"Peter, who had apparently been staying in Antioch for some time, had been in the habit of 'eating with' his Gentile brothers and sisters (the verb συνήσθιεν [synēsthien] is in the imperfect tense, signaling continuous or repeated action). It is difficult to know just what this language implies. Dunn has argued that Peter would probably have continued to keep Jewish food laws, and that believers in Antioch were accommodating Jewish dietary restrictions via various well-known means to provide for Jewish-Gentile interaction in the Diaspora (see, e.g., Dunn 1983; 1993a: 121–22; and also Hays 2000: 232; Sanders 1990). But Paul’s claim that Peter is 'living like a Gentile' in verse 14 appears to suggest that Peter had gone farther and had begun to give up Jewish scruples about food in general (Martyn 1997: 232; Witherington 1998: 153). Peter would have been acting on the basis of the vision he had received in Acts 10, where God showed him that there were no truly 'impure' foods. There is no reason to think that this practice was restricted to or particularly focused on the Lord’s Supper (Hays 2000: 233–34; contra, e.g., Esler 1995: 286–311; Schlier 1989: 83–84). But Peter’s practice of eating with the Gentiles changed when 'some men from James arrived.' He then 'withdrew and separated himself' (ὑπέστελλεν και ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, hypestellen kai aphōrizen heauton). The verb ὑπέστελλεν could be intransitive, 'he drew back' (Bruce 1982b: 130–31)—or it could have as its object ἑαυτόν, meaning 'he withdrew himself (Lightfoot 1881: 112; R. Longenecker 1990: 75; see BDAG 1041 for these options). It is also possible that it has an inceptive force here: Peter 'began to draw back' (cf. NIV, NAB, NASB, NET, CEB).[3] Peter changed his habits in Antioch when 'some men from James arrived (ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου, elthein tinas apo Iakōbou) and 'because he feared the people of the circumcision' (φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς, phoboumenos tous ek peritomēs; the participle is causal)."
Page 287 of the electronic edition.
52 comments:
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/888630/21804340/1359663308677/Woods%2BInterpreting%2BPeters%2BVision%2Bin%2BActs%2B10%2B916.pdf
Thanks, Duncan. I've read this paper before and it strikes me as an attempt to uphold personal views about diet and food. The author could be right about Acts 10 not having a dual application, but he's got more work to do before proving it.
Gal. 2:12ff isn't ironclad proof against the end of dietary laws, but I believe it offers probative evidence against those who want to advocate Jewish dietary laws. Additionally, Acts 15 suggests that the Mosaic Law was fulfilled and that the early congregation did not want to place this "burden" on Jesus' ancient followers. Other passages indicate that food is largely a matter of conscience: arguing over diets/foods winds up dividing believers. Christ demolished the wall between Jews and Gentiles.
There is an easy answer to Gal 2:12 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%202:13-17&version=nasb
I cannot really get to grips with Acts 15 - https://biblehub.com/leviticus/12-2.htm
Its quite specific & does not mention the alien resident.
Was the dietary law a divisive practice for the Jews?
I believe that the same could be said for the modern practice of banning smoking. Many did not like it but they fell in line eventually.
As for the author of the paper, my understanding is that he is a christian and not Jewish, so what are you suggesting with regard to personal views?
Genesis 17:13 does include the slaves but still not include the alien resident?
I'm talking about emphasis on dietary laws/regimens being divisive within the Christian congregation, not within Judaism. Romans, Galatians, and Colossians (and 1 Timothy) all indicate arguing over food could divide believers, just like arguing over special days.
Eating and smoking are not analogous, Duncan. We must eat to live, but the same cannot be said for smoking. Furthermore, how does smoking show respect for the breath God has given us? And what about the addictive nature of nicotine? Remember how one doctor called smoking, "slow motion suicide"? One other thing: the Bible shows that eating generally is a personal matter and Paul argued that some look at days differently. But since when is inhaling smoke into the lungs a conscience matter?
Even some Christians (so-called or actual), try to perpetuate dietary restrictions and they advocate Sabbath-keeping. Just because somebody professes Christianity does not mean they reject adherence to such laws.
The points you are trying to make are just not that convincing- what about chewing tobacco. You could swallow and eat it but would you want to? Why? because not all things that can be chewed and digested are good food.
Is it ok then to eat deadly night shade, even if it kills you? Not all "foods" have ever been ok to eat. If you eat enough of any foods in this family they can be a problem. Eat a green potato. You are talking about foods of tradition.
There are obvious constraints but also ones that are not so obvious.
Why would Gen. 17:13 not include the alien resident in the light of Gen. 17:12?
I don't believe we can infer the alien resident was not supposed to circumcise his son, if he wanted to be considered a true proselyte. See Exodus 12:48-49; Numbers 9:14; 15:15-16.
The salient point I was making from Acts 15 is verses 7-11.
"Now then, why do you test God by placing on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?" (Verse 10)
Circumcision also preceded Moses, as you know, going back to Abraham. But in Acts 15:28-29, the apostles/older men decided not to place any further burden on the brothers except certain "necessary things," which did not include Sabbath-keeping or adherence to dietary laws.
Using Mark 2:13-17 does not prove that Peter ate his law-approved food while the Gentiles ate their regular fare. The law was clearly in effect when Jesus walked the earth (before he was executed), but that is the point in dispute with respect to events after Jesus' death.
This keeps happening in our discussions. Far to many generalisations. Who were these "strangers"? & why would they want to celebrate the Passover? Clearly only those who had also benefited from the Passover - The Egyptians who left with them as part of the nation, at that time.
Did the People of Gibeon get circumcised? Any such stipulation?
Not trying to be cheeky, but the points I made about smoking are well known and supported by abundant evidence from the medical field. Do I have to post them here? How many doctors recommend smoking today? And you particularly mentioned smoking, not chewing tobacco.
Have you ever tried chewing tobacco or swallowing it? I did both as a kid and it was not the same as swallowing a burger or fries. (BTW, I'm not advocating tobacco use, just in case you have not done it before.)
Chewing tobacco is just as bad for you as smoking is. So why refrain from smoking, but then chew tobacco? I don't see the logic in that way of thinking. Why avoid drinking poison, but then turn around and use methanol for hand sanitizer? Makes a lot of sense.
I don't chew or swallow tobacco because it's bad for me, it's disgusting, and when I did try it, I got sick thereupon. Chewing tobacco does not please my Creator. Additionally, chewing tobacco is not food, unlike pizza or chicken.
But I would agree that not all chewable things are good food or they're not food at all. Like Play-Doh.
You know I don't believe that it's okay to eat anything that can be eaten: I hope you know that. Food is largely a cultural experience, but some things transcend cultures. For example, it's not common to consume cat or dog in the western world: no one ever told me to avoid eating cat/dog, but I likely picked up my aversion to cat/dog from my cultural experiences. On the other hand, burgers, hot dogs and fries were part of my early childhood experiences and so were chitterlings although I don't eat them anymore for health reasons.
I disagree with your characterization, but what else is new? In Exodus, yes, the alien residents were those who left Egypt with Israel. But did Exodus 12:48-9 only apply to them? I don't think so. See https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Exodus.12.48?lang=bi
https://ajrsem.org/2012/04/pesah/
Note the broad application of things that applied to the foreigner here:
https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/54478?lang=bi
Being a proselyte for a male would seem to have required circumcision. Whether we're told about the Gibeonites would not negate the point: Scripture doesn't include every relevant detail when it narrates events.
See the links above
I guess one point of disagreement I have is that you seem to think a verse must explicitly say "the alien resident must be circumcised" before we believe Lev. 12 would apply to them, but I don't accept that stricture at all, given what other verses say about alien residents and what we know from the rabbis and Judaism as a whole.
Can you demonstrate an English bible that uses "Proselyte" as a translation for any word in the text of Exodus? When you can then we can discuss Rashi. I am not confusing tradition with text. see:- Ezekiel 44:7–9.
"I made about smoking are well known and supported by abundant evidence from the medical field." Sure but from when? - https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking-endorsement & what do we know now about many, so called foods?
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/foodborne-illness-and-disease/yersiniosis-and-chitterlings/ct_index#:~:text=Chitterlings%20can%20be%20contaminated%20with,handling%20practices%20to%20prevent%20infection.
How many sites like this for vegetables?
Explain "as a native of the land" in Exodus 12:48? Especially as at this point they had not left Egypt and were certainly not in Canaan. Also see Ezekiel 47:22.
On Rashi: it's not a reasonable demand to have a "translation" say proselyte because that's not what the word means: yet the term clearly has been applied to proselytes throughout the history of Judaism and, even in scripture, Solomon talks about non-Jews turning toward the temple. Are we also to believe that people like the Ethiopian eunuch did not observe Passover? I don't think that view can be substantiated if you examine history.
On Exodus 12:48, let me ask you a question. Which phrase is contrasted with "native of the land"?
Compare Exod 12:19; Lev. 16:29; 17:15; 18:26; 19:34; 24:22; Num. 15:29-30; Joshua 8:33.
Ezek. 47:22 is fairly clear to me.
I don't confuse tradition and text either, but it takes humans to read, interpret and apply texts. It's ill-advised to read texts without navigating the historical stream of interpretation, even if those interpretations are wrong.
In his Exodus commentary, Thomas Dozeman writes for Exod 12:48:
resident alien. Hebrew ger indicates a specific social group. The LXX proselytos likely suggests a similar social situation, even though the term later indicates a proselyte. For discussion see Wevers.72
native resident of the land. The LXX renders Hebrew `ezrah ha'ares as ho autochthon tes ges, "one sprung from the land itself, indigenous"
12:49 native resident. Hebrew `ezrah repeats v. 48; the LXX introduces a new term, enchorio, "a trueborn, someone of the country."
Thomas B. Dozeman. Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 4184-4186). Kindle Edition.
Thomas B. Dozeman. Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 4183-4184). Kindle Edition.
Brenton--Exod 12:48 (LXX):
And if any proselyte shall come to you to keep the passover to the Lord, thou shalt circumcise every male of him, and then shall he approach to sacrifice it, and he shall be even as the original inhabitant of the land; no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
Eat vegetables with care, my friend:
https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/communication/steps-healthy-fruits-veggies.html
And I no longer eat chitterlings or pigs' feet.
Did no know that Rashi was working with Greek ;)
You spark like "historical stream" is a reality. If something is a few hundred years removed or a thousand I do not think that either indicates a stream.
When it comes to the produce I grow, I pick it out of the ground and sometimes eat it with the dirt still on but then I don't fertilise it with raw human or animal waste. I do use well rotted horse manure though, composted with wood shavings.
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/101103TurcoEcoli.html#:~:text=coli%20to%20soil%20through%20manure,can%20live%20for%20several%20weeks.
It's all about the mismanagement of animals and the lack of understanding how the synergistic processes of soil life work.
https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/nutrition-food-safety-health/preventing-e-coli-from-garden-to-plate-9-369/
Soil needs a good bacterial and fungal balance, just like the gut.
For exodus 12:48 Nasb footnote says literally, sojourner.
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0266.xml#:~:text=G%C4%93r%20is%20temporary%20%E2%80%9Cdweller%E2%80%9D%20in,native%20nor%20foreigner%20nor%20slave.
The isrealite nomadic herders could fit that bill.
Please take this comment with a grain of salt, but you technically asked for an English translation of Exodus that uses proselyte. I guess Brenton qualifies :)
Of course, my point was not that Rashi worked with the Greek.
The stream of interpretation started with ancient Judaism and continues today in Judeo-Christianity: I got the expression from scholarly works. I did not make it up. It's hard to deny that people have and still interpret scripture. Read Michael Fishbane and Anthony Thiselton.
I will look at Oxford, but Exodus appears to be discussing a non-Israelite and many sources I've read interpret the verse that way.
See the Targum here: https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Exodus.12.48?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ger_toshav
A useful discussion here - https://www.thetorah.com/article/in-the-torah-is-the-ger-ever-a-convert
Interesting conclusion regarding the txt Vs the rabbi.
Did Christians observe passover?
So my main point is that circumcision as the first century Jew promoted was not the biblical view. It was not abolished but rather, unnecessary for a Christian ger joining a new covenant.
I have found this discussion quite informative but still arrive at the same conclusion, that all the things that are claimed to abolish the Torah are not arguing against the torah.
Okay, I will check out the link.
My view of Torah is that it was fulfilled since it foreshadowed greater things to come. See Hebrews 10:1.
Granted, the early Christians in Jerusalem deemed circumcision unnecessary for salvation, but Paul went further in Galatians and Philippians. Anyone relying on circumcision for salvation is rejecting the sacrifice of Christ. Hebrews 8 also indicates that the Torah is obsolete. As earlier noted, Acts 15 speaks of the burden that Christians no longer have to carry.
Again for precision on Hebrew 8 - a new covenant (blood contract) is not a new teaching.
Hebrews 8:10-12 makes this clear IMO.
And one also has to reconcile Exodus 12:24. (If one believes that olam means forever).
I think Paul's letters are clearly talking to non Jews and not Falling into Jewish proselytism to a fabricated binary law of the pharisees. Otherwise they would already be circumcised.
This is what Paul left behind so he is going to argue vigorously against it.
The discussion I posted agrees with Acts 15:5 - and who was saying this - Jews in general?
The new covenant is more than a blood contract: it supercedes the old covenant and allows sins to be forgiven and forgotten. It is a "better covenant" that imparts a better hope (Heb. 8:6). Is it a new teaching? In a sense, it is. That doesn't mean the teaching of the NC is completely new.
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13).
Even in Heb. 8:9, he writes: "not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt"
The law is also now put into hearts and minds which differs from the 1st covenant. Heb. 8:10-12 suggests a new teaching to me, although not totally as I said earlier.
