Foolish Galatians

Here in the United States we’re in the middle of a presidential election year, with candidates doing their best to win over as many voters as possible. In a sense, a political campaign is not that different from how 1st century Christian missionaries tried to win over Jew and Gentile converts to their particular interpretations of Christianity.

In a contemporary political campaign, when one candidate critiques the positions of their opponent, the audience is familiar with what the opponent has said or done. But when it comes to Paul defending his ministry against his opponents, such as the Judaizers in Galatians, we only hear one side of the story. We have to reconstruct the opposing viewpoint from how Paul argues against it in his letters. And, just as a modern politician tends to twist their opponent’s position, you can be sure that Paul is giving his audience neither a complete nor a generous interpretation of the Judaizers’ position.

Arguments Against the Judaizers

The core of Paul’s refutation of the Judaizers in Galatians lies in chapters 3 and 4. A key argument is an experiential one: the Galatians received the Spirit without doing works of the Law, so how can doing works of the Law be necessary for justification (3:1-5):? Prior to receiving the gospel, the Galatians were enslaved to the “elemental spirits of the world.” Faith in God’s son redeemed them from their slavery and made them adopted children of God. How can the Galatians return to slavery (4:1-9)?

Paul also relied on Scripture to refute the Judaizers: God promised Abraham, a man whose faith was reckoned as righteousness (Gen 15:5-6), that through his offspring all the nations would be blessed (Gen 22:18). They will be blessed not because they are circumcised, but because they believed, like Abraham did. And this promise to Abraham was made 430 years prior to the Law being given to Moses, so how can it be contingent on observing the law (Gal 3:6-18)?

The Allegory of Sarah and Hagar

Paul cites the story from Genesis of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar, but says the Judaizers have misinterpreted it. This requires a little explanation. In Genesis 16 Sarah, seeing that she was childless, gave her Egyptian slave-girl Hagar to Abraham as a concubine. Hagar conceived but became contemptuous of Sarah, who then mistreated her to the point that Hagar ran away. But YHWH found Hagar by a spring of water in the wilderness and told her to return, later giving birth to Ishmael. In Genesis 21:8-21, Hagar is again driven off into the wilderness where God intervenes once more to save the life of mother and child.

Hagar and Ishmael Banished by Abraham (1781) by Flemish painter Pieter-Jozef Verhaghen

As well as we can reconstruct it, the Judaizers’ argument was that Abraham had two children, one (Isaac) the son of the free woman Sarah, the other (Ishmael) the son of the slave-girl Hagar. Jews are the descendants of Isaac and Gentiles are the descendants of Ishmael, so both Jew and Gentile are children of Abraham. But the Jews are the true children of Abraham because, like him, they practice circumcision and observe the Sabbath and other feasts. As the Messiah, Jesus offers Gentiles the opportunity to share in God’s promise of blessings to Abraham’s descendants. All they have to do is accept circumcision and observe the Mosaic Law.

Paul interprets the story of Sarah and Hagar as an allegory (Gal 4:21-31). The child of the slave woman (Hagar) is born according to the flesh and the child of the free woman (Sarah) is born according to the promise. The descendants of Hagar are not the Gentiles but the Jews, for they are enslaved to the Law. The descendants of Sarah are those born according to the Spirit, in freedom. Sarah had Abraham drive out Hagar because she did not want the child of the slave to share Abraham's inheritance. Thus Paul makes a subtle suggestion that the Galatians are to drive out the Judaizers.

Such an allegorical interpretation of Scripture was once popular, but has been out of favor since the Middle Ages. It’s not hard to see why. There are simply no controls to the interpreter’s imagination. Are Jews the children of the free woman or the slave woman? As you can see, this approach allows for diametrically opposed interpretations of the same biblical passage. How can someone possibly judge which of these allegorical interpretations is correct?

It’s not entirely an academic question. Paul is trying to refute those who would impose the Mosaic Law on Gentiles. From his perspective, the Judaizers are trying to enslave his Christian converts. But to say Paul is denigrating Judaism as a religion that enslaves people is to completely misinterpret Paul. That’s exactly what the 2nd c. theologian Marcion did, concluding that the God of the OT was incompatible with the teachings of Jesus. Anti-semites down through the centuries have also used Paul to justify their prejudice.

Abraham vs. Jesus

The Judaizers’ elevated focus on Abraham and Law caused Paul to reflect on the role of Jesus and “the Law of Christ” which he defines as “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). It is the love of Christ “who loved me and gave himself for me” that now lives in Paul (2:20). The magnitude of Christ’s love is his self-sacrifice on the cross (a death, by the way, that is condemned by the Law [3:13]).

