Galatians 4:8-11: Vs. Old Jewish Law

Presented to Swift Current Corps of The Salvation Army, 28 July 2013

by Captain Michael Ramsay

I heard this on the radio the other week: A man was nervously walking down the street in New York. A large intimidating man approaches him and asks ‘do you know where Central Park is’

‘No”

“Then I’ll rob you here…”

 A man in his car asked a police/by-law officer, ‘Is it alright if I park here?’

‘No’, the police/by-law officer replies

‘What about all of these other cars?’

‘They didn’t ask…”

In our pericope today we are speaking about the old Jewish Law. And just like Larry here enforces parking and other by-laws in our city, many of which probably didn’t exist 100 years ago, when The Salvation Army came to Swift Current; the Apostle Paul is saying that the old Jewish Law’s time has been fulfilled, it is no longer needed so they shouldn’t be enforcing it anymore. I’m going to read a few old Canadian Laws that have been fulfilled; some of which are still law on paper if not in practice:

Ø      You may not pay for a fifty-cent item with only pennies (Canada).

Ø      Citizens may not publicly remove bandages (Canada).

Ø      It is illegal to kill a sasquatch. (BC)

Ø      A law requires jailers to bring convicted debtors a pint of beer on demand.  (BC)

Ø      Driving on the roads is not allowed. (New Brunswick)

Ø      Bylaw states that no more than 3.5 inches of water is allowed in a bathtub.  (Ont.)

Ø      Businesses must provide rails for tying up horses. (Alta)

Ø      It is illegal to kill a sick person by frightening them. (Alta)

Ø      If you have a water trough in your front yard it must be filled by 5:00 a.m. (Ont.)

Ø      You can't drag a dead horse down Yonge Street in Toronto on a Sunday. (Ont.)

Ø      If you are released from prison, it is required that you are given a handgun with bullets and a horse, so you can ride out of town. (Alta)

A lot of these old laws sound silly to the post-modern person, as they are no longer required because the world has changed significantly since they came into effect. And today, even if it still is ‘on the books’, I wouldn’t want to try giving an Alberta ex-con a loaded handgun outside the prison gates. I can’t see how that would end well for him or for you. And if you have a trough in your yard, I would be very surprised if Larry gives you a ticket for not having it filled with water by 5am.

In the previous chapter, Chapter 3 of Galatians, Paul explains quite nicely this very point as it pertains to the old Jewish Law through the analogies of a student and a child.[1] When a student graduates, she is no longer under the authority of her teacher. When a child comes of age, he is no longer under the authority of his parents. Likewise now that the ancient Israelites have grown up, they are now longer under the authority of the Law of Moses; they now can experience freedom in Christ.

Another contemporary example: even if our town was in Alberta, where the law was written, Larry wouldn’t come by the Thrift Store and give us a ticket for not providing a rail to tie up horses because there is no longer a need to provide that service; horses aren’t the primary mode of transportation anymore. It is the same as recorded in Galatians with the old Jewish Law.

The Israelites and Judeans used to have to follow the old Israelite Law because it used to be applicable in the ‘old days’ but today the world is nothing like it was in the days B.C. (Before Christ) so the Jewish-Christians no longer need to follow these laws.

A couple of important review questions before we go forward:

Ø      What was an Israelite? (a person from the old United Kingdom of Israel or a descendant of the person ‘Israel’)

Ø      Who was the person Israel? (Jacob)

Ø      As a side note people descended from the remnant of Israelites who remained in the country after the conquest and exile, do you know what they are called? (Samaritans after the capital of the northern country of Israel, Samaria)

Ø      What was a Jew? (A person from the Israelite tribe of Judah, the independent Kingdom of Judah, or the Roman province of Judea, or a follower of their national religion)

So Israelites are people descended from Israel (Jacob) and Jews are people from Judea (Judah).

Back to the question of the old Law that we have been discussing then: the Israelites, who are descended from Israel; and the Jews, who are people who live or lived in Judea; they used to follow all these old laws stretching back to long before their countries were ever founded and now their countries are long gone and they are ruled by Rome and even more than this: As Paul reminds us, now that Jesus has come the Jews don’t need to follow these old laws from Before Christ because absolutely everything has changed now – Chapter 5 of Galatians will explain this part in detail.

This is a central part of Paul’s letter to the Galatians but here comes the confusing point: Paul says that the Jews don’t need to follow the Law because it is already fulfilled – that makes sense - but this letter isn’t primarily written to Jews; it is primarily written to Gentiles.[2] Who can tell me what is a Gentile? Technically (s)he is a Greek person but Israelites and Jews used the term to refer to anyone who was not a Jew.

