Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Questions on Galatians

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Questions on Galatians
  • Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 03:51:02 -0700 (PDT)

Vince,

I'll briefly take a stab at your questions.

>I realize that not everyone agrees that this
>meeting is the same as the meeting in Acts 15,

On the question of whether or not Gal 2:1-10 = Acts
15:1-35, I can only conclude that either (1) Gal 2
refers to an earlier and private meeting, Acts 15 to a
later, formal and more public meeting (to deal with
exigencies resulting from the more open-ended earlier
decision in Gal 2); or (2) Gal 2 and Acts 15 refer to
the same meeting, and the Apostolic Decree is simply
unhistorical. I tend toward option (1).

>however, the first part of my question will
>be the same regardless. Does Acts 15's use
>of "whatever has been strangled" in verse 20
>and 29 indicate a dietary restriction for
>the gentiles? If so, this must be
>something Paul was unaware of when he claimed
>that "They only asked that we remember the poor"
>(Gal. 2:10). Does it seem likely that Peter
>ate with the Gentiles until the message arrived
>from "certain individuals from James"
>with the "new" rules?

Possibly. We don't know how much time passed between
Gal 2:1-10 and 2:11-14. From the way Paul presents it,
it seems the Antioch incident followed shortly after
the Jerusalem meeting. It might be safer to view the
men from James as investigators at this stage, with
the "new rules" coming later (after Paul's next
"missionary journey") at Jerusalem.

>I just do not understand 2:14: "If you, though
>a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a
>Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live
>like Jews?" What is he trying to say?

The question all Galatians exegetes think they can
answer! It could be that Paul is accusing Peter of
changing his mind in the face of adversarial pressure
(i.e. deciding that eating indiscriminately with
uncircumcised Gentiles isn't such a good idea after
all). Or it could be that Paul is accusing his friend
of masking his true (and unchanged) belief in the face
of such pressure (i.e. covering up his belief that
eating indiscriminately with uncircumcised Gentiles is
fine). Philip Esler argues the former, and list member
Mark Nanos argues the latter. Whichever way you lean,
however, I would urge -- as both Esler and Nanos have
urged -- that what was being eaten at Antioch has
little if anything to do with Gal 2:11-14, far less
"whatever has been strangled". The issue at Antioch
was with whom one could eat (uncircumcised Gentiles?).
Circumcision, not diet, was the issue, which is why
Peter feared "the circumcision faction" (2:12). It's
abundantly obvious that circumcision was the bone of
contention in Galatia (3:3, 5:2, 6:12-15), and we
should be trying to harmonize Gal 2:11-14 with the
rest of the letter rather than with Acts 15.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page