The Christian is freed from obedience to the Law but that does not mean – contrary to what the Judaizers might say – that Christians are free to indulge the desires of the flesh (5:16-21). The works of the flesh lead to destruction of the individual and the community, but the fruit of the Spirit lead to building up the individual and the community (5:22-26). Use your freedom to become slaves to one another (5:13) because it is only by bearing one another’s burdens that one fulfills the Law of Christ (6:2). Christ himself said that the whole Law could be summed up in a single commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Did Paul’s letter bring the Galatians round to his side again? His letter was preserved, so at least some in Galatia thought his writing was worth keeping and sharing with other churches. Galatians served as a rough draft for Paul’s letter introducing himself to the churches in Rome, where he was able to expound on his theological ideas of justification by faith. Both Galatians and Romans would inspire Luther to develop his doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone).

Maybe Paul was misunderstood in his own time, but his writings have continued to inspire Christians throughout the centuries.

Competitive Christianity

If you want to buy a personal computer today, you have a choice between Apple and Windows-based systems. But almost 40 years ago you could have chosen from models by Commodore, Apple, Tandy, Atari, Sinclair, and a variety of other vendors, all incompatible with each other’s software. Only with the creation of IBM’s original PC and the multitude of PC-clones that offered the same functioning hardware at a cheaper price point did some semblance of standardization take hold, eventually leading to the binary choices in personal computers we have today.

Similarly, it would be wrong to think that the Christianity we know today was the only brand of Christianity operative in the 1st century. A close reading of the NT literature indicates there were a variety of preachers and prophets all trying to spread their own version of Christianity. Paul regarded his opponents as “false prophets” and, in all likelihood, they would have said the same of him. The average Gentile convert had no idea which of these competing gospels were authentic.

The Baptism of John

Acts 18:24-28 and 19:1-7 present us with some Christian odd-fellows in the form of Apollos and a dozen believers who were unfamiliar with the Holy Spirit and only knew the baptism of John. Previously, I wrote about how John’s baptism of Jesus and Jesus’ continuation of John’s ministry were suppressed in the NT. In his time, the Baptist was very popular but Jesus eventually came to supplant him and the Baptist was re-cast as a precursor of Jesus. So it is not impossible that some of the Baptist’s disciples would have spread outside of Judea alongside traditional Christian missionaries.

Apollos, a Jewish convert from Alexandria, is introduced upon his arrival in Ephesus in Acts 18:24-28. Although he was described as eloquent, well-versed in Scripture, and “taught accurately the things concerning Jesus,” he “knew only the baptism of John.” Fortunately, Prisca and Aquila were able to explain Christianity to him “more accurately.” Luke does not describe how one could both “teach accurately” yet still need instruction to be “more accurate.”

The next episode (19:1-7) presents a similar scene in Ephesus. Paul found some dozen disciples who, like Apollos, had only received John’s baptism of repentance and knew nothing of the Holy Spirit. After being baptized in the name of Jesus, Paul laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues and prophesying. (In the previous episode, no mention was made of Apollos being re-baptized.) There is insufficient information to be sure but my impression is that Apollos and the other twelve were early disciples of Jesus – and not the Baptist’s disciples – who did not possess the charismatic gifts associated with the Holy Spirit.

We know from Paul’s correspondence that Apollos was a popular teacher in Corinth. Indeed, divisions developed in Corinth among those who considered Apollos their spiritual leader (1 Cor 3:4-6). Factionalism was an apparent problem not only in Corinth but Philippi as well. This seems to be a logical outgrowth of Paul’s missionary program: he would establish a church, provide some basic instructions on how to live according to the Spirit, and then move on. Without any explicit rules to follow, it was only natural that individual Christians would disagree as to how a Christian was to behave.

Church Divisions

While Corinth and Philippi faced divisions from within, the churches of Galatia were confronted with outsiders who undermined Paul’s work. After the Council of Jerusalem, we saw how Paul had a falling out with Peter and Barnabas over whether Jewish Christians would be allowed to have table fellowship with Gentile Christians. Paul lost that battle and it may have also led him to cut his ties with the Antiochene church. He therefore missed the subsequent letter from the Jerusalem authorities that required Gentile Christians to follow Jewish restrictions on diet and sexual unions.

The opponents Paul attacks in his letter to the Galatians went beyond the requirements of the Jerusalem decree. A linchpin of their teaching was strongly encouraging – if not compelling – Gentile Christians to become circumcised. They also wanted the Galatians to observe Jewish feasts and festivals. To win over the Galatians, they had to discredit Paul as an apostle and explain why the Mosaic Law was the foundation on which Christians could ground their new life in Christ.

