Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 2)

One may wonder why this is so.  However, any wondering is blunted when one considers the joint-authorship of both Luke and Acts, with Acts forming the second half of what is effectively a single discourse.  As Acts is a record of the earliest activities of the apostles of Jesus, and because table fellowship was an important and unfortunately contentious issue in some of the earliest church communities (witness the confrontation between Peter and Paul in Antioch over the subject of table fellowship, as recorded in Paul’s letter to the Galatian church), it is understandable to find Luke more inclined to share more table stories, and to create a narratival construct that will make the record of meals and Jesus’ participation and teaching at these meals, a more prominent feature of his biographical and theological presentation of Jesus.  

If taken within the context of meals---a context which has been arranged by Jesus’ reference to the eating and drinking in which both He and John are said to engage, then one can hear Jesus speaking of Himself within the long-standing wisdom tradition within Israel that is associated with the Messiah.  Though it is the Gospel of John that makes a more prevalent use of the highly-developed wisdom tradition, there is no reason to preclude Luke from making use of it as well, as he makes his report on Jesus’ words and deeds.  If the messiah-associated wisdom tradition is in play here, then it is conceivable that there are messianic banquet considerations to be taken from the words of Jesus. 

Is this a bit of a stretch to hear Jesus making messiah and messianic banquet references in this short little statement?  Probably not, especially in light of His making mention of eating and drinking, and then Luke’s transition to Jesus’ presence at the dinner at the house of a Pharisee.  The use of “wisdom” as a clearly self-referential statement at this point in the narrative, when both Jesus’ hearers and Luke’s readers have been thrust into a meal-related mindset, clearly ushers us into a messianic context.  With thoughts of both messiah and meal at play, along with talk of vindication (an incredibly important concept for Israel especially in relation to messiah), it would not be difficult to find Jesus’ hearers associating words such as “all her children,” when used in this context, entertaining thoughts of the great messianic banquet. 

What is provided here is a glimpse into Jesus’ mindset as it relates to this banquet in Matthew, when He is heard to say “I tell you, many will come from the east and west to share the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be thrown out into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Luke 8:11-12).  Clearly, if one ever finds himself thinking that any of the Gospel authors are offering up anything less than complex theological constructs in narrative and biographical form based upon the fact of a resurrected Christ that demanded their full allegiance, then a tremendous disservice has been done to them.  

All The Saints (part 3)

The fifteenth chapter of Acts, which is often headlined as “The Jerusalem Council,” is predicated on the Gentile question.  The chapter opens with “Now some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’” (Acts 15:1)  This took place in Antioch, which was a major center of the church.  “When Paul and Barnabas had a major argument and debate with them, the church appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them to go up to meet with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this point of disagreement” (15:2). 

Luke goes on to report that “When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the elders, and they reported all the things God had done with them.  But some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed,” in Jesus, and therefore were part of the church, “stood up and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.’” (15:4-5)  Effectively, this circumcision and observance of the law of Moses, which would be an adherence to the marks of the covenant as evidence of inclusion in the people of the Creator God, would make these Gentiles into Jews. 

Peter would stand and declare that “some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the Gospel and believe” (15:7b).  It is here worth remembering that the use of “gospel” was not to be disconnected from its use by Rome and by Caesar, as announcements about Caesar (particularly in connection with his cult and his worship) were said to be “gospel.”  It was a term with which all the people of the empire would have been familiar, so the announcement of a “gospel” was not a novelty in the least.  The novelty was that it was being used in reference to Jesus and His kingdom---the new, true King of a new, true kingdom. 

With that in mind then, as it would have been in the minds of his hearers and in the minds of those that would later hear Luke’s account of the church (Acts), Peter continues, saying “God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us, and He made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith” (15:8).  This “faith” was the confession of Jesus’ lordship, as demonstrated by the close of his statement, which was “we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way we are” (15:11). 

This was remarkable, in that Peter, as a Jew, was devaluing the marks of the covenant, elevating faith in Jesus, which could only come about by what was considered to be the gracious act of the Creator God via His Spirit (who would believe that a man that was crucified by the Romans was the resurrected Messiah and Lord of all?), as the means by which a person, be it Jew or Gentile, enters in upon the covenant that this God first made with Abraham. 

The point being made, and it is the point upon which Paul would seize with great tenacity, was that Gentiles were to be accepted into the covenant as Gentiles, and that the covenant was being extended to Gentiles, rather than still being limited to those who were Jews by birth or who had become Jews via Judaizing (by circumcision and adoption of the covenant markers). 

Galatians & Giving (part 4)

When it comes to participation in the Gospel and the kingdom for which it makes its claim, Paul clearly sets Gentiles on equal footing with the Jews.  This section of the letter to the Galatians leads into the recollection of his heated encounter with Peter, in which he decries Peter’s attempt to force Gentiles to adhere to the covenant markers of Judaism in order to be full participants in the covenant. 

Paul abhors this notion, saying that this is a setting aside of grace, making it so that Jesus the Christ died for nothing (2:21).  Paul surmises that if covenant membership was predicated on bearing the covenant markers of Judaism, then the Gospel claim of Jesus’ Lordship had no place nor efficacy.  Therefore, Jesus Himself becomes an unnecessary revelation of Israel’s God, making His ministry, His shameful death, and His Resurrection pointless.  Again, with this Paul is setting Jews and Gentiles on equal footing in regards to participation in the covenant. 

Paul is insistent that Gentiles do not have a lesser position in the covenant, and therefore that they most certainly do not have a lesser position in the church.  Unfortunately, this seems to be what is being communicated, perhaps even unwittingly and unintentionally, to the Gentiles that at least partially compose this particular congregation.  With this, one does well to remember that the recipients of this letter are most likely hearing it read to them at the setting of the community meal.  In this case, it is possible that, as Paul reports to be the case at Antioch (and therefore the reason he brings it to the fore here), the believers in Galatia have taken to having separate meal tables---one for Jews and one for Gentiles (though one would not insist that this must be the case). 

In the third chapter of Galatians, Paul imports the example of Abraham.  It is with Abraham, of course, that circumcision originates as the sign of the covenant.  Having imported Abraham, Paul immediately writes that “God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (3:8b), adding the report of the promise that “All the nations will be blessed in you” (3:8c).  To this Paul attaches “So then those who believe,” with that belief being the belief in the Gospel that Jesus is Lord, which Paul insists is the sole covenant marker for Gentiles, “are blessed along with Abraham the believer” (3:9). 

Just as circumcision was a secondary marker for Abraham with belief being the primary marker, so it would also be for Gentiles.  Gentiles were not to be relegated to second-class status if they did not have or observe the visible covenant markers (the works of the law---these having nothing to do with earning salvation or earning one’s way into heaven) of Judaism.  Gentile Christians were not to be shamed or looked down upon while Jewish or Judaizing Christians had honor accrue to them.  It must be recognized that Gentiles, and the need for them to be viewed as equal sharers in the covenant and its blessings, are primarily in view for Paul as he goes on to add that “in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles” (3:14a). 

Galatians & Giving (part 2)

The setting into which Paul wrote, and in which his letter would be read aloud to the assembled congregation, would most likely be that of a meal.  Paul makes clear the primacy of the meal table in his dealings with the Galatian church, utilizing the example of his negative and somewhat definitive experience in Antioch because it would most likely resound with them.  Hearing Paul’s letter read to them while they were at their standard gathering around the meal table would heighten the sensitivity to the issues that he is addressing in this church---with their giving practices being ancillary to the larger issues at hand.  Surely, one cannot imagine Paul employing an example that had no bearing on the issue with which he deals in this letter to the church of Galatia. 

In the second chapter, Paul writes “when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong.  Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles.  But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision” (2:11-12).  As was the case at Antioch, this church must have been failing to come together at an undivided meal table, as they continued to recognize the distinctions between Jew and Gentile, and therefore allowed for the upholding of the covenantal markers of Judaism (dietary laws denoting clean and unclean, circumcision, and Sabbath-keeping).  Paul saw this as highly problematic and will use the dichotomy to make his points concerning what is meant by justification.  More on this anon. 

It is necessary to spend a bit more time recognizing the structure of the church’s gathering.  In their adherence to the Jesus tradition, and very much in tune with prevailing custom and culture, the earliest Christian assemblies were centered on the meal table.  In this respect, they would have looked very much like the familiar associations of the day.  The major difference for the Christians would have been (or ideally should have been) the fact that the meal table of Jesus believers would not have been stratified according to the social order of honor and shame. 