I don't take olam to mean "forever" in Exod 12:24, nor do I understand why it should. There are clear instances of olam not meaning "forever" in the Tanakh.
More importantly, Paul did not read Exod 12;24 that way: Christ is our passover, the one who fulfills what Israel was doing. See also Heb. 12.
The missives on circumcision in the GNT are not always directed to non-Jews. 1 Cor. 7:18-20 speaks to both the circumcised and uncircumcised:
"Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. 20 Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called."
And I don't believe you can explain his words to the Galatians purely on the basis of a Pharisee background:
"Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." (Gal. 5:2-4)
It's not so much the circumcision, but why it's being done. Notice the comment about "law" too.
See Acts 15:1 and 16:3.
Regarding the alien resident, see https://www.rtc.edu.au/RTC/media/Documents/Vox%20articles/Aliens-and-Strangers-in-the-Old-Testament-KJT-76-2011.pdf?ext=.pdf
What is new about the new covenant?
https://rts.edu/resources/what-is-new-about-the-new-covenant/
"Christ is the new passover", exactly. It does not change the Torah and the Torah is not the old covenant or the new covenant.
Torah has more than one application/meaning. It can refer to the first five books of the Tanakh, "God's revelation of God's will," the entire Hebrew scriptures, oral torah, what God revealed at Sinai, etc.
So depending on what you mean, Torah did not change. But what I mean is that we're not bound to/under the law given to Moses: we're not obligated to follow dietary laws, practice circumcision, etc.
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/4-40.htm
Psalm 119:160
Torah is not law, it is teaching & we have been here before. What people call the first five books of the Bible is clearly not what is being discussed. The teaching is not dietary or law, it is principles for long life (I call it ecology but you do not). You cannot lump anything in with the passover, it stands alone and as I echoed, "Christ is the new passover".
http://www.torahtimes.org/gnmbook/Paul%2520and%2520Nomos.pdf
I might post separately on this subject, but I stand by my comments about Torah. There is nothing wrong with defining it as law, teaching or instruction. Either translation is fine and I can show it.
The dietary regiment is part of Torah: that point is not too controversial. NO, I don't call it ecology, but I deal with Torah as a subject all the time. It has numerous meanings.
How does Passover stand alone? It is part of Torah and I agree that Christ is the new Passover, in fact, the fulfillment and reality of the Jewish observance.
Passover stands alone - this is the point of circumcision or not. You need demonstrate any flaw in - https://www.thetorah.com/article/in-the-torah-is-the-ger-ever-a-convert
https://www.academia.edu/3037803/From_Musar_to_Paideia_From_Torah_to_Nomos_How_the_Translation_of_the_Septuagint_Impacted_the_Paideutic_Ideal_in_Hellenistic_Judaism
https://www.academia.edu/1215860/Greek_Nomos_and_Egyptian_Religion_cultural_identity_in_Hellenistic_Egypt
See page 114 ff
Group Nomos. And in our case the group was the Pharisees.
"dietary regiment" the what but not the why.
Interestingly this has just come up - https://youtu.be/nBz1D8qJNyI
Are you saying that the only reason non-Jewish males were circumcised in ancient Judaism, was so they could eat Passover, and for no other reason? Is that what you mean by Passover stands alone?
It's an empirical fact that the dietary regiment for ancient Judaism is/was part of Torah, i.e., the five books of Moses. I never claimed Torah explains the why.
And my contention is that the word "Torah" within itself can mean "law," among other things. I don't believe it was the Greek, who were solely responsible for this meaning being imputed to the word. Time does not permit me to go into all the details, but I'll do my best in subsequent posts.
As I see it, the ger is first a foreigner (non-Israelite), but later gerim were defined as proselytes (i.e., converts). I posted an article earlier dealing with this subject. Or so I thought.
Yeah, I did post https://www.rtc.edu.au/RTC/media/Documents/Vox%20articles/Aliens-and-Strangers-in-the-Old-Testament-KJT-76-2011.pdf?ext=.pdf
On circumcision, see https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004218512/B9789004218512_013.xml
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40753326?seq=1
See Josephus, Antiquities 20.2.
Compare https://www.jstor.org/stable/1518327?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Circumcision eventually came to be a mark of Jewish identity.
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/paul-and-gentile-circumcision/
I agree with Hurtado that the problem wasn't necessarily circumcision, but to be circumcised as a means of salvation or to be recognized as a follower of Christ. That was the problem for Paul.
Something else I am going to investigate. The status of a ger and celebrating Sukkot.
https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/156550/Jokiranta_FF_AA_preprint.pdf
https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1001.x
Post a Comment