Stephan’s Speech as Legal Argument/Story Part 3 (and a theory of Hebrews)

23 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by memoirandremains in Acts, Exodus, Hebrews, Uncategorized

Tags

Acts 7, Exodus, Exodus 25:40, Hebrews, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, Luke, Paul, Saul, Stephen's Speech, Tabernacle, temple

The perplexing aspect of Steven’s speech comes in the movement from verse 50 to 51. The entire section reads as follows:

Acts 7:44–53 (ESV)

⁴⁴“Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, just as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen. ⁴⁵Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David, ⁴⁶who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. ⁴⁷But it was Solomon who built a house for him. ⁴⁸Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,

⁴⁹ “ ‘Heaven is my throne,

and the earth is my footstool.

What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,

or what is the place of my rest?

⁵⁰ Did not my hand make all these things?’

⁵¹“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. ⁵²Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, ⁵³you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

The trouble here is not the Temple as an idol per se (see Sweeney, J. (2002), “Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7:2-53): Is it as ‘Anti-‘Temple’ as Is Frequently Alleged?”, TrinJ 23, NS, 185-210). I don’t think it lies in attacking the crowd because of the Temple. Jesus nowhere decried the Temple per se.

When we look at the structure of the speech: proposed savior-rejected savior in the context of the people being returned to the land to worship God, we have to see the temple as somehow aligned with Jesus and also tied to the rejection of Jesus (which Stephen contends — and which leads to him being stoned to death): These people rejected, Jesus just as their fathers had rejected Joseph, Moses, and God (by idol worship).

The accusers draw this precise correlation as quoted in Acts 6:

Acts 6:13–14 (ESV)

¹³and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, ¹⁴for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.”

This of course seems to derive from John 2:

John 2:18–21 (ESV)

¹⁸So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” ¹⁹Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” ²⁰The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” ²¹But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

And Mark 14:

Mark 14:57–58 (ESV)

⁵⁷And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, ⁵⁸“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’ ”

So the destruction of Jesus = the destruction of the Temple (in some manner) goes back to Jesus.

Saul was present and the writing of Hebrews:

This leads to something more speculative. The language in this section parallels themes and allusions used in the book of Hebrews. Here are two examples. First Acts 7:44 quotes Exodus 25:40, that the temple was to be built “according to the pattern that he had seen”. This verse is quoted in one other place in the NT, Hebrews 8:5, where the writer draws a connection between the heavenly tabernacle:

Hebrews 8:1–5 (ESV)

8 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, ²a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. ³For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. ⁴Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. ⁵They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”

Notice also that the heavenly tabernacle is not made by man (which is a point raised by Stephen). In Hebrews 9:11, the heavenly tabernacle is explicitly said to be not “with hands”.

Stephen’s speech also concerns itself with the wilderness rebellion. The accusation of Stephen’s speech is that his audience has not changed from the wilderness rebellion. And, the wilderness rebellion is a constant theme of the Hebrews.

Finally, Hebrews draws an explicit line between Jesus and the Temple, even referring to the veil in the temple as his “flesh” (Hebrews 10:20).

More parallels could be drawn between Acts 7 & Hebrews at the level what was written. But, there was a man Saul (soon to be Paul) who was present at Stephen’s murder. This event must have been formative for Paul, because Luke records it.

This speech which drew Jesus and the Temple together must have had a profound effect upon Paul. And, while most at present would deny Paul was the author of Hebrews, it is commonly granted that Hebrews was written by someone in Paul’s orbit (I tend toward Luke as the author of Hebrews myself).

Thus, we have a tentative theory of development (and yes, I unquestionably hold to plenary verbal inspiration): Jesus (John 2); false accusation (Mark 14); false accusation (Acts 6); development (Acts 7); unwritten process of development Saul-Paul-Luke (?) – culmination of the doctrine (Hebrews).

Was Luke a Jew or Gentile? Part 13

27 Sunday May 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in Acts, Colossians, Hebrews, Luke

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Acts, Circumcision, Colossians, David L. Allen, Gentile, Hebrews, Jew, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, Luke, Paul

In discussing whether the phrase “those of the circumcision”refers to Jews alone, Allen first notes that Albright suggested that the hoi ontes ek peritomes (those of the circumcision) should be translated “those of the circumcision party.” He basis this argument upon the similar phrase in Galataians 2:12, tous ek peritomes. The phrases are equivalent: both use the masculine plural pronoun (in Galatians it is in the accusative, and in Colossians it is in the nominative) with genitive phrase “of circumcision”.

Allen than notes that Fitzmyer rejected Albright’s contention. Fitzmyer takes the phrase to refer to “converts to Judaism.

Wenham is conclusively shown, based on its usage elsewhere, but it cannot be assumed to refer to Christians of Jewish birth. It could apply to Christian Jews of a stricter mind-set concerning the law. Strelan also argued against the common interpretation of Colossians 4 but Luke was a Gentile. He noted Selwyn’s argument that Paul would not call himself “of the circumcision,” yet no one would deny that Paul was circumcised Jew; neither would Paul place Luke in that category. Strelan suggested the phrase “of the circumcision” more than likely referred to Jewish believers were ritually strict.

Allen, 269. Allen then notes Wenham’s further observation on Luke’s potential circumcision based upon the arrest of Paul in Acts 21:

Wenham further stated how this apply to Luke at Jerusalem as well. When Luke accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, it was the presence of the uncircumcised Gentile Trophimus that nearly got Paul killed. Yet there is no hint of any trouble over Luke. “It is easier to see him acting as Paul’s a if he was a Jew by birth or a circumcised proselyte, but if he were a mere Gentile convert.”

Allen, 269. Allen ends the discussion with a conclusion that seems fair when one considers all the available argument:

It would seem precarious to dogmatically propose a Gentile background for Luke based on Colossians 4 alone.

Was Luke a Jew or a Gentile? Part 11

25 Friday May 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in Acts, Colossians, Hebrews, Luke

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Acts, Anti-Marcionite Prologue, Circumcision, Colossians, Colossians 4:10-14, David L. Allen, Gentile, Hebrews, Jew, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, Luke, Paul, Richard R. Melick

It is interesting that in the earliest extra-biblical reference to Luke, his status as Jew or Gentile is not given:

Little is known of Luke’s background. The best records suggest he was a native of Antioch, Syria, a Gentile, a physician, a writer, and a devoted Christian. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke, dating from the second century, states:

Luke was an Antiochian of Syria, a physician by profession. He was a disciple of the apostles and later accompanied Paul until his martyrdom. He served the Lord without distraction, having neither wife nor children, and at the age of eighty-four he fell asleep in Boetia, full of the Holy Spirit.

Richard R. Melick, vol. 32, Philippians, Colissians, Philemon, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 330.

Was Luke a Jew or a Gentile? Part 10

24 Thursday May 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in Acts, Colossians, Hebrews, Luke

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Acts, Circumcision, Colossians, Colossians 4:10-14, David L. Allen, Gentile, Hebrews, Jew, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, Luke, Paul, T.K Abbot

Of Colossians 4:14, Abbot simply writes, “From the manner in which he is separated from the group in ver. 10 it is clear that he was a Gentile.” T.K. Abbot, ICC Commentary on Ephesians and Colossians, 1968, 302.

Was Luke a Jew or a Gentile? Part 9

23 Wednesday May 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in Acts, Colossians, Hebrews, Luke

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Acts, Circumcision, Colossians, Colossians 4:10-14, David L. Allen, Gentile, Hebrews, James D.G. Dunn, Jew, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, Luke, Paul

The second question is purpose of the separation between Luke and the men described in verses 10-11:

10 Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, welcome him), 11 and Jesus who is called Justus. These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me. 12 Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus, greets you, always struggling on your behalf in his prayers, that you may stand mature and fully assured in all the will of God. 13 For I bear him witness that he has worked hard for you and for those in Laodicea and in Hierapolis. 14 Luke the beloved physician greets you, as does Demas. Colossians 4:10–14 (ESV).