There was to be no distinction between Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, rich or poor, but all were to share equally in status at the table and in the food and wine that was available for consumption.  Paul called the Corinthian church to account for their failure to live out the model of the meal demonstrated by Jesus, pointing out their failure to have all at the table share in the same food and drink, in both quantity and quality.  It is not unreasonable to insist that such was on his mind in this setting as well. 

This shared meal would consist of two parts, the first of which was the deipnon, the second part of which was the symposium.  The deipnon is where the meal would be shared and where bread would be broken.  At the close of the deipnon, a libation would be presented in honor of the god of the association.  For the Christians, who were those who looked to Jesus as King rather than Caesar (the Caesareans), the libation would be presented, poured out, or consumed in honor of Jesus (think of Jesus and His taking of the cup “after supper”).  With this portion of the meal complete, they would move on to the symposium.  The symposium was the part of the event of the meal in which discussions were to be had, songs would be sung, people would speak in tongues (an ancient religious custom the records of which predates Pentecost by hundreds of year), messages could be delivered, etc…  Noting that this would have been customary and traditional, Paul also spoke to this situation in the first letter to Corinth. 

Justified By Faithfulness (part 8 of 9)

This belief, of course, in a crucified and resurrected messiah, here in the middle of history, was contrary to any and all expectations of the day.  Not only was the crucifixion of the messiah a completely unexpected development, as such would be evidence that said person was in fact not the messiah, but the idea that somebody would be physically raised from the dead was completely ludicrous.  Quite simply, people did not come back from the dead.  This was common knowledge and well understood.  However, the weight of evidence that this is exactly what had occurred (including the language that was used---of a person coming back to life, rather than being a phantom or a ghost, as language was available to describe such things), and that it had happened to an individual that had lived and been looked to as a potential messiah for Israel, stirred a convicting belief that that is exactly what had taken place. 

Because of that conviction concerning the Resurrection, this belief, as Paul would routinely point out, could only be brought about by a faith that was granted by the Creator God---a faith somehow and mysteriously implanted and made operational by the Holy Spirit through the gracious activity of the covenant God, with this conveyed primarily through the medium of the preaching of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord), the hearing of that preaching of the message of Jesus as Lord (the Gospel), and the actively living out of that message in one’s daily life.

Repeating himself, because of the supreme importance of this principle, and because this examination of works and justification and faith, as presented in the letter to the church of Galatia, is made possible by a recounting of Peter’s retreat into the old covenant markers in Antioch, Paul goes on to write, “because by the works of the law no one will be justified” (2:16c).  Again, the old basis for the understood covenant blessings has been replaced. 

The markers that had previously been used to identify a member of the covenant family, and which had largely been used to wall off the covenant blessings from the world (non-Jews and those that did not adopt the covenant markers) had been set aside.  Now, belief in Jesus is what would matter.  Holding to the works of the law (covenant markers), and the exclusivity and isolation that came to be associated with it, now stood contrary to what it was that the Creator God had done and was doing through Jesus.  Unfortunately, as Paul would make clear, the works of the law would now serve as a reminder of Israel’s failure and cursing. 

The faithfulness of the Creator God, as manifested in the person and actions of the Christ, would stand as a witness to the victory over death, through the Resurrection, that the God of Israel had wrought for His people.  Just as Abraham had been justified by believing in the power and promise of that God, prior to anything that could be pointed to or understood as a work of the law, so now would those that would come to be identified as Abraham’s descendants also be justified (made righteous, saved, covenant-ed) by believing in the power and promise of that same God.  The setting aside of the Jewish covenant markers signaled, among other things, the extension of His blessings of justification, as it can now be seen that the Creator God had always intended, with this evidenced by the covenant with Abraham, to and for all peoples. 

Conduct In Step With The Gospel (part 1 of 3)

But when He Who had set me apart before I was born, and Who called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son to me in order that I might preach Him among the Gentiles… - Galatians 1:15-16a  (ESV)

The Apostle Paul knew that He had been called to preach the Gospel of the kingdom of God and Jesus as its Lord to all nations, without restriction.  It is in the midst of this knowledge, for which he labored and suffered, that he encounters what he saw as an unthinkable situation in Antioch.  He recounts a story about Peter in Antioch, saying that “before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles” (2:12a).  Why wouldn’t he?  This table fellowship was reminiscent of what Christ Himself had done throughout the course of His ministry.  This was the picture of the Gospel in action.  This was the picture of God extending His covenant of salvation and restoration, indeed His peace and life, and doing so to all men. 