So how can all of this about out-dated Jewish laws here possibly relate to Gentiles? What do Gentile Christians care about obsolete foreign laws that they never ever followed anyway? And why should we care about obsolete foreign laws that we never ever followed anyway? How does all of this relate to us here today in The Salvation Army? How does all of this relate to us today here in Canada? How does all of this relate to all of us here today in Swift Current, Saskatchewan?

The answer to this question – in part – comes from Galatians 4:8-11. Paul, after he spends a lot of time speaking to Gentile converts about the old Jewish Law then says to these non-Jewish Christians:

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

Do you see what Paul is doing here? In saying this, Paul lumps the Gentiles and all of us together with the Jews of old. He says to the Gentiles in Galatia, who never were slaves to the old Jewish Law, he says that they were in essence just as much slaves, as the Jews were slaves.[3] Paul says, as recorded in 4:8, that they were enslaved by their own gods, their own cultic legal systems, their own cultic traditions. Some Jewish Christians have been telling the Gentile Christians now that they are free from the confines of their old Gentile rites that they need to adopt the old Jewish rites.[4] Paul disagrees: Paul tells these Gentiles that now that they are free from their own rites if they do start obeying all the special days and months and seasons and years of the old Jewish rites, the old Jewish rituals, and the old Jewish Law; then Christ will be as useless to them as if they had never met Him. This is because if they do start following the old Jewish laws then they will be in exactly the same situation as they were before they ever knew Jesus. Following the old Jewish Law after the resurrection of Christ, Paul says, is exactly the same thing as being a pagan or worshipping a foreign god: neither will get you anywhere near heaven (cf. TSA doc 2).

In a nutshell, this is what has happened. People in Galatia –who were not ever Jews or Israelites – they became Christians. They gave up all their old pagan or old secular or old cultic lifestyles and became Christians. Most Christians to this point in history we remember were from Judea. Most Christians at this point in history were Jews. So then these other Jews or even Jewish Christians show up in Galatia where the Gentile Christians have already stopped following all the outdated pagan rites of Galatia, and these Jews are telling them that they now need to follow the out-dated Jewish rites and the Law of the Jews if they want to be real Christians; then some of the Christians in Galatia believe them, turn and walk away from Christ and towards these out-dated laws.[5]

Do we ever so this? Do we ever turn away from God and towards out-dated traditions and regulations? Do we ever walk towards those who are telling us that in order to be saved we need Christ and something else; I tell you the truth we can’t turn and walk toward something else without turning and walking away from Christ (TSA Doc 9).

For those of you who came to know Christ later in life, I want you to cast your mind back to that time when you first came to the Lord; when you first came to Christ, what did it feel like? When you first came to Christ, what did you do and what did you want to do?

For those of us who have been Christians for as long as we can remember, I want you to think of a time when you were especially close to Christ: maybe it was at a summer camp; maybe it was at an evangelism week; maybe it was at a prayer weekend; maybe it was when you were first married; maybe it was when you were in college; maybe it was when you spent some time away?

Has everyone got a time in mind when they were really intimate with God? Those who can vividly remember when you first entered into that relationship, what was it like? I have compared it to when you first meet that special someone. Remember when you first saw him or her and then you first asked him or her out on a date or you first accepted his or her invitation? Remember that excitement? You wanted to spend every moment with each other? You wanted to get to know each other intimately. You didn’t want to be separated for a moment…

Marriages break down when this feeling is replaced by rituals, frustrations, deeds and other things that you have to do. Marriages break down when people stop being considerate of each other and start just thinking about themselves. When you have a close personal relationship with someone you want to spend time together and you are naturally considerate of each other because you love each other. When the initial feelings wane, many people in our day and age turn into themselves or to something or someone else and in this day and age many people even walk away from the relationship altogether.

This is in essence what the Galatians were at risk of doing: turning towards rites and turning away from Christ. This is the same for us today. If we here today are more concerned about rites, rituals, rules, than about experiencing a right relationship with Christ; if we here today are more concerned about whether somebody else smokes, speeds, swears; if we here today are more concerned about if someone reads the ‘wrong’ version of the Bible, holds the ‘wrong view’ of the rapture, or sings the ‘wrong kind of songs’;[6] Paul says if we are more concerned about how other people are to worship Christ than we are about actually spending our own time worshipping Christ then why did we even bother to say that sinner’s prayer anyway? Paul says that if we are more concerned about how our brother or sister acts – what he wears, who she’s dating, how he speaks – then we are about spending our time in prayer and worship of God through Bible study, service, and other means; then our faith is about as useful to us as an atheist’s. Like so much in this world it is not what you know but whom you know and how well you know Him.