Paul spends the first two chapters of Galatians defending himself as an apostle commissioned by the risen Lord and accepted by recognized authorities in Jerusalem like Peter and James. After establishing his bona fides, Paul spends the rest of the letter elaborating on how it is faith in Jesus Christ and not obedience to the Law which justifies a person before God. The Law was the disciplinarian until Christ came, but after one has received the Spirit, that person is no longer subject to the disciplinarian. He pleads with the Galatians to reclaim the freedom of the gospel and not turn to the slavery of the Law, which is what accepting circumcision would entail.

There were other flavors of Christianity in the air. Notable among them is the version seen in the Gospel of John and the three Johannine epistles. The Johannine Christians seem to have evolved from Hellenist Christians like Stephen who taught that Jesus replaced the essentials of Judaism like Temple worship and festivals. They had an elevated view of Jesus, almost to the point of denying his humanity. Over the decades, without a church authority structure to combat false teaching, the Johannine churches were torn apart by divisions. Some finally accepted the authority of the greater church, while the rest spun off into Gnosticism, the belief that one is saved by a secret knowledge (gnosis).

All of these Christianities competed in the marketplace of ideas. The more extreme elements – Judaizers on one side and Gnostics on the other – fell by the wayside. The Petrine, Pauline, and Johannine elements combined together to give us the church that we see emerging in the 2nd century writings of the early Church Fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp and Justin Martyr. This is the brand of Christianity that was refined in the crucible.

O! Say Parousia

After I graduated from college in 1982, I wrote letters to keep in touch with my friends who had moved away to various parts of the country. Today email and text are so much faster and efficient but they don’t replace the joy of finding a letter in the mailbox from a friend you haven’t seen in a while, tearing into the envelope to read the latest news from afar. For many years, I kept some of the letters I had received so that I could re-read them from time to time. I knew it might be years before I could see my friends again in-person.

Such was the case with Paul in the middle of the 1st century. He visited a city long enough to make some converts and setup a church, but then it was off to the next town. But Paul would keep in touch by means of letters, encouraging the churches he founded, providing instruction or addressing their questions, and in some cases, chastising them for not living up their potential.

Thessalonica was one of the cities where Paul’s visit was abruptly cut short. According to Acts 17:1-15, Jews angered at Paul’s evangelization efforts caused him to be driven out of town. Paul wanted to return but was unable so he sent Timothy to check up on the church. Timothy caught up with Paul in Corinth and brought back a positive report. Overjoyed at the news, Paul wrote a letter of encouragement back to the Thessalonians.

Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians (1 Thess) is the earliest Christian document we possess. Because it was written during Paul’s 18 month stay in Corinth, we can date it to 51 CE. It is very short and can be easily read in 15 minutes. I encourage you to give it a quick read either before or after completing this article.

You Know, You Know

The letter can be roughly divided into two parts. 1 Thess 1-3 praises the Thessalonians and recounts Paul’s short-lived ministry there and his desire to return. Chapters 4 and 5 provide extended instruction on the second coming of Christ (4:13-5:11) surrounded by exhortations to live a life pleasing to God. Unlike other Pauline letters, there are no weighty theological topics such as justification by faith.

The problem with trying to understand Paul’s correspondence is that we only have one half of the conversation. We have to infer the situation Paul is addressing from clues in the letters. For example, why does Paul spend so much of the letter reminding the Thessalonians of things they already know?

You yourselves know, brothers and sisters, that our coming to you was not in vain…as you know, we had courage in our God to declare to you the gospel...as you know and as God is our witness, we never came with words of flattery…you remember our labor and toil…as you know, we dealt with each one of you like a father. (2:1-11)

These reminders from Paul suggest that Timothy returned with news that others – disciples or rival Christian teachers – were speaking ill of Paul. Maybe they were calling him a coward, someone who cut and run at the first sign of trouble with the authorities, leaving his converts behind to suffer the consequences. They not only questioned his dedication but also the authenticity of his teaching.

In his defense Paul reminds his readers of the suffering and shameful mistreatment he received in Philippi and the opposition he encountered in Thessalonica. If his readers had suffered mistreatment from their fellow Gentiles, they can rest assured they are in solidarity with the Christian churches in Judea under attack by the Jewish population. Indeed, they are imitators of the Lord Jesus himself.

Unlike the wandering peddlers of exotic religions who told people what they wanted to hear in order to live off donations, Paul worked for his upkeep so as not to beg for charity. He did not seek praise nor did he make unreasonable demands. His teachings were authorized by God and the fruit of God’s word at work in the believers was proof of that.

Contemporary Christian art of raptured Christians meeting the Lord in the clouds are usually a lot more literal than this.

Caught Up in the Clouds

The one new teaching in 1 Thess is the section on the coming of the Lord (4:13-5:11). The Greek word for “coming” is parousia, and was used in reference to the solemn arrival of a king at a certain place. Parousia occurs four times in 1 Thess and has become the technical term used in theological writings to refer to the second coming of Christ.

Paul wants the Thessalonians to know that those who have died will rise again. They won’t miss out, for at his coming Christ will raise the dead along with those who are still alive and all will be “caught up in the clouds together…to meet the Lord in the air” (4:17). The Greek word used for “caught up” was translated into the Latin Vulgate as rapturo (“seized, carried off”). This passage inspired the term for the Christian teaching of “rapture,” but that’s a topic for another time.

Why does Paul find it necessary to address the problem of Christians who have died? Not many Christians in Thessalonica would typically have died in the months since he visited them, unless they were killed as a result of official executions or unauthorized lynch mobs. This would underscore why some Thessalonians may have denigrated Paul as someone who stirred up trouble only to leave when the going got tough. Paul needed to address the situation and assure those still alive that their dead will rise again.

This section also tells us that Paul believes Christ will come soon, most likely in his lifetime. Those who have recently died are exceptions to the rule. Paul expected that most Christians living at the time of his writing would still be alive at the Parousia. But as time dragged on with no Parousia, this teaching became an embarrassment.

The second letter of Peter shows a church leader trying to deal with the problem of the delayed Parousia (2 Pet 3:1-13). As the last members of the apostolic generation died off (“ever since our fathers fell asleep”), doubters began to ask, “Where is the promise of his coming?” The author’s answer is that, for the Lord, “one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Any perceived delay is to allow more people time to repent.

In closing his epistle, Paul urges the recipient to read it to all members of the church in Thessalonica (1 Thess 5:27). No doubt a personal letter from Paul was treasured by the community as would be a letter from the pope today. Copies were made and distributed to other churches in the vicinity. By the 2nd century, they were considered part of what we today call the NT canon.

I wonder what Paul would think if he had known that his letters would be read daily by millions of Christians worldwide two thousand years later.

The First Missionary Couple

Paul is commonly seen as the master missionary who single-handedly evangelized the Roman world but, in fact, he had a lot of help. On his first missionary journey, he worked alongside Barnabas and chose Silas as his companion for the second missionary journey. Along the way, he picked up Timothy (and perhaps Luke) as well. In Corinth, he made the acquaintance of a married couple, Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:1-3), who are mentioned in his letters (1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:3-5) as his fellow co-workers in Christ.

From Philippi to Athens

After baptizing Lydia in Philippi, Paul (16:16-24) exorcised the spirit of divination from a slave girl, spoiling the talent that was profitable for her masters. The masters hauled Paul and Silas before the magistrates who had them beaten with rods and thrown in prison. Luke recounts another miraculous “prison break” scene (vv. 25-34), except this time, Paul and Silas do not escape from prison but remain to evangelize the warden.

Vv. 35-40 make no mention of the miraculous earthquake. On the next morning, the magistrates ordered the release of Paul and Silas. They are even more eager to hustle them out of town when they find out that Paul, at least, is a Roman citizen; flogging was an illegal punishment for Roman citizens.

According to Acts 17:1-15, trouble with the Jewish citizens of Thessalonica made their visit there short-lived and trouble followed them to Beroea as well. Leaving Silas and Timothy behind, Paul left for Athens.

Paul tells a slightly different story in his first letter to the Thessalonians. After referencing his suffering and mistreatment at Philippi (1 Thess 2:2), Paul discussed how he was separated from the Thessalonians and wanted to return but Satan blocked his way (2:17-18). Paul eventually chose to remain alone in Athens in order to send Timothy back to Thessalonica to check on the state of the infant church there (3:1-5). In Paul’s version, Timothy had initially accompanied him to Athens.

Paul Before the Areopagus

Alone in Athens (17:16-34), Paul continued to spread the word of Jesus and had discussions with the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers. Eventually, he was interrogated by the city council, the Areopagus. Paul’s speech to the council gives us an idea of how a 1st-century missionary would have evangelized pagan Gentiles.

Paul begins by referencing an altar he saw in the city that was dedicated “to an unknown god.” He asserts this unknown god is the God who made the world and everything in it: “For in him we live and move and have our being” (v. 28). This God created all humanity and placed within us a longing to seek him out. Paul even quotes the Stoic poet Aratus (3rd century BCE): “of him we too are offspring.”

Although God has overlooked human sinfulness in the past, now is a time for repentance because he has fixed a time in which the world will be judged by Jesus. We know this to be true because God has raised him from the dead. Mention of the resurrection drew both negative and curious reactions from the jaded Athenians and Paul soon left Athens for Corinth.

Fresco from Pompeii of a Roman couple. Prisca and Aquila could have looked something like this.

Setting Up Shop in Corinth

Once in Corinth Paul apparently ran out of funds and needed to work his trade as a tent maker so he would not have to beg for support (2 Cor 11:7-9). He ended up working and living with Priscilla (Prisca in Paul’s letters) and Aquila, fellow tent makers and Jewish believers who had recently arrived from Italy, forced out due to an edict from the emperor Claudius (Acts 18:1-3). The Roman historian Suetonius explains: “He expelled Jews from Rome, who were constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.” Historians debate exactly when this happened, with 49 CE being a frequently cited date.

It sounds like an odd trade in a city like Corinth, but tent makers were in high demand because they made awnings for residences and shops as well as tents for temporary lodgings. They would probably also able to work leather goods such as cloaks and belts. Paul lodged with Aquila and Prisca until Silas and Timothy arrived with money from the Macedonian churches (2 Cor 11:9). This enabled Paul to return full-time to his ministry, so he left their home and moved next door to the synagogue (Acts 18:5-7).

When, after 18 months in Corinth, Paul returned to Asia, he took Prisca and Aquila along and left them in Ephesus to build up the church there (18:18-21). According to Acts 18:24-28, they would prove instrumental in catechizing Apollos, who would become a popular teacher in Corinth. A few years later, after the death of Claudius, they returned to Rome. The move may have been prompted by Paul who was planning a visit to Rome and may have wanted to use them as a vanguard in laying the groundwork for him. In his letter to the Romans, Paul praises the couple for having “risked their necks for my life” (Rom 16:3-4). They and the church that met in their home are the first to receive his greetings.

Christianity is Not a Crime

Towards the end of his stay in Corinth, Paul once again got in trouble with the local Jewish congregation and was brought before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12-17). The case the Jews presented to Gallio was that Paul was persuading people to worship God “in ways that are contrary to the law.” Judaism was a legally recognized religion in Roman law and they wanted Gallio to declare that Paul’s Chrisitianity was not the same as Judaism. Gallio did not want to engage in semantics (“a matter of questions about words and names and your own law”) and refused judgment. In short, Gallio decreed that Christianity was not a crime under Roman law.

An inscription allows us to date Gallio’s proconsulship to 52 CE, giving us the best chronological peg in Paul’s life. Paul would have arrived in Corinth in late 50/early 51 and lodged with Aquila and Prisca a year or two after they were expelled from Rome. This period is also the time when he wrote his first letter to the Thessalonians, the earliest document we have in the NT. We will look at that letter next week.

We the People

[Note: I will be on vacation next week, so I won't be posting any new articles until I return the week of August 8.] 

The Council of Jerusalem sits at the center of Acts and marks a turning point in the story. Prior to the council, Luke’s narrative thread darts from one character to another: Peter, Stephen, Philip, Saul, Peter again, and Paul. But after the council, the apostles disappear from the story and the focus is solely on Paul. Not only that, but the author seems to insert himself into the story with an unexpected shift from 3rd person narration to 1st person.

Paul’s New Partner

After the men from James arrived in Antioch and started enforcing the separation of Jewish and Gentile Christians at common meals, Paul decided to hit the road on another missionary journey. Acts explained (15:37-39) that Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them and Paul refused. Whether for that reason or Barnabas siding with Peter in the table-fellowship controversy (Gal 2:13), Paul chose Silas as his new missionary partner.

Silas was first mentioned in Acts 15:22 as a leader in the Jerusalem church who, along with Judas Barsabbas, would carry the Jerusalem council’s decree to Antioch. He is most likely the same person Paul identifies as Silvanus in his letters. Given Silas’ position within the Jerusalem community, he would bring legitimacy to the Pauline mission.

Timothy’s Circumcision

Revisiting the towns from the previous mission, Paul and Silas travelled overland to Lystra where lived a disciple named Timothy (Acts 16:1-4). Timothy was the son of a Jewish Christian mother and a Greek father and was highly recommended by believers in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to join him on the mission, so he had him circumcised.

Paul’s action here has puzzled many commentators. Why did Paul circumcise Timothy when the Jerusalem council did not require it of Titus (Gal 2:1-3)? The key, I think, is that while Titus was Greek, Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother. If he was then considered to be Jewish by birth, he needed to be circumcised if he would be accompanying Paul since he did not want Timothy to become a distraction to his mission.

Timothy’s circumcision would also demonstrate that Paul was not opposed to Jewish Christians following the Mosaic law. It was a literal embodiment of what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 9:20:

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law.

The “We” Passages

Leaving the region of Galatia, Paul and his companions were prevented from going to the cities on the west or northern coasts of Asia Minor (16:6-10). They made their way to Troas, a seaport on the northwestern shore and there Paul had a vision one night of a Macedonian man inviting him to come over to Europe. Convinced that God was calling them, “we immediately tried to cross over to Macedonia.”

This first use of the 1st-person plural in what had been up to this point 3rd-person narration is quite jarring. It marks the first of four We-Sections (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16). The first We-Section covers the journey from Troas in Asia Minor to Philippi in Macedonia. The second and third pick up four chapters and several years later and cover the journey from Philippi to Jerusalem. The last We-Section covers the captive Paul’s journey from Caesarea to Rome.

Scholars have debated the meaning behind these “we” passages. The obvious explanation is that the author is recounting experiences that he shared with Paul and the others. The day-by-day detail of the itinerary in the We-Sections reads like the travel journal of an eyewitness. The problem is that Acts paints a different portrait of Paul than what we know from his authentic letters. The alternate theory is that the use of “we” is a stylistic device well-known in sea voyage literature of the time. Critics of this theory argue that the “we” passages do more than simply recount travel by ship.

For the time being, I am inclined to believe the “we” passages are taken from an eyewitness source. Scholars say that the use of language in these passages match that of the rest of Acts, so they either come from the same author or were thoroughly re-written to match his literary style.

In the second century, Irenaeus attributed the Gospel and Acts to Luke, a companion of Paul. Why Luke and not any of the dozen other companions of Paul? Maybe it was a guess or maybe that was the tradition he received. Whatever the case may be, I refer to the author as “Luke” for simplicity’s sake, instead of using a circumlocution such as “the author of the Third Gospel.”

Icon of Lydia of Thyatira. Thyatira is one of the "seven churches" mentioned in Rev 2-3. The message to the church in Thyatira (Rev 2:18-29) warns against a prophetess who teaches the community to practice immorality and eat food sacrificed to idols. We know from Paul's letters (1 Cor 8) that he had no objections to eating meat sacrificed to idols. If Lydia returned to Thyatira and promoted Paul's version of Christianity, could she be the false prophet condemned in Revelation? NT Christianity was not monolithic and one group of faithful believers could be considered false brothers by another group.

Women’s Liberation

The first convert in Philippi – indeed, the first Christian convert in all of Europe – is Lydia (16:11-15), a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira in Asia Minor. Royal purple cloth was a luxury item that only royalty and the wealthy could afford. Since Lydia had a household large enough to accommodate both servants and guests, she was probably a financially independent woman. Acts calls her “a worshipper of God,” so she was a Gentile God-fearer.

The author writes that on the Sabbath day Paul and his companions went outside the city to a place along the river where the Jewish women gathered for prayer. This suggests there were not enough men in Philippi to form a proper synagogue. After her baptism, Lydia welcomed Paul and his companions to her home, ignoring the restrictive customs of the day that would not allow a woman talk to a man, let alone invite him into her home. By the end of the chapter (v. 40), Lydia’s home had become a house-church for the Christian community in Philippi.

Luke’s subtle point here is that Jewish women could not be founding members of a Jewish synagogue. But as Christians, women like Lydia could be the founding members of a local church. The freedom of the Gospel empowers women and frees them from the restraints placed on them by their faith and culture. It calls to mind the statement of absolute equality in my favorite passage from Scripture (Gal 3:28):

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are one in Christ Jesus.

The Jerusalem Diet

The English word diet is derived from a Latin word meaning both “parliamentary assembly” and “daily food allowance.” Although the political use of the word may not be very familiar to us today, it was used for the governing body of the Holy Roman Empire and the most famous Diet was one held in Worms, a city in the German Rhineland. The Diet of Worms was called by Emperor Charles V in 1521 to demand Martin Luther either recant his views or be declared a heretic. He didn’t recant.

The Jerusalem Conference in Acts

Both senses of the word apply to the Jerusalem conference (c. 49 CE) described in Acts 15:1-21. It was a general assembly of the apostles and elders (first- and second-generation leaders of the church) and its final decree dealt with food restrictions on Gentile converts. Paul’s account of the Jerusalem conference and its aftermath are reported in Gal 2:1-14.

In the opening verses of the account in Acts (vv. 1-2), Luke explains that the crisis was precipitated in the Antiochene church when members of the circumcision party arrived teaching that circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law were requirements for salvation. This generated confusion and dissension, so Barnabas and Paul were sent to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders there.

After both sides presented their case (vv. 4-5), Peter spoke of his experience with converts like Cornelius and how he witnessed the Holy Spirit poured out on the Gentile Christians (vv. 7-11). James concluded the conference when he announced his decision (“I have reached the decision,” v. 19) that Gentiles will only be required to abstain from certain foods and improper sexual relations (vv. 13-21). Curiously, both James’ decree and the resulting letter (vv. 22-29) said nothing of circumcision, the driving issue for the conference.

The main image in the St. Peter Window (c. 1870) of the Cologne Cathedral in Germany shows the Council of Jerusalem. Sts. Peter and Paul are the central figures. Peter's stance and gestures indicate he is the more significant figure in the window..