However, Paul sadly reports that “when they came he (Peter) drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party” (2:12b).  As we might imagine, with this example being provided by them to one who had an extraordinarily close relationship with the One Whom they were all now claiming as their Lord, “the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him” (2:13a), also drawing back and separating themselves from the Gentiles, re-drawing the old lines of exclusion and isolation that had done so much to bring judgment upon Israel, and which had been strenuously condemned by Christ, in word and deed.  Paul responded by opposing Peter’s actions, flatly rebuking him and declaring to him that his “conduct was not in step with the truth of the Gospel” (2:14a).  In this rebuke, we can hear Paul reminding Peter that the Gospel and its announcement of the kingdom of God made the proclamation that in Christ, “there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free: but Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11). 

Continuing on in the letter to the Galatians, Paul adds to his argument and writes that “we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (2:16a).  In the context of this setting up of exclusionary table fellowship, Paul warned his hearers and his subsequent readers that withdrawing into their national boundaries is not what will show them to be righteous.  Circumcision was no longer the mark of God’s covenant, and the evidence of a man’s faithfulness to the covenant (righteousness/justification), but rather, the confession of Jesus as Lord.  God’s covenant people would be identified by the declaration of a gifted faith of belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Reinforcing his point, and almost the entirety of his message, Paul writes “so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law” (2:16b).  Why does he say that?  “Because by works of the law no one will be justified” (2:16c).  Moving forward in the advance of Christ’s kingdom, the fleshly marks of a non-held-to covenant must be understood to be irrelevant in God’s plan for righteousness.  

Again, God’s people were not going to be counted righteous, justified, by the outward mark of a supposed faithfulness to a covenant and its requirements (honoring the Sabbaths, reverencing the sanctuary, keeping from idolatry) that Israel had never been able to keep.  Justification, that is, being counted righteous (or faithful to the covenant) would come through the faith gifted by the Holy Spirit, as that faith brings one into union with Christ for the purpose of believing that He is Lord and acting in accordance with the promises (salvation, redemption, eternal life, restoration, renewal, resurrection) associated with that belief.  Naturally, this would also include the proclamation and propagation of this belief (preaching and making disciples), for the purpose of the spreading of the gift of faith (Romans 10:17), so that others might experience this justification as well.        

As all of this is considered, one does not have to stretch his mind very far to come to terms with the idea that circumcision, which was being used as a dividing line for the separation of true believers and the ongoing identification of those who were truly God’s covenant people going forward, is here being seen by Paul as little more than idolatry.  In doing this, they are simply rebuilding what it was that Christ tore down”(2:18a), offering proof of Israel’s ongoing transgression of not being a light to the world, which justified God’s judgment against them, showing that Christ had to come to set things right, and that God Himself had to enter into history in order to do what His people had failed to do and to be what His people had failed to be, inaugurating His kingdom in the process.  Along with that, it could probably be said that anything that we presumptuously hold up as marks of identification that somehow mark us out from others of God’s chosen people as somehow special and distinct, this must surely appear as the building of barriers and as idols in the eyes of our Lord and God.         

Table Of The Justified (part 1)

Paul’s experiences, as would only be right and proper, play an obvious role in his soteriology and his ecclesiology.  It is not in the least bit difficult to discern that, along with his knowledge of early church traditions, along with what he has experiences as recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts has a heavy influence on portions of his letters.  While others are concerned about maintaining a certain understanding of propriety concerning food that would allow for Jews and Gentiles to join each other at a meal table, Luke’s presentation has Paul appearing to want to allow love to have its say, tempered with compassion, mercy, patience, and understanding.  For Paul, it is the expansion of the kingdom of God that is the abiding concern, rather than the ability for some to maintain their dietary provisions (identifying features) in such a way that may limit the impact of that kingdom and of the new creation it portends. 

It is useful, of course, to hear the letter from Jerusalem.  This letter places us in the enviable position of knowing the precise situation that stood behind the production of the letter (the events of the fourteenth chapter), which cannot be said of Paul’s letters.  When placed side by side with Paul’s letters, and especially with those that focus on the unity of believers under covenant, the difference in tone and spirit is marked.  So we read: “From the apostles and elders, your brothers, to the Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, greetings!  Since we have heard that some have gone out from among us with no orders from us and have confused you, upsetting your minds by what they said, we have unanimously decided to choose men to send to you along with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul, who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas who will tell you these things themselves in person.  For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us no to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality.  If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well.  Farewell” (15:23b-29).

This letter from Jerusalem could be construed in such a way that may cause some to think that Jewish dietary sensibilities are more important than the unity of believers.  As can be seen, the instructions contained in the letter are quite clear.  The implications of the instructions are that Gentiles must do certain things that will allow for them to join with Jewish believers (or that will allow for Jewish believers to join them) at the church’s society-altering meal table.  Understandably then, since Paul was concerned with the positioning of Gentiles in relation to the covenant, and was quite insistent that the basis for entrance upon the covenant (justification) was the same for all people (belief in Jesus), with Abraham as the model, anything that could conceivably stand in the way of full unity and full equality under that covenant was problematic.  Interestingly, Luke never gives us a report of Paul’s response to the debate in Jerusalem or his opinion concerning the letter.  One could say that the silence is deafening. 

The tripartite directive to the Gentile believers concerning the food that could be placed upon and consumed at the meal table of the believing assembly could easily be utilized as a means of creating a second-class of kingdom citizens, as it was the dietary restrictions of the Jewish believers, and the attendant and implied morality of those restrictions, that could be seen to have trumped the apparently lax morality of the Gentile believers (as indicated by their lack of concern with the history of their food, its association with idolatry and sexual immorality, and its lack of proper preparation).  Now, this is not to say that Paul did not value the dietary restrictions or that he believed that the Jewish believers should abandon the law-based restrictions that they observed.  He never insists that Jewish believers violate their conscience, but he does insist that it is, in fact, a matter of conscience, and that the presence of certain foods, if they are not eaten, should not be an issue for the Jewish believer. 

Jerusalem & The Justification Of Gentiles (part 2 of 2)

After Peter spoke, “The whole group kept quiet and listened to Barnabas and Paul while they explained all the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them” (15:12).  So here we have the repetitive theme of the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, and therefore confirmation of Gentile justification (covenant inclusion) as indicated by the reporting of miraculous signs and wonders.  Consequently we find that, “After they stopped speaking, James replied, ‘Brothers, listen to me.  Simeon has explained how God first concerned Himself to select from among the Gentiles a people for His name” (15:13-14) and “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God” (15:19). 

With this James stands in solidarity with Paul.  All that is necessary for Gentiles is that they believe the Gospel and so participate in the covenant in equal standing with those who are members of Israel (as indicated by their own covenant markers).  This belief in the Gospel corresponds with the story of Abraham, so all is well.  Unfortunately, he could not leave well-enough alone.  Apparently, the idea of Gentile inclusiveness apart from some form of outward covenant marker was untenable to James and the others in Jerusalem.

Part of Paul’s indictment of Peter in the letter to the Galatians makes mention of James, as it was “Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles” (2:12).  Luke softens this in Acts to “some men came down from Judea” (15:1a).  When we consider that the issue of table fellowship was prominent in Antioch, there is little wonder that James adds “we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood” (15:20).  We should take notice that all of this has to do with food.  We know this because the issue at Antioch sprang from the withdrawal of Jewish believers from table fellowship, with circumcision as a natural follow-on issue, though it was secondary. 

There are not three separate issues here, with two having to do with moral behavior and one having to do with food.  Thinking along such lines pulls us away from the appropriate context and the issues at hand amongst the believers.  The table was where the believing congregation gathered, and because the meal table was of paramount importance for the shaping of societies and communities in the day in which the church first came into existence, so also the church’s meal table was of paramount importance.  We must understand that.  Once we comprehend the community-shaping-and-identifying power of the meal in the Greco-Roman world, we can comfortably come to terms with Paul’s being quite exercised at the way that it being misused in Corinth, and why it is foundational for Paul’s challenge to Peter in Galatians, which sets him off on the path of writing about the nature of justification in that letter.