With this in mind, I encourage each of us to encounter God daily. With this in mind, I encourage each of us to pray and to read our Bibles daily. Susan encouraged us weeks ago to read through Galatians as a congregation; I encourage any of us who have done so to do so again and I encourage each of us to commit to pray to God everyday. Today I have left these cards at the mercy seat to remind us to spend time with God and there are sign-up sheets for those who wish to make that commitment to spent time everyday with God in prayer and Bible study. If you leave your name and number, we will follow up and encourage you in that pledge.

Let us pray.

www.sheepspeak.com

---

---

[1] Cf. Michael Ramsay, “Galatians 3:19-25: Don't be a McChicken...”, presented to Nipawin Corps (January 20, 2008), Tisdale Corps (January 27, 2008) and Swift Current Corps of The Salvation Army (26 August, 2011). Available on-line: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.ca/2008/01/galatians-319-25-dont-be-mcchicken.html

[2] Cf. James Montgomery Boice, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM:Galatians/Introduction to Galatians/Who Were the Galatians?, Book Version: 4.0.2

[3] Cf. David M. Hay, “Between Text and Sermon: Galatians 4:1-31,” Interpretation 54 (2000): 293

[4] Cf. R. Alan Cole, Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1989 (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 9), S. 164

[5] Cf. Charles B. Cousar, Galatians, in Interpretation, ed. James Luther Mays, et. al. (Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1982), 93.

[6] Cf. Richard B. Hays, Galatians, in NIB, Vol. 11, ed. Leander E. Keck et. al. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2000), 289.

Galatians Chapter 2: Do I Know You?

Presented to Swift Current Corps of The Salvation Army 14 July 2013 and 23 August 2015, by Captain Michael Ramsay.

This is the 2013 Saskatchewan Version. To read the 2015 Toronto version, click here: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.ca/2015/08/galatians-211-14-do-i-know-you.html

Three weeks ago now, when we were in Toronto, the new Chief Secretary of the Canadian Salvation Army told us this story:

There was a man who was new to town. He just got transferred to a new city. The company was having a softball game and he thought that this would be a good time to get to know people in the company and the town. He went up to bat. He missed the first pitch and someone yelled, 'good try Mr. Moore'; he didn’t think that he knew anyone; he looked around; he struck out and someone yelled, 'we're cheering for you Mr. Moore.' Who is calling him? Again and again he goes up to bat, inning after inning and each at bat he is just as bad as the previous one but each time he hears someone yell, 'well done Mr. Moore', 'Doing good Mr. Moore', 'We're cheering for you Mr. Moore.' He is looking around. He can't see anyone he knows - except his wife and son but each time he is up to bat - even though he can't hit anything someone is cheering him on, 'Good game Mr. Moore.'

      After the game he asks his family, 'Did you hear that person cheering me on?' 'Do you know who it was?'

      'It was me', his son says, 'I wanted to support you and make you feel better.'

      'Why did you call me Mr. Moore instead of dad like usual?'

      ‘I didn't want anyone to know I was related to you. You were terrible.’

‘Thanks, son.’

This is not entirely dissimilar to Cephas (Peter) in Galatians 2, which we read earlier.  We notice that he at first enjoys associating with the Christian Gentiles but then the Christians show up from Jerusalem and it is almost as if he pretends that he isn't related to the Gentile Christians at all. Whereas Peter was eating with the Gentile Christians and relating to them positively in culturally appropriate ways before, now these Christians show up from Jerusalem and everything is different.

One of the myriad of old Jewish laws - which were fulfilled in Christ - states that a Jew can't even associate with Gentiles, let alone eat with them; so when the Jewish Christians appear, the Apostle Peter seems to start obeying all these old Jewish laws including those that say that he is not allowed to associate with the Gentiles.

This brings us to the main question of our text here in Galatians 2 and the first of many I want to discuss here today. It is a question that we have visited not that long ago in the book of Acts here when we were reading through that book as a congregation and it is a question that Paul addresses a lot actually in the New Testament. The question is: Can one be a Christian without first being a Jew?[1] Does one need to convert to Judaism to be saved or can anyone be saved (TSA Doctrine 6)? This is a big question and this is an important question for the Apostle Paul.

