What a fascinating set of issues arise in Derbe and Lystra. Jerusalem looms large on the horizon of church building in the Diaspora.
16:1 He also came to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple named Timothy was there, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 16:2 The brothers in Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was Greek. 16:4 As they went through the towns, they passed on the decrees that had been decided on by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the Gentile believers to obey. 16:5 So the churches were being strengthened in the faith and were increasing in number every day.
As we proceed, we are reading Beverly Gaventa, Acts Abingdon New Testament Commentaries
, for her expert insights into the Book of Acts.
, for her expert insights into the Book of Acts.
First, it is my contention that Paul (at least at this point) fully supported the Jerusalem decree about the Torah expectations of the Gentile believers in Messiah Jesus. Gentile believers were expected -- even outside the Land -- to follow the Torah so far as it applied to them. One might say that "Land" is being expanded to include any place where believers in the Messiah were forming.
Second, Paul regulates Timothy's status so that he's no longer in "liminal" space -- that is, that he no longer occupied a space where he was neither clearly Jew (uncircumcised with Gentile father who was probably neither a proselyte nor a believer in Jesus [Gaventa]) nor clearly Gentile (his mother was a Jew and that means he "should" be a Jew if the matrilineal principle was in effect -- and this was Paul's concern: other Jews would be thinking Timothy should have been circumcised). So Paul clarifies Timothy's status; he becomes a Jewish believer with one cutting decision.
Third, the apostolic decree only specified what laws Gentiles needed to follow, and circumcision wasn't one of them. So, this is not a case of a Gentile needed to be circumcised but of a Jew who had not been circumcised. So, Paul thinks it wise for Jewish believers to live according to Torah -- at least for the sake of receptivity to the gospel on the part of other Jews.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Paul thinks it wise for Jewish believers to live according to Torah -- at least for the sake of receptivity to the gospel on the part of other Jews."
Would this be, basically, an argument not to give opponents distractions? It's so easy in religious debates to get sidetracked on extraneous issues, so much so the core issues are almost entirely lost.
I think this is true in a lot of contemporary debates too, especially as some movements are reactionary, but embrace this reaction as itself a goal. It's so easy to want to prove a "right" or freedom. But in the end, a person is left being right and alienated from people who might have otherwise listened.
I see in this an aspect of holiness--not a legalistic holiness, but a relational holiness, relating to God's mission as the priority, and relating to others in their values. We may have to restrain our own freedoms as we seek to embrace others in peace and welcoming, keeping our eye on the prize.
I think some of the emerging/missional debates have, over the years, picked wrong battles or embraced wrong expressions, to prove a freedom rather than advance the kingdom. Which has made it more difficult at times for the really potent, prophetic issues to get focus. I wonder too if failing in this respect might soil a particular messenger enough so that others have to step in to both fix the misconceptions and point the way to the Spirit-led path.
In this case, Paul navigates this well. He didn't always.
Each time I read about some of the decisions made 2 millennia ago I wonder if the deciders would approach things the same way today. For instance: they met in houses, and in the West (and elsewhere, but those cases might not apply to this example) there is a house church movement, ostensibly to take us back to the organic operation of the church. The first church did not have a choice--they didn't own chapels, temples and cathedrals. In how many other ways are we comparing apples with oranges?
David, I do think you have a point. There certainly are aspects of the 1st century we need to be aware of that are different than our contexts. Indeed, not only culturally, but also theologically and historically. The last 2000 years have meant something. We can't go back to the house churches of the 1st century, nor would we, I think, want to. We do want the passion, and the spiritual focus, and all the other good things. But, that might look different in our contexts.
However, the key for me at least is that in the New Testament stories and letters we aren't merely treated to a historical glimpse of a foreign society. We're told about human interaction, and human interaction as it relates to religious community as informed by the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
We may have different kinds of places to meet, but these are very often just accidentals. The heart of so many matters is the same reality of comparing humans with humans. So I do think it is entirely relevant to see how the earliest leaders responded to what are still pressing issues, even as the particulars of the issues might take different forms.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.