James is not suggesting that they “abstain from things defiled by idols” and to “abstain from sexual immorality” out of a concern that the believers be circumspect about the moral and spiritual condition of those with whom they are dining.  If that was the case, the addition of “abstain from what has been strangled and from blood” would seem wholly out of place.  Instead, we must hear this as a single directive, all of it having to do with food and the meal table.  James apparently does want the Jews and Gentiles to be able to share the same table (the divisions and problems at Antioch began at the meal table), so these particular directives are what will allow the Jewish believers to join the Gentile believers at the same table.  James wants the Gentile believers to abstain from food that has been defiled by idols, food that has been defiled by sexual immorality, food that has been defiled by strangling, and food that is defiled by the presence of the blood.  If they do this, then they will be able to join the Jewish believers (the true people of the covenant?) at their meal table.  Failing this, in his estimation, table division should not continue.

Paul, and apparently Peter before the men arrived from James arrived in Antioch, did not find it necessary to hold out such restrictions.  For Paul, and apparently Peter (the Cornelius story of the tenth chapter of Acts playing a role in this), the only thing that mattered was the belief in Jesus as Lord, with that functioning as the basis for open table fellowship between Jew and Gentile.  Paul would not insist that Jewish Christ-believers eat food that they would consider to be defiled, but he would insist that such food not be the basis for the failure for all to come together at the same table, or be the justification for separate meal tables in the church.  At the same, as evidenced by what James wants to write, there does appear to be unanimous agreement that if the meal table was divided, so too would the church be divided.  Hierarchies and divisions would develop and be exacerbated, and this would ultimately be destructive to the church and deleterious to the message of the Gospel.  James wants to put the onus on the Gentiles, insisting that they conform to Jewish custom in this matter.  Paul, on the other hand, wants love to rule the day.    

Jerusalem & The Justification Of Gentiles (part 1 of 2)

As we know, the Apostle Paul’s travels are well chronicled.  A portion of those travels are quickly chronicles in Acts fourteen.  We find that from Lystra, he returns to Iconium, and from there, he makes his way back to Antioch.  Upon return to Antioch, he and Barnabas “gathered the church together” and “reported all the things God had done with them, and that He had opened a door of faith for the Gentiles” (14:27b).  All is well in Antioch until “some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’” (15:1)  By this, we understand why Acts throws helpful light on Romans.  We can place this alongside the happenings that Paul reports in Galatians two.  The agitation that is on display in the letter to the Galatians, as Paul recounts his Antioch experience, demonstrates the seriousness of the issue of Gentile justification by faith. 

We’ll note that Luke moves directly from God’s opening of a door of faith for the Gentiles, to the veritable closing of that door through the insistence on circumcision.  Whereas Paul understood the message of the Gospel to encompass the idea that Israel was “to be a light to the Gentiles, to bring salvation to the ends of the earth” (13:47b) in an outward movement that would see the development of an ever-widening circle of the covenant people of God, the insistence upon circumcision represented an inward turning and a limitation of the efficacy of the Gospel message.  Thus it is easy to understand Luke’s report that “Paul and Barnabas had a major argument and debate with them” (15:2a).  Luke shows restraint in this statement, as Paul’s letter to the Galatians reports a dramatic response on Paul’s part, owing to the fact that the same type of message was being then promulgated in Galatia. 

That said, chapter fifteen of Acts becomes a significant chapter in any study or consideration of justification, and the covenant marker of belief in Jesus, as we learn that “the church,” owing to the major argument and debate, “appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them to go up to meet with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this point of disagreement.  So they were sent on their way by the church… When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all the things God had done with them.  But some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed stood up and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.’” (15:2b-3a,4-5)  Based on our knowledge about Paul from his letters, we know he is going to vociferously oppose this stance, though at this point in Luke’s history of the early church we have only just learned about Paul’s opposition to any requirement for Gentile believers to be circumcised.  It is here that the reader of Acts first learns about Paul’s position, but it is safe to say that he has already worked out his opposition to any need for Gentiles to observe the works of the law, and especially that which had become the traditional covenant markers, based on the apostle’s knowledge of God’s dealings with Abraham.