Remember that all through Acts we hear about Gentiles becoming saved. At first it seems as if those being saved are already Jewish proselytes but later the Spirit is seen descending upon people who are still fully and completely Gentiles (Acts 6,8; Acts 10,11). The Spirit is coming upon those who eat unclean food -like ham - and who have never been circumcised (Acts 10). God is saving people who do not follow the Jewish Law (Acts 11:17).  So then a question arises which is addressed over and over again as well in the New Testament: if the Gentiles are saved just by being Christians and they don't have to follow Jewish laws; do the Jewish Christians have to follow Jewish laws to be saved? The Bible says, ‘no’ (cf. esp. Romans 1-5, Galatians 1-5). The Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians says 'no' and here in the next few chapters Paul will quite nicely explain the purpose of the law but the answer to the question - 'since the Gentile Christians are saved without following the law do the Jewish Christians need to follow the law?' - simply put is 'no'. The Jewish Christians should not follow the old Jewish laws anymore than the Gentile Christians. They are all saved the same way; we are also saved the same way (cf. Romans 2): through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Now Peter, Paul, and Barnabas know all of this and Peter has not been following all of the Jewish laws up until this point; in fact he is being very sociable with the Gentile Christians in culturally appropriate ways when all of a sudden these people from James show up (Galatians 2:11-13). Then everything changes…

Can you imagine what it would be like to be one of these Christians in Antioch? One minute Peter and the other Christians from Judea are your best friends: worshipping and serving along side you and then all of a sudden some new people come from Judea and then they won't even talk to you. (Sounds like being a teenager!) How would you feel? How would you act? How would you react? What would you do? How would this affect the spreading of the Gospel? And there are more questions too but first, why would Peter do this? Why would Peter seemingly turn his back on these people and his mission, the Great Commission?

For those of us who have just read through the Acts of the Apostles together, we remember the dream that Peter had (Acts 10). It is Peter who sees all of these unclean, forbidden foods descend from heaven and God tells him to kill and eat this food and Peter at first declines in his daydream but he eventually accepts the message of this vision for Salvation; and it is revealed to Peter, and to us, as to those present, that this dream means that there is no longer a barrier between Jews and Gentiles. Peter now knows that he is allowed to associate with Gentiles; Peter now realizes that Gentiles can be saved just as the Jews can; Peter now knows that Gentiles can be saved without first becoming Jews; Peter now is the first one to bring this Gospel to the Gentiles. Then and now, as recoded in Galatians 2, back in the Antioch church; he is celebrating, feasting, and worshiping with the Gentile Christians and then everything changes.

Why? What happened to Peter and what happened to Barnabas? What happened to these men used greatly by God in the early church? Why are they now seemingly turning their backs on the Gentile Christians? Did you ever wonder why the Apostle Paul apparently tears this strip off the Apostle Peter in Galatians 2? What is really going on here? Why is Peter acting like this?

Some people have suggested that Peter is all of a sudden self-conscious about his faith. Some people have suggested that Peter is happy associating with the Gentiles in culturally appropriate ways when there is no one else around but as soon as 'important' Jewish Christians show up he no longer has time for any Gentiles because he wants to be accepted by these Jews sent from James or because he wants these emissaries to tell James about how good he is or something like that.

I find this hard to believe and I find it harder to believe still that both Peter and Barnabas could be tempted to turn their backs on people for such a shallow reason. Remember that Barnabas is the one who stands up to the early Church in vouching for Paul when the others won't have anything to do with Paul at all (Acts 9:26-30). Remember that Barnabas also stands up to Paul in favour of John Mark as well (Acts 15:36-41), John Mark later goes on to be a key figure in the early Church and even writes the book of Mark, that is in our Bible (cf. Colossians 4:10, 2 Timothy 4:11). And remember that Barnabas and Paul report together to James and the early Church in Jerusalem what the Holy Spirit is already doing in the life of Christian Gentiles, who have never converted to Judaism (Acts 13-15). How can Barnabas forget this or act so out of character as to turn his back on everything just because these other people show up? And Peter - we already said that he is the one first used by God to bring non-converted Gentiles to the Faith and he is the one through whom God articulates that mission clearly in a dream (Acts 10). Could these two men of faith used greatly by God in this way all of a sudden forget everything that they have risked their very lives and everything else for? How could they?

Are they like children who hang out with their church friends at the coffee shop until their hockey friends show up and then move to another table and won't make eye contact. Are they like teenagers in the store with their parents, who, spying some peers, all of a sudden are curt or rude or profane or totally ignore their parents because they are afraid of what their friends will think of them? And are we ever like that with Jesus? I hope not but I also don't think that this is why they are doing this. I think that Peter, Barnabas and the others are acting this way for much more noble purposes than this but I do think that the end results are just the same.

