp. 43 0f 433-34 435.
In verse 11 Paul uses the phrase "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch." The rhetorical style and force of such language necessitates this visit follow the previous matters being discussed. Hence the Antioch visit, to a predominately Gentile congregation, followed the private visit by Paul and preceded the Acts 15 Jerusalem Conference deliberations. This required Peter�s stay at Antioch (Galatians 2:11-21) to fall between the Private Visit (Galatians 2:1-10) and the Jerusalem Conference Visit (Acts 15:1-30).
In context, the table fellowship cited indicates that a series of public meals of the assembled church had occurred. Eating meals in common with the Gentiles (Galatians 2:12) was what the church brethren witnessed. But in the course of this series of public meals Peter suddenly withdrew and the rest of the Judeo-Christians joined him (Galatians 2:13). What events in the life of the early church would have brought the apostle to the Circumcision to Antioch of Syria where consistent and regular table fellowship would occur such that all could observe it? They were evidently observing the annual eight-day "Feast of Tabernacles," for which the apostle Peter was a very special "guest," which, together with the Last Great Day, in 49 CE was Tuesday, September 30 through Tuesday, October 7.
The community of Judeo-Christians at Antioch consisted of former Jews and former Gentiles. They collectively made up the Church of God. In today�s world Christians view the world as consisting of Jews and Gentiles as if these are the only options. This was not the paradigm of the ancient church. The early Christians saw the world as divided into three disparate groups�Christians (the people of God), Jews (spiritual Gentiles), and Gentiles. Peter�s actions forced the community to see itself as two discrete groups�Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. This introduced disunity into the congregation based upon a racist pharisaic theology that both Paul and Peter rejected. Paul reports that Peter, knowing better, succumbed to "fear" (Galatians 2:12) in a display of hypocritical behavior. There is no suggestion of a disagreement or a rift. Both apostles understood that the "Law of Moses" no longer had any command over human behavior whether Jewish, Gentile, or Christian. Paul�s point is that the Church consists of one people� Christians�not Jews and Gentiles.
When the apostle Peter visited Antioch of Syria he did not observe the "Law of Moses" (Galatians 2:12-14) but rather he lived and behaved like any ordinary converted Christian of Gentile descent and not as an observant Jew. Then some of the trouble making "Pharisees who believed," that is the Messianic Pharisees who were observant Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah, arrived at Antioch from Jerusalem. Peter became apprehensive and withdrew from public table fellowship with the Christians of Gentile descent. Such table fellowship was ostensibly forbidden traditional Jews who adhered to the Law of Moses. The apostle Paul orally scalded Peter for his unwarranted behavior for it not only made the brethren of Gentile descent feel inferior but also implied that they were not "real" Christians. Granting him the benefit of the doubt, Peter out of real or imagined fear sought to avoid controversy by withdrawing from those who were of Gentile descent to make it less offensive and more tolerable for the visitors. Peter presumably recognized the visitors as people with whom he did not want to tangle nor create some kind of furor. This behavior is consistent with the conciliatory approach utilized within the mother church Jerusalem. Peter chose to avoid confrontation and argument. Obviously he did not want to cause a commotion with Messianic Pharisees at Jerusalem. Paul was furious and did not let the issue slip.
A true Christian is not simply one who follows Jesus of Nazareth�a true Christian is also being transformed by Christ�led by the Holy Spirit into new thought and new emotions. Many proclaimed themselves Christians�diversity, hundreds of competing groups�but not he Church of God.
Why did the group of Pharisees who believed come to Antioch? Did they follow Peter to check-up on him? They differed theologically. He feared them. They were partisan and believed they were allied with James theologically. The context suggests that in Jerusalem Peter lived publicly as an observant Jew but was suspect by the Messianic Pharisee faction the nascent Ebionites. He fear them for all the trouble they could sir up�debate, argument, strife, and confusion. Peter avoided confrontation. In a city where tempers were quick, and mob fanaticism ruled. Diversity in Christianity was not yet an issue�but unity certainly was. Diversity developed first by splinter heresy and later in the Judeo-Christian community by sheer distance. There was cultural diversity but theological unity within the Church of God. By the end of the first century diversity was primarily due to heresy. then Christianity must be understood.