Two Separate Decisions

Biblical scholars believe that Luke is conflating two different decisions by the Jerusalem authorities. In Paul’s description of the council in Gal 2:1-10, the apostolic leaders decided that circumcision would not required of Gentile believers. But in a later decision where Paul was not present, some ground rules based on Lev 17-18 were established for Gentile Christians that would allow them to live and worship alongside observant Jewish Christians.

What evidence do we have for this? Paul reported (Gal 2:11-14) how table fellowship in Antioch was disrupted by insistence from the “men from James” that Jewish believers could not eat with Gentile believers. But the whole point of James’ decision in Acts 15:19-20 was to lay down minimum dietary rules for Gentiles that would allow Jews to be able to join them in table fellowship. It doesn’t make any sense for the James party to insist on separation at meals if the decision of the Jerusalem conference had established rules to eliminate the need for separation.

Not only that, but according to Acts 21:25, on a later visit to Jerusalem (c. 57 CE) Paul is informed by James that a letter was sent listing the four restrictions on Gentile Christians, the same letter that he and Barnabas were supposed to have carried to Antioch (15:25)! But it all makes perfect sense if there were two decrees from the Jerusalem authorities made a few years apart and Luke combined them as the product of one council.

Why No Circumcision?

Why did the pro-circumcision faction lose? The best explanation I’ve seen is that James realized that forcing circumcision and the Mosaic law would have driven away many potential Gentile converts. Although they might then be considered nominal Jews, the Gentiles’ allegiance would be to Christ and not to Moses. When push came to shove and outside persecutions against Jews arose again, the Gentile believers would consider themselves Christians and not Jews, in spite of any circumcision they received. They would not be willing to die rather than denounce the Mosaic law that was forced upon them.

The unspoken flip side of the Council’s decree meant no relaxation of the Mosaic law for Jewish Christians. This was not something Paul agreed to and Peter only accepted grudgingly. By ending the joint table fellowship between Jew and Gentile Christians, it dissolved the glue that held together churches like those in Antioch.

The Second Decree

Something had to be done to avoid schism. The result was a second decision holding Gentiles to the same rules spelled out in Leviticus 17 and 18 for Gentiles who are resident aliens in Israel. Acts 15:20 spells it out:

“We should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.” (NRSV)

Three of these are clearly dietary regulations: abstinence from (1) meat that was part of a pagan sacrifice (Lev 17:8-9); (2) meat from an animal that was not butchered by having the blood drained from it (17:14-15); and (3) food made from the blood of animals (17:10-12).

The odd man out in this list is porneia in Greek, translated variously as “fornication”, “unlawful marriage” (NABRE), “sexual immorality” (NIV), and “unchastity” (RSV). It is a vague term, so we look to the context to understand it. The other three restrictions come from Lev 17, and Lev 18:6-18 lists a variety of sexual unions among kin that are forbidden. As with the dietary rules, these incestuous unions are not just demanded of Jews, but also of resident aliens (Lev 18:26).

James’ cryptic statement in Acts 15:21 regarding how Moses has been read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath must be his way of saying that these are not rules that he has invented but are rules that were set forth by Moses for Gentiles living with Jews. Any Gentile familiar with the Torah would also be familiar with the regulations in the Holiness Code. In short, if it was good enough for Moses, it was good enough for James.

Finally, these were rules imposed for a mixed community. If the local church consisted of none but Gentiles, the dietary restrictions would not need to be followed. Gentile Christians in those areas, like Christians today, could still enjoy black pudding or eat their steaks rare.

A Painful Issue

The Christian church of the first-half of the first century was not a monolithic entity. We have seen how divisions arose between “Hebrew” (Hebrew-speaking) and “Hellenist” (Greek-speaking) believers. Besides following Greek – instead of Jewish – customs, the Hellenists may also have felt less of an attachment to the Temple and the sacrificial cult. After persecution drove them out of Jerusalem, Hellenists like Philip found kindred spirits in the Samaritans who also devalued Temple worship.

The Gentile Problem

Jewish monotheism and ethical practices were attractive to a certain segment of Gentiles known as God-fearers, but a full embrace of the Mosaic law which included circumcision and dietary restrictions was beyond them. So when Peter baptized Cornelius and his family, God-fearers like these could be accepted into the church as if they were Jewish converts.

But it was one thing to for a church comprised largely of Jews to accept a few Gentiles knowledgeable of Jewish law and practices, and quite another to be faced with entire congregations of Gentile Christians who knew almost nothing of Jewish scriptures and traditions. If church leaders insisted on circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law for these new Gentile Christians, most would not accept it and the budding Christian church would become just another Jewish sect. On the other hand, if the Gentiles were accepted without insistence on circumcision and following the law, then the church would lose all of its Jewish character and become a separate religion.