This letter was probably written ca. CE48-50, in the years leading up to the time of the Jewish revolt against Roman rule that brought so much death and destruction to Judea and even the ultimate destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (CE70). There is this great self-destructive wave of nationalism sweeping over the Jewish people. They are separating themselves more and more from the Romans and they are separating themselves more and more from the Gentiles as they are preparing to bring war and rebellion to the Near East. [2]

The early Christians are getting all caught up in these times leading up to the war. Remember that Peter, Paul, and Barnabas are all Jewish Christians. The people they are with in Antioch and the people in Galatia are Gentile Christians and back home there is a Jewish revolt brewing. I have read some suggestions recently that these people mentioned in the text from James are probably bringing the information of the growing Jewish intolerance and the impending revolt to Peter, Paul, and Barnabas here.[3] They are warning them about pro-Semitic prejudice and violence.

Now, when people rebel against their occupiers, what do they do to the sympathizers of their occupiers? When the ‘Free French’ rebelled against Nazi occupation, what did they do to people they thought were friendly to the Germans - whether they really were or not? When one regime falls and another comes to power - like we have seen in Libya and Egypt in recent history - what happens to supporters, friends, allies, or sympathizers of the old regime? What has the US done to people on the other side of their wars in the 21st Century? Remember Saddam? Remember Osama? Remember Abu Gharib? Remember Guantanamo Bay? Remember all of the even innocent people who were swooped up, dropped off, killed, or even tortured? Remember?

Jerusalem here is on the verge of a revolt against Rome. James in all likelihood has sent these people here to warn Peter, Paul, and Barnabas about this and he may even have requested that Jewish Christians not act like non-Jewish Christians because if they don't that might put the lives of all the Christians back in Jerusalem at risk. Peter and Barnabas may have been asked to prove that they are loyal to Jerusalem by distancing themselves from the Gentile Christians.

Now and here in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, we know what happened to the families of German decent when World War II broke out. Where I am from (Victoria, BC), we are very conscious about what happened to Canadians of Japanese origin during the war. When Susan, the girls and I were in Ontario just a few weeks ago we read about what happened to the Italian Canadian families there. I read about one family that had to burn all of their clothes of a certain colour to try to protect themselves, their friends and their family from their own Canadian government. I read of one Canadian family where -even though one Canadian son of Italian ancestry was serving in the Canadian Army- another son was shipped off to the internment camps and the family was broken up. (We just celebrated Heather's 3rd birthday.) I read of one Canadian family of Italian ancestry where the Canadian government came to take the father on his young daughter's birthday. He asked to be allowed to stay at least until the candles were blown out. The men from the Canadian government said 'no' and they took him away - on his young daughter's birthday.

It is very likely that Peter and Barnabas believe that if they, as Jews, act like Gentile Christians in Antioch, as recorded in Galatians here, then the Jewish nationalists will do similar sorts of things to the Christian Jews back home, after all the early Christians are Gentile sympathizers. As Paul repeatedly says, there is no Jew or Greek in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:22, 10:12; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11). Peter and Barnabas could be moving away from the non-Jewish Christians -as referred to in our text today- in order to save the lives of the Christians back home; so that they are not persecuted as guilty by association.

Now what I am about to say is really important. It seems a reasonable enough thing for them to do this to protect the Jewish Christians from persecution back home in the years leading up to the Jewish revolt against Rome. But Paul says – and rightfully so - that it is not reasonable. Paul says - rightfully so - as recorded in our pericope today - Paul says that giving up your freedom in Christ for this reason is hypocrisy (v.13)! And Paul will go on later in this very letter to the Galatians to express his anger about this hypocrisy in some of the most brutal language you'll ever read in scripture from the Apostle Paul's own mind. This hypocrisy bothers Paul so much that this is the only one of his letters that we have that does not even begin with the customary polite greeting. There are none of the normally expected niceties of first century correspondence in this letter. Paul is in essence saying to Peter, Barnabas, the Galatians; and by extension, Canadians, Salvationists, and all of us here today that if for whatever reason we turn our backs on our faith and fellow servants in the faith - whether for seemingly trivial purposes such as rules, regulations, pride, prejudice, popularity or for severely serious reasons such as to protect yourself, or to protect your friends, or to protect your family; it is still denying the essence of your faith. It is exactly the same.

The great apostle, Peter, who is used by God to accomplish so much in the world; Peter, who is the rock upon which Christ was to build his Church; Barnabas, one of the most courageous, one of the most heroic, one of the most determined followers of Jesus Christ, one of the most ardent proclaimers of the resurrection and the Gospel of Salvation; when these men turn away from practicing the freedom of their faith; when these men turn away from helping and associating with their Christian brothers and sisters; when these men turn away from sacrificing everything for the proclamation of the Gospel; then they in essence turn their back on our Lord. They - no matter how noble their purposes - are just like the teenager denying her father for her own personal reasons. And their actions hurt our Heavenly Father just as much as a disowned 21^st Century Canadian father. Peter and Barnabas, of course, did repent and return to being used greatly by God for the proclamation of the Gospel of Salvation.

My questions for us today are like this: Are we ever tempted to fall into the same trap as they did? Are we ever tempted to act like we are not Christians? Are we ever tempted to not associate with fellow Christians? Do we ever talk to people in church but dodge them on the street? Do we ever deny that we have anything to do with the Church or others here? Do we ever hide our faith by not saying grace at the restaurant? Do we ever dodge questions about whether or where we go to church? Are we ever embarrassed about some of our distinctive behaviours that show to the world we are Christians? If we turn our backs on our Christian brothers and sisters, if we deny our Christianity and if we deny our Lord and Saviour before people then - no matter how good our reasons might seem to us for doing so - reasonably, Jesus will also deny us. If we turn our backs on Christ we will no longer be facing him who is reach out to us, to hold us and love us.

With this being the case: from this day forward let us all commit to carry our cross; from this day forward let us all commit to love God; from this day forward let us all commit to love our neighbour; and from this day forward let us all commit to put nothing before God and the proclamation of His Gospel of Salvation through Christ Jesus our Lord; so that at the eschaton, at the parousia, at the resurrection; we will join Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and all the saints for eternity with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

www.sheepspeak.com

----

---

[1] Cf. Captain Michael Ramsay, Acts 10:1-11:18: It's All In Who You Know, Presented to Swift Current Corps of The Salvation Army, 02 June 2013. Available on-line: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.ca/2013/06/acts-101-1118-its-all-in-who-you-know.html 

[2] Cf. Flavius Josephus, ‘The Wars of the Jews’ in Complete Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston, A.M. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregal Publications, 1971.

[3] Cf. Charles B. Cousar, Galatians (Interpretation: Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox, 1982), 56-57

Psalm 72: Credit Card of Righteousness

Presented to Nipawin and Tisdale Corps 01 July 2007

Presented to Swift Current Corps 30 June 2013
by Captain Michael Ramsay

Click here to read the message: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.ca/2007/08/psalm-72-credit-card-of-justice-and.html

Acts 10:1-11:18: It's All In Who You Know

Presented to Swift Current Corps of The Salvation Army, 02 June 2013 and 24 May 2015 by Captain Michael Ramsay

This is the June 2013 text. To read the May 2015 text, please click here: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.ca/2015/05/acts-101-1117-impartiality-of-god.html

Acts 11:17 : So if God gave them the same gift [of the Spirit and therefore of Salvation] as He gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?

Today's talk is going to be a little bit different than most of our Sunday messages. Today will be more of a teach than a preach and this is for a couple of reasons. 1) There was a question that has come up a few times in people's Bible study as we have been looking through the book as Acts that I tough we should look at and 2) I wasn't planning on preaching today so I decided that I would re-write an academic paper that I had previously written rather than just wing it from the pulpit here.

Acts 10, which we are going to look at today, has been considered a very important chapter because it is understood to be the place where the Good News of Christ is brought to the Gentiles. Peter is recorded as declaring after this encounter with God and the centurion, Cornelius in Acts 10:34ff., “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35). Acts 10:1-16 contains the visions the Lord gave to Cornelius and to the Apostle Peter.

In Acts 10:1-8 the reader is introduced to Cornelius and the vision that God gave to him. Cornelius is not only a foreigner but also a commander of the occupying military forces. The Romans were known to tolerate foreign religions and even invoke the names of regional deities before they attacked a city;[1] however, it is quite another thing for Cornelius to be “a devout man who feared God with all his household; he gave alms generously to the people and prayed constantly to God” (Acts 10:2). This brings us to our first question of the text before us today:

1) Does this pericope, Acts 10, recall the first time that the Gospel (Good News of Christianity) is brought to the Gentiles (who had not already converted to the Israelites religion)?

HELLENIST JEWS

It is a commonly held idea that this chapter is a record of the Gospel being brought to the non-Jewish Gentiles for the very first time; is this so? After all, Centurion Cornelius “is introduced by language which presents him as already exhibiting similarities with members of the messianic assemblies.”[2] And back in Acts 6, which we looked at in Bible study this week, it records that there was a dispute where “the Grecian/Hellenists [Christians] complained against the Hebrews [Christians] because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food” (Acts 6:1). 'Grecian' or 'Hellenist' (depending on your Bible translation) or is just another word for 'Greek' and 'Greek' is just another word for Gentile; so from this it appears that before ever occurs our encounter with Cornelius recorded in Chapter 10; there were already, as mentioned in Chapter 6, Christian communities that consisted, at least in part, of Gentile believers.

