Re: Apostolic Decree
- Richard wrote:
"In Galatian 2, Paul pointedly tells us he brought Titus with him to the
convention stating "And even Titus, my companion, who was Greek, was not
forced to submit to circumcision." Antioch wanted clarification of this
issue. Titus represented the new Gentitle Jesus community. Someone in fact
demanded his circumcision. Gal 2:9 indicates that there was an agreement.
Schlier has shown that this was a ratification of contract. Thus it is
difficult to read Galatians as written before the Apostolic Convention."
On the contrary, the arguments about Titus make more sense before that
Convention, because no agreement had then been reached. I have no problem
with 2: 9 being a covenant: this only serves to explain why Paul argued so
sharply with the people fropm Jerusalem in Acts 15. He had a covenat
agreement with the "pillar apostles" behind him, and these people were
ignoring it! This appears to be a private conversation and a private
agreement, the news of which did not spread too far. Doubtless James hoped
that, as Paul visited Jerusalem so rarely, he need not cause trouble by
raising the matter among his followers, and hoped that what went on in
Antioch wouldn't become known to them. It appears he made a miscalculation.
The incident in 2: 11ff looks like something that happened before the
Council of Jerusalem, as the issue would seem to be one that the Apostolic
Decree had cleared up. Galatians 2 only looks like Acts 15 if you want it
to. The differences are more evident than the similarities. But the
reference to "remembering the poor" does remind one of teh famine relief
visit in Acts 11. Of course, Luke doesn't relate a meeting with the
apostles. It would have lessened the dramatic effect of his account of the
Council of Jerusalem, and added little to our knowledge that Acts 15 doesn't
tell us. But for Paul, who makes such a point of relating every visit to
Jerusalem in Galatians 1-2 to omit a visit would be very odd.
JOHN E STATON
Penistone, Sheffield UK