In Jerusalem then, “Both the apostles and the elders met together to deliberate about this matter.  After there had been much debate, Peter,” mindful of Paul’s rebuke in Antioch and in contemplation of his experiences with Gentile believers, “stood up and said to them, ‘Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the Gospel and believe.’” (15:6-7)  We’ll notice that Peter ends with “believe,” not “believe and be circumcised.”  Furthermore, “God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us” (15:8).  Here, Peter (and Luke) makes reference to the events of Pentecost and his visit to Cornelius.  So here, though he does not go into details, we essentially have a third telling of the story of Cornelius and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, which has Pentecost as its formulaic basis. 

Pointing out the folly of the insistence that Gentiles be circumcised and forced to abide by the law of Moses, Peter says “and He made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith” (15:9).  Jews and Gentiles are grouped together, without distinction.  There is then no need for them to take steps to look like Jews, for God, effectively, has circumcised their hearts.  As we well know, Paul has picked up on the “no distinction” idea, and used it for the purpose of identifying with Gentiles, while also emphasizing the circumcision of the heart (cleansing their hearts by faith).  Having said this, Peter pointedly asks “So now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?” (15:10)  Notice that it is not the Gentiles being put to the test, but God.  Notice also that Peter already refers to uncircumcised Gentiles as disciples, while also placing them within the lineage of Israel’s ancestors.  In conclusion then, Peter states that “On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are” (15:11).  Thus, Peter disavows the value of the traditional covenant markers in justification, reinforcing the lack of distinction between Jew and Gentile in the kingdom of God that was inaugurated at the Resurrection, and elevating belief in Jesus as the mark of covenant inclusion and participation in the family of Abraham.         

All Through Love (part 2 of 2)

Though there has been some intervening material, Paul’s stance against those that are preaching a contrary gospel in Galatia (1:8), which he has referenced in the opening rebuke of chapter three, and which insists upon a reconstructing of dividing walls that have been torn down by the cross, is obviously very much in mind when he goes on to write “They court you eagerly, but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you would seek them eagerly” (4:17).  Honor and shame considerations are very much at play here. 

Judaizers and their presumably Jerusalem-backed supporters, that seek to continue divisions between Jew and Gentile and want to elevate the Jew over the Gentile even inside the church of Christ (wanting Gentiles to acknowledge the superiority of the Jew by their adherence to covenant markers), which we know must be present because of Paul’s recollection of his encounter with Peter in Antioch (attempting to force Gentiles to live like Jews – 2:14), want to use a lack of traditional covenant markers so as to exclude Gentiles from the covenant.  In so doing, the Judaizers and Jews will be elevated in the eyes of the congregation, as having primacy in relation to the covenant, thus increasing their honor within the church and most likely their public honor outside of the church.  Gentile openness to such things pains and perplexes Paul (4:19-20). 

Ultimately, after relaying what he hopes is a useful allegory concerning slavery and freedom, contrasting the works of the law and belief in Jesus, he brazenly declares “For freedom Christ has set us free.  Stand firm, then, and do not be subject again to the yoke of slavery.  Listen!  I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you at all” (5:1-2).  Here, Paul echoes verse twenty-one of chapter two, where he wrote “I do not set aside God’s grace, because if righteousness,” or right standing in regards to the covenant (justification, salvation, etc…), “could come through the law, then Christ died for nothing!”  These words are not to be heard apart from the Jew and Gentile divide and the issue of justification, and Paul’s assertion that “every man who lets himself be circumcised… is obligated to obey the whole law” (5:3), gains its import by being heard in correspondence with that issue. 

At the same time, Paul is not going to let anybody get away with any half measures.  If somebody wants to be identified as a covenant participant through the old covenant markers, thus rejecting the new covenant marker of belief in Jesus, then they must go all the way, observing Sabbaths and food laws (and perhaps even all of Torah).  It feels as if Paul is reaching for the most persuasive terms possible, indicating the grave importance of Jesus alone (faith alone) as the covenant marker to be borne by the people of God as they continue their march of responsibility through history, representing a kingdom and a King. 