So how can this be? How can Acts 10 be considered the first time that the Gospel is brought to the Gentiles when Gentile or Hellenist Christians are mentioned in Chapter 6? One possible explanation for this is that the Hellenist-Gentile believers referred to in Acts 6 may not have been Gentiles exactly per sae. This possible explanation would be why some translators would have translated the word as 'Grecian'/‘Hellenist’ rather than ‘Gentile’ in Chapter 6.  These Grecian/Hellenists or Gentiles in Chapter 6 may not have been of Greek blood. They may have actually been people of Jewish ethnicity who are were simply born abroad as opposed to those born in Judea. It would then only be those born in Judea who would be referred to in this pericope as ‘the Jews.’ 

This would be like if we -Susan, the girls and I- were posted in Germany when Heather was born, she would probably speak more German than we do; by now she would certainly act more like a German 3 year-old than a Canadian 3 year-old. She, however, would not be allowed to obtain German citizenship. She would be a Canadian citizen even though everything about her would appear to be German. And Canadian children, if we moved back here when she was starting school at age 4 or 5, could very likely refer to her as German or though she is Canadian. This could be the situation in Acts 6. It certainly is one explanation for the Hellenists. They speak, appear, and live in the Greek (Gentile) world but they may in fact actually be ethnic Jews rather than Greeks (Gentiles).

JEWISH PROSELYTES

Referring to the first question in our bulletins then, This might explain how the author of Acts could refer to people as Hellenist/Greek/ Gentile believers in Chapter 6 and still have Chapter 10 be, as is commonly thought, the first time that the Gospel is brought to the Gentiles. But there is, however, still the question of an “Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury;” (Acts 8:27), mentioned 2 chapters earlier, in Chapter 8; was this person a Jew? The fact that “he had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home; seated in his chariot, [and] he was reading the prophet Isaiah,” as recorded in Acts 8:27-28, would indicate that he was at least of the Jewish faith, a proselyte if not fully of the Jewish race.[3] At least one of those mentioned in Chapter 6 – Nicolaus -is probably a proselyte (Acts 6:5).

Who can tell me here what is referred to as a proselyte? (a Gentile convert to the Israelite religion) And what did we say a Grecian/ Hellenist probably is? (A Judean, a Jew, and Israelite born abroad). So like the Grecian/Hellenists are mostly probably Jews born abroad (they knew God but had not met Jesus yet); the proselyte was likely someone who wasn't born a Jew but converted to the faith, like the Ethiopian.

So how are these Grecian/Hellenist Jewish-Christians of Chapter 6 and the proselyte Jewish-Christian of Chapter 8 any different from the Gentile Christians of Acts 10? The main difference is that before the Hellenists of Chapter 6 became Christians, they were Jews (they were Jews born abroad); before the foreign-born proselyte of Chapter 8 accepted Christ, he had probably already converted to the religion of the Jews. So then Chapter 10 here with Cornelius would be considered the first time the Gospel was brought to the 'pure' Gentiles because he was not born a Jew and he probably had not fully converted to Judaism but instead he may have gone straight from not fully following the LORD at all to fully accepting Jesus as Lord. He certainly would have been among the first who became a Christian without first fully becoming a Jew. Does this make sense?

WAS CORNELIUS A JEWISH PROSELYTE?

Another logical question does arise though and that is: was Centurion Cornelius himself a proselyte rather than a Gentile? As he was not a full member of the Jewish community, (cf. Acts 10:22, 28) and “although Luke attaches considerable importance to the God-fearing Gentiles in Acts, we have no standard definition or precise classification of ‘God-fearing’ from the ancient world,”[4] it would seem that he was what we would consider an ‘adherent’ in today’s vernacular. That would be like in The Salvation Army today the difference between a soldier and an adherent. A solider here doesn't drink or smoke and is allowed to wear a uniform but an adherent isn't. A Jewish proselyte, a convert, likewise would be circumcised but an adherent wouldn't. Does that make sense? So then accepting that the Ethiopian eunuch of Chapter 8 was a proselyte, the very fact that Luke did not portray Philip as having the same aversion to the Ethiopian as ‘unclean’ as Peter did to the Roman Centurion leads to the conclusion that Cornelius falls into that altogether separate category from that of the Ethiopian. He was probably at most an adherent.

