Gal. 4:9-11, 5:1 but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again? Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain. … For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage.
I am familiar with these passages from Galatians, but have always understood Paul’s objections in Galatians to be toward Gentile believers who were considering circumcision as a means of making them fully acceptable to God (implying that God was the God of the Jews only, a perversion of the Gospel) and that Paul’s comments concerning “weak and beggarly rudiments” etc. was really a reference to their former works-based pagan religion. By submitting to circumcision, they were reverting to a works-based righteousness that was really no different than their former paganism.
But supposing I am mistaken, and the Mosaic Law represented the “beggarly rudiments” and a return to “bondage” of Galatians 4:9-11 for all believers (Jew or Gentile), then why did the Apostles themselves apparently continue to observe it? Please consider the following:
1) How do we interpret the controversy that led to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 and the apostles resulting decree to the Gentiles? The implication is clear that the Jewish believers were still circumcising their children and keeping the Law. If this was the same perversion of the gospel that was happening in Galatians, then why didn’t Peter, and James, and the other Apostles instruct these Jewish believers rightly, rather than debating over the Gentiles?
I understand that there is neither Jew nor Greek when it comes to salvation (we are both saved by the blood of Christ). However, it would seem that the Jerusalem Council (Peter, James, Paul, et al.) were certainly drawing a distinction between Jew and Gentile with respect to their status concerning the Law.
2) How do we interpret Paul’s actions in Acts 18:18 where he (apparently) had taken a Nazirite vow?
3) How do we interpret the instruction of James and the actions of Paul in Acts 21:20-25 where Paul apparently makes a public offering at the temple to prove that he himself “walks orderly and keep the Law?” Most commentators are critical of Paul, assuming that his actions in this case were duplicitous and did not reflect the truth of the gospel. If so, then we must lay the same charge against James and the Jerusalem church in general. Was there a conflict between how they lived and what they believed and taught, or are we missing something?
4) Finally, there is Irenaeus of Lyons. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Here we have a compelling bit of historical evidence. According to Irenaeus, the Apostles were keeping the Law. In about 180 A.D. Irenaeus recorded in “Against Heresies,” (Book III, Chapter 12, Paragraph 15):
“Thus did the Apostles, whom the Lord made witnesses of every action and of every doctrine—for upon all occasions do we find Peter, and James, and John present with Him—scrupulously act according to the dispensation of the Mosaic law, showing that it was from one and the same God; which they certainly never would have done, as I have already said, if they had learned from the Lord [that there existed] another Father besides Him who appointed the dispensation of the law.”
So then, if the Apostles were continuing to practice Judaism, were they in spiritual darkness on this matter? I have also never felt that either dispensational or covenant theology has adequately addressed this issue. But I would like to figure this out, so please let me know how you understand these things.
Saved by Grace,
Jim
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