Six years later, when Paul visited Jerusalem ca. CE 56, James informed him of the nature of the charges the local Jewish community had been persuaded to believe concerning him as his adversaries had been promoting hatred toward him. James said that the Jews of Jerusalem had been told "that you [Paul] teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs" (Acts 21:21 NKJV). As Paul had been maliciously smeared and slandered James suggested to Paul that he openly conform to Temple ritual as an act of refutation to discredit and deny the substance of the accusation (Acts 21:23-24).
This illustrates the strategy employed by the church at Jerusalem to survive in a sensitive and often hostile religious environment. They voluntarily conformed to certain practices, including circumcision, to avoid unnecessary conflict and to maintain the peace. James admitted his own accountability for the decision at the Jerusalem conference of CE 49 when he stated that it was not Paul but rather the officials of the Jerusalem church who issued the decree discharging Gentile members of the church from such matters (Acts 21:25). Physical circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant not the New. Christians were free, whether of Jewish or Gentile origin, to circumcise their children and to practice various of the customs but they were not bound to do so. Paul wrote to the Romans that he was a Jew who was inwardly circumcised in the heart (Romans 2:29).
In summary, the Galatians 1:17-2:10 account of two of Paul�s trips to Jerusalem following his conversion concluded prior to the details of the Acts 15 conference. Galatians 2:11-14 addressed the pre-conference trip of Peter to Antioch. Paul wrote Galatians in late autumn CE 49 probably from Antioch of Syria just prior to the Jerusalem conference. It was the first written of Paul�s extant letters.
Based upon this discussion and analysis, and assigning a late 49 or early CE 50 Jerusalem Conference date, perhaps in December or January, for the Jerusalem Conference yielded a plausible conversion date for Paul in CE 35 which is consistent with a CE 31 date for a Wednesday crucifixion. See Figure 5.1.
The first is the perception of Paul of his own ministry. In Acts of the Apostles there is a hint of his, and his associates� disposition at Acts 9:15. The commission set forth in Verse 15 was threefold: (1) To teach the Gentiles, (2) To appear before kings, and (3) To bear Christ Jesus� name before the children of Israel. In The Private Visit Paul received confirmation of that commission by James, Peter and John who acknowledged him as the apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:9).
Paul distinctly referred to himself as an apostle in Galatians 1:1. The ordination of Barnabas and Paul as apostles apparently occurred at Acts 13:1-3 (NIV) as follows:
13:1
In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.
Having fasted and prayed they ordained Barnabas and Paul as apostles through praying and the laying on of hands of the elders then present. Note that the authorization at the ordination was imputed to God and not the leadership of the mother headquarters church at Jerusalem. It was an independent intervening event which Paul later utilized in establishing his authority. Thereafter they saw them off on the First Apostolic Tour which was to last about two years. Barnabas held the pre-eminent position at this time and is mentioned first, indicating that he was leading the team. In Acts 14:4 during the course of the First Apostolic Tour they were referred to as "apostles" for the first time in sets of the Apostles.
The reference in Acts 14:14 refers back to Acts 13:3 which confirms that an ordination had occurred. Some writers would have this reference minimized by assigning it as a mistake at the time of writing of Acts of the Apostles. As one of Paul�s associates it is ludicrous to think that Luke would not be sufficiently well-informed to know the occasion of Paul�s ordination as an apostle and certainly as Paul�s apostleship at times was often in question.
The second is that there was no substantive cause to go into the details of The Famine Visit in Galatians as it would have been superfluous to discuss it. The simple explanation is that the story was not relevant to the issues addressed in Galatians. The Famine Visit had nothing to do with apostolic credentials and circumcision. Acts of the Apostles does not indicate any contact between Barnabas and Paul with apostles at Jerusalem in the course of The Famine Visit. The apostles may quite possibly not even have been in the city when the relief was delivered.
Based upon evidence reviewed to this point The Famine Visit and The Private Visit were distinct and separate events. The thrust of Paul�s account in Galatians 1-2 was not to establish a Pauline chronology but rather the utilization of three critical events as persuasive evidence in re-establishing his credibility and authority with Christians of Gentile origin whose faith had been cleverly manipulated and undermined by Judaizing elements within the church. The Judaizers were possibly elders i.e. ministers.
 |
|
 |
Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�.
Page last updated: 01/10/02 05:26 PM.