So then does this pericope, Acts 10, recall the first time that the Gospel (Good News of Christianity) is brought to the Gentiles (who have not already converted to the Israelites religion)? Probably, yes.

Thank you for indulging me in a little bit of academia today, with this first question. The next few questions we look at won't be presented nearly as complex, I promise.

2) Do Gentiles who accept Christ need to follow Jewish rules?

Now, in Acts 10:10-16 it is recorded that Peter saw in his vision that “the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners” (Acts 10:11) and in the sheet were all kinds of unclean animals; Peter was commanded, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” (Acts 10:13). There are a number of things that are notable about this section. One is that God commands Peter to get up, kill, and eat. Jews are not supposed to eat those things and “the dietary laws are not a matter of etiquette or peculiar culinary habits. They are a matter of survival and identity for Jews. And yet can it be that these laws are being supplanted by some other basis for survival and identity,”[5] particularly since “the relation between the Jews and the Gentiles must have been very much in his mind with the expansion of the church.”[6]

          Peter’s dream is how “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean” (Acts 10:28). It has been interpreted as the great revelation to Peter that the Gentiles are to be brought into community. It was decided, following this event and after much discussion, that the Gentiles do not need to follow all of the Jewish practices (Acts 15:7-10): “After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore 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.’”  James, with stipulations, concurred “…we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but 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” (Acts 15:19-20). So do Gentiles who accept Christ need to follow Jewish rules? No.

3) Do Christian Jews need to follow Jewish rules?

There are questions though about whether the Jewish believer was now entitled to eat what was previously known as ‘unclean’ food. Prior to even Peter’s vision, the food laws, themselves, were abolished by Jesus. “No doubt he [Peter] was present when his Master, in a debate with the Pharisees and scribes, insisted that it is not what goes into someone’s stomach that conveys defilement, but what comes out of one’s heart;”[7] “he declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19). Therefore it would appear that Peter accepted Jesus’ teaching on clean and unclean foods well before the incident related in Acts 10:10-16 and was deserving of the rebuke he received much later from Paul as recorded in the book of Galatians. So then do Christian Jews need to follow Jewish rules? The New Testament seems to be very clear that they do not.

Let's review what we have been reminded of today.

1)      Does this pericope, Acts 10, recall the first time that the Gospel (Good News of Christianity) is brought to the Gentiles (who have not already converted to the Israelites religion)? Yes and No. It is however apparently the first time that Gentiles became Christians without also first becoming Jews.

2)      Do Gentiles who accept Christ need to follow Jewish rules? No.

3)      Do Jews who accept Christ need to follow Jewish rules? No.

4) What does this all mean to us today?

Of primary significance to this passage in Acts then seems to be “God’s plan to allow uncircumcised but repentant Gentiles to experience the blessing of Israel’s salvation (cf. 10:44; 11:15-18; 15:8-11) and define the terms of Paul’s future mission to the Gentiles.”[8]  God dealt directly with Peter, a Jew, and Cornelius, a Gentile. The Good News is to be brought to the Gentiles and, as Peter states, “We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” (Acts 15:11) for “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35).

            So what does this all mean for us today? Last week when looking at Acts 15, we noted that the Holy Spirit is available to everyone and so we asked ourselves, are we (available to everyone)?

            Today, I think we need to also ask ourselves, are any of our actions, traditions, customs, and rules, like those of some of the early Jewish Christians, standing in the way of people coming to the Lord? There is an old expression about succeeding in life that I think applies to Salvation in general; re. experiencing eternal life: It is not what you know that matters; it is who you know. Along those lines I ask us this week, are there any of our own traditions that are more important to us than other people's salvation?  As holy people, I hope not. Acts 11:17 says that if we do indeed we are opposing God. Let us pray.

www.sheepspeak.com

---

---

[1] Will Durant, Caesar and Christ. (TSC 3: New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1944), p. 522.

[2] John T. Squires, “Acts.” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. (ed. by James D.G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson. Grand Rapids, Michigan; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), p. 1235.

[3] Robert W. Wall, ‘Acts’ The New Interpreter’s Bible 10, (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 2002), p. 162.

[4] Robert W. Wall, ‘Acts’ The New Interpreter’s Bible 10, (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 2002), p. 162.

[5] William H. William, ‘Acts’, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, (Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1988), p. 96.

[6] William Neil, The Acts of the Apostles. (TNBC: Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981), p. 138.

[7] Fredrick Frye Bruce, The Book of Acts. (TNICNT: Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 206

[8] Robert W. Wall, ‘Acts’ The New Interpreter’s Bible 10, (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 2002), p. 160.