This attempt at persuasion at all costs has Paul uttering things like “You who are trying to be declared righteous by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace!” (5:4)  The demand is clear: the kingdom of God and its covenant will be realized through God’s gracious demonstration of Himself through Jesus the Christ.  Though it used to be the case that those that did not live in accordance with the covenant markers of Israel were the ones that were aliens to the covenant, now it is the case that those who live according to those covenant markers are, in fact, the ones who are aliens to the promise.  There is no going back.  “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision carries any weight---the only thing that matters is faith working through love” (5:6). 

Spirit & Flesh (part 1 of 2)

Coming alongside the Galatian congregation so as to listen in as Paul’s letter is read to them, we hear “We are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.  And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.  But if while seeking to be justified in Christ we ourselves have also been found to be sinners, is Christ then one who encourages sin?  Absolutely not!  But if I build up again those things I once destroyed,” which would be the covenant markers that served as barriers between Jew and Gentile, that were used to exclude Gentiles from the covenant rather than being used to reveal the Creator God, and stood in the way of God’s people fulfilling His purposes for them and for the world, “I demonstrate that I am one who breaks God’s law” (2:15-18). 

What law does Paul here have in mind that is being flouted and broken by this separating activity and all that it implies?  Though it will not be on offer for a few more chapters, what we can confidently assert that Paul has in mind is “Carry one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (6:2).  Surely, the actions of Peter and those that were carried away by his hypocrisy does not live up to this ideal.     

Predictably, the conclusion Paul draws from this has him saying “I do not set aside God’s grace, because if righteousness,” that is, the right standing with God that results from being justified (included in the people of God based on belief in Jesus and His ultimate faithfulness to God’s purposes as He stood in for Israel and for all of humanity, experiencing the ultimate curse of death and subsequently overcoming that curse), “could come through the law,” or if the status of justified could be attained by all peoples through the adherence to the old covenant markers, “then Christ died for nothing!” (2:21) 

Clearly, Paul has reflected on the actions of Peter and other members of the church at Antioch (earlier in the letter) for a specific purpose.  The members of the congregation of Christ-followers in Galatia were behaving in similar ways (separating from Gentiles at the meal table), operating with similar thoughts, and allowing a similar message in regards to the necessity of the old covenant markers to be promulgated.  Paul cannot abide this, especially considering the fact that he firmly believes that such teaching and actions, the thinking that undergirds said teaching and actions, and what results from such teaching and actions, results in the dismissal of the death of Christ.  If the death of Christ is emptied of its value, then the Resurrection also is emptied of its value, the new creation has not begun, there is no kingdom of God in existence, Jesus is not the Lord of all to whom all must submit, there is no Gospel message, God is not faithful to His promises, the history of Israel has been nothing more than a pointless exercise in futility, all his labor has been done in vain, and death wins. 

Considering that, Paul’s response to the Galatians is quite predictable.  He writes “You foolish Galatians!  Who has cast a spell on you?  Before your eyes Jesus Christ was vividly portrayed as crucified!  The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or be believing what you heard?” (3:1-2)  Paul asks them if they are participating in the new creation (Spirit is often Paul’s shorthand for the age of new creation and that which attends it, just as “flesh” is often Paul’s shorthand for the old age, though Spirit can and should be here understood as the work of the Spirit of God to convince them that a crucified and resurrected Man was now Lord of all) via their belief in Jesus as Lord (the Gospel) or via their adherence to the old covenant markers?  He continues with, “Are you so foolish?  Although you began with the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by human effort?” (3:3)  This is another contrast between the new covenant marker and the old covenant markers. 

Maintaining his thoughts along the same lines, we go on to hear Paul ask “Have you suffered so many things for nothing?---if indeed it was for nothing” (3:4).  This suffering may have been the social ostracizing that they would have experienced outside the church because of the new demands placed on them by their oath of loyalty to Jesus and the new way of living that it demanded (rejection of civic activities in honor of the gods, the Caesar, or the empire, and therefore being perceived as contributors to disunity, disorder, and disharmony, which could also lead to an inability to access food and various public goods).  He also asks, “Does God then give you the Spirit and work miracles among you,” which, within the context provided, is the inclusion of Gentiles within the fold of the covenant people, with walls of separation between Jew and Gentile eliminated in a way that would see them openly and freely sharing meal tables without division---a miracle indeed, especially in a world that divided itself along a number of lines “by doing the works of the law or by your believing what you heard?” (3:4-5)