Four Factions

Such was the dilemma facing church authorities at the so-called “Council of Jerusalem” described in Acts 15 and Gal 2:1-10. To the question of “What is required of the Gentile Christian?” there were four basic answers, each represented by a faction within the church:

1. Full observance of the Mosaic law, including circumcision. Believers in this group were headed by former Pharisees (Acts 15:5) who saw Christianity as just another way of being Jewish. They could point to the example of Jesus who followed the Mosaic law and preached only to Jews. Therefore, Gentile followers of Jesus needed to become Jewish.
2. No circumcision, but adherence to some Jewish practices. Jews were chosen by God and were required to follow the Mosaic law, but that was not a burden that needed to be laid on Gentile converts. Lev 17-18 provided rules for Gentiles living among the people of Israel that could be applied in this situation. Peter and James were proponents of this view.
3. No circumcision and no insistence on Jewish food laws. In the view of Paul, the law served as a disciplinarian until Christ came (Gal 3:24). But Christ removed the curse for failing to fully follow the Mosaic law (Gal 3:10-13). If the risen Lord chose Paul while he was still a persecutor of the church, this proved that a person is not justified through works of the law.
4. No circumcision, no food laws, and no significance in Jewish cults and feasts. This view was held by Hellenists like Stephen, the author of the Gospel of John, and the author of Hebrews. The Temple is rejected as a place where God dwells and Jesus is seen as the replacement for the Jewish high priesthood and sacrificial offerings. More radical members would teach that Jewish Christians no longer needed to circumcise their children or observe Jewish traditions (Acts 21:21).

The Jerusalem Conference and Its Aftermath

With this background in mind, we can turn to Paul’s account of the Jerusalem Conference in Gal 2:1-10. Paul says that, “in response to a revelation,” he and Barnabas travelled to Jerusalem and brought along Titus, an uncircumcised Christian. Concerned that the church authorities could shut down his ministry, Paul laid out the gospel he proclaimed to the Gentiles. Although he was opposed by members of the “circumcision party” (group #1 above), the “pillars” of the church – James, Peter and John –– did not insist Titus be circumcised and authorized continued outreach to the Gentiles. To hear Paul tell the story, he got everything he wanted.

The Dispute at Antioch: Saints Peter and Paul by Jusepe de Ribera (1591-1652) aka “Lo Spagnoletto” (“the Little Spaniard”). Peter is the one holding the big key.

Thus it is something of a surprise when Paul continues to tells us the story of what happened when Peter visited the Antiochene church (Gal 2:11-14). After his arrival in Antioch, Peter enjoyed communal meals with the Gentile members of the church, but once members of the pro-circumcision faction arrived, he no longer shared in the communal meals with the Gentiles. Peter’s position within the Jerusalem church led other circumcised Christians and even Barnabas to isolate themselves from the Gentiles as well. Paul called out Peter on his hypocrisy but does not report what happened next. We can only conclude that Paul realized he lost the battle and severed his ties with the Antiochene church. (This episode may also explain why Paul chose Silas instead of Barnabas to accompany him on his next missionary journey.)

Was Peter really the hypocrite Paul made him out to be? At the Jerusalem Conference Peter and James were trying to split the difference between the pro-circumcision and Pauline factions. The circumcisers insisted that full observance of the law was the price of admission to the Christian church. Paul had no objection to a Christian – Jewish or Gentile – following the Mosaic law as long as they understood that justification came through belief in Jesus, not adherence to the law. Peter and James did not want to impose the Mosaic law on Gentiles but considered it necessary for Jewish Christians.

The Dietary Problem

Unwittingly, Peter and James had solved one problem only to introduce another. With no requirement that Gentiles follow Jewish dietary laws, the circumcised Christians had no way of knowing if a communal meal prepared by a Gentile Christian was kosher or not. There had to be some element of trust that a Gentile would not knowingly serve ritually unclean food to his circumcised Christian brother. Peter had first-hand experience of Jesus’ table fellowship with outcasts like tax collectors and prostitutes, so he didn’t have a problem eating with Gentiles.

But when the party from James arrived from Jerusalem, they planted seeds of distrust in the minds of the circumcised Christians. James still required Jewish Christians to fully observe the law of and part of that law required them to eat separately from Gentile Christians (Acts 10:28a). Peter was caught in the middle but had to side with James because separation at meals was the logical consequence of the decision of the Jerusalem Conference that he was party to.

Paul, though, saw it as both a betrayal and counter-productive. Without shared table fellowship, there was nothing to hold the Antiochene church together and the two sides would grow further apart, perhaps leading to a schism. The Jerusalem church would need to take action to ward off such a disaster.