Thank you for your comments. They are actually quite helpful to me.


Quote
J_Edwards said:

The Galatians were mostly Gentile heathen. However, the Judaizers were attempting to bring them under the Mosaic law (the law is the law no matter its audience, Romans 3:19 ( everybody, the whole world. Greijdanus, op. cit., p. 177; and Murray, op. cit., p. 106)). As Paul states in Gal. 3:1-2, “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?”

Your explanation is pretty much in agreement with what I have understood. The Gentiles were becoming proselyte Jews in order to add to, enhance, or complete their stature in Christ, which Paul rightly condemns. Jew or Gentile, any system of works- or ritual-based righteousness is a departure from the gospel. But I would also assert that the case in Galatians says nothing about the Mosaic Law (in effect, or not in effect) except that it (the Law) can never be a means of righteousness. The "weak and beggarly rudiments" of Galatians 4:9 is not the Mosaic Law per se, but simply a general reference to the principle of works-based righteousness. Paul speaks of these former pagans "returning" to something...these Gentiles were not returning to Judaism; they were returning to false works-based religion from which they had (supposedly) been saved. The ritual Judaism (circumcision, holy days) that the Galatians were sumbitting to was just the case in point.

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Peter and others were originally messed up on the issue of the Gentiles. It is at the JC that Peter and the other Jews get straighten out (and as would be expected it takes time for this to be circulated and accepted by the church).

Agreed. They were not sure what to do with the Gentiles at first. Why? Because they viewed "the Way" (Christianity) as something that existed not apart from, but within, Judaism. It was not uncommon in those days for Gentile "god fearers" to convert to Judaism, becoming proselyte Jews by circumcision. There were Jewish believers who thought that Gentiles coming to Christ would need to do likewise, that is, become Jews.

So the apostles finally figured it out, and issued the decree concerning the Gentiles - that the Gentiles had no obligations under the Mosaic Law. But I suppose the part that I get stuck on is that they did not instruct the believing Jews that they too were no longer "under the Law." I realize that these men were not infallible, but it would seem to me that the plain implication of the JC was that what was clearly decreed concerning the Gentiles was not necessarily true for the Jews. I realize that this is an argument from silence, but it seems strange that the apostles would come to the conclusion that the Gentiles were not obligated to keep the law without addressing those in the Jerusalem church who apparently thought such remained necessary for Jews.

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Thus, we see that not everyone had immediate understanding on this issue. Paul did; he corrected the church accordingly – even the infallible first Pope.

I guess Pope Peter I was not speaking "Ex Cathedra" just yet, eh? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Quote
J_Edwards said:

Have you read 1 Corinthians 9:19-23?

Quote
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.
In your text, Paul demonstrated that he was a law-abiding Jew. At other times he stresses his Roman citizenship (Acts 22:25 ff). In the above situation (Nazirite vow), a discernible display of his integrity as a Jew would be much more effective than an extended explanation. He applied the old adage: “A picture is worth a thousand words.” What did he do after his shaving" Verse 19 says, "he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews." His methodology had a divine purpose – “so that I might win those who are under the Law.”
[/quote]

Good point. I am familiar with the passage from 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. The translation that I normally use, NKJV, does not inlcude the words "though not being myself under the law" as these apparently do not appear in all manuscripts. But I grant you that this could explain many of Paul's actions wiht respect to publically keeping Torah. However, taking a Nazirite vow seems a bit unecessary, if all Paul is trying to do is cater to the conscience of the Jews he was trying to reach. Perhaps not.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

Quote
J_Edwards said:
I wasn’t aware Irenaeus interpretation of events is considered infallible?


I would never suggest that Irenaeus was infallable. It was merely a data point.

So if I understand you, your position is that the apostles continued to observe the Mosaic Law publicly in Jerusalem so as not to offend the Jews, but they lived like Gentiles in Antioch in order not to offend the Gentiles, and that the "myriads of Jews who believed" and were also "zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20) did not understand that the Law had been abrogated in Christ. Correct?

I obviously need further study on this, and welcome additional replies, but your points have been helpful.


Jim :cheers: