Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

I had written:

>> Phil Esler ("Galatians") suggests
>> that the offensive practice was indiscriminate
>> eucharist fellowship, whereby Jews and
uncircumcised
>> Gentiles shared bread and wine from the same
>> vessels. This naturally ran the risk of idolatry,
>> as Gentiles might taint the wine (i.e. transform it

>> into pagan libation wine).

Mark responded:

> I disagree that this was the issue...If it was, then
> the solution to the problem in Antioch was not to
get
> circumcised [i.e., become proselytes], but to use 
> separate bowls, or develop some other such practical
> solution.

Esler's comments here are useful: "The practice of the
Eucharist meal meant genuine table-fellowship, with
shariing of food, wine, and vessels, and not a
parallel meal of the type later advocated by rabbis of
a more liberal persuasion." (Galatians, p. 107)  What
many misconstrue as "table-fellowship" is, precisely
speaking, "eating in parallel" (see p. 106), as seen
in the solution you propose, Mark. Using separate
vessels may be a "practical solution" -- from one
point of view, anyway -- but it would have destroyed
the essence of eucharist fellowship, and thus would
hardly have been a viable option for any of the
Christ-believers.

Proselyte conversion, on the other hand, would have
been the natural solution to the problem -- whether
for Christians like James (according to Esler), or for
non-Christian outsiders (as you would maintain, if
this argument were correct). Proselytes, obviously,
were less likely "idolaters" than God-fearers.

What do you find wrong with this argument, Mark?

Loren Rosson III,
Nashua, NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/