Dunn writes:

ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς Λουκᾶς ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητὸς καὶ Δημᾶς. The last two to be included in the list of greetings are Luke and Demas, who again are mentioned together with Epaphras, Mark, and Aristarchus in Phm. 24. Luke is also mentioned on one other occasion in the New Testament, in 2 Tim. 4:11 (“Luke alone is with me”), though there again Mark and Demas (also Tychicus) are named in close proximity (2 Tim. 4:10–12). The present passage contains the only firm information about Luke, that, apart from being a close companion of Paul’s (at least during his later imprisonment), and one of Paul’s “coworkers” (Phm. 24), he was a doctor. That indicates a man of some learning and training (though at this time medicine was only just becoming a subject of systematic instruction; see OCD, “Medicine” 662). And since the title has a favorable ring here (contrast the typical criticism of doctors elsewhere in biblical tradition: 2 Chron. 16:12; Job 13:4; Jer. 46:11; Mark 5:26) we may assume that he was no charlatan but respected for genuine medical knowledge and healing skills. Beyond that we know nothing firm about Luke, though there is of course the long-established tradition that the Luke mentioned here was a regular companion of Paul in the main phase of his missionary work (the “we” passages in Acts) and the author of Luke-Acts (so particularly Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 3.4.1–7; 3.24.14–15; 5.8.3; 6.25.6). The same traditions speak of Luke as an Antiochian (3.4.6), and others claim that Paul wrote Hebrews in Hebrew/Aramaic, which Luke then translated into Greek (3.38.2; 6.14.2). He has also been identified with the Lucius of Rom. 16:21 (e.g., Martin, Colossians and Philemon 136; but see Lightfoot 239). The note of affection here (ὁ ἀγαπητός, “dear friend” in JB/NJB, NEB/REB, NIV) indicates a closeness of relationship with Paul, a quality of friendship shared with Epaphras, Tychicus, and Onesimus (1:7; 4:7, 9).

James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle: William B. Eerdmans Publishing; Paternoster Press, 1996), 282-83.

Was Luke a Jew or a Gentile? Part 8

22 Tuesday May 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in Acts, Colossians, Hebrews, Luke

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Acts, Circumcision, Colossians, Colossians 4:10-14, David L. Allen, Gentile, Hebrews, Jew, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, Luke, Paul

The second question is purpose of the separation between Luke and the men described in verses 10-11:

The Pulpit Commentary states:

Luke the physician, the beloved, saluteth you (Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11). This reference to Luke’s profession is extremely interesting. We gather from the use of the first person plural in Acts 16:10–17, and again from 20:5 to the end of the narrative, that he joined St. Paul on his first voyage to Europe and was left behind at Philippi; and rejoined him six years after on the journey to Jerusalem which completed his third missionary circuit, continuing with him during his voyage to Rome and his imprisonment. This faithful friend attended him in his second captivity, and solaced his last hours; “Only Luke is with me” (2 Tim. 4:11). His being called “the physician” suggests that he ministered to the apostle in this capacity, especially as “his first appearance in St. Paul’s company synchronizes with an attack of St. Paul’s constitutional malady” (Lightfoot: comp. Acts 16:10 and Gal. 4:13–15; the illness referred to in 2 Cor. 1:8–10 and 4:7–5:8 may partly have led to Luke’s rejoining St. Paul in Macedonia). St Luke’s writings testify both to his medical knowledge and to his Pauline sympathies. His companionship probably gave a special colouring to the phraseology and cast of thought of St. Paul’s later Epistles. (On the relations of St. Luke and St. Paul, see a valuable Paper by Dean Plumptre in the Expositor, first series, vol. iv. pp. 134–156.) “The beloved” is a distinct appellation, due partly to Luke’s services to the apostle, but chiefly, one would suppose, to the amiable and gentle disposition of the writer of the third Gospel. It is not unlikely that he is “the brother” referred to in 2 Cor. 8:18, 19. Lucas is a contraction for Lucanus; so that he was not the “Lucius” of Acts 13:1, nor, certainly, the “Lucius my kinsman” of Rom. 16:21, who was a Jew. He was probably, like many physicians of that period, a freedman; and, since freedmen took the name of the house to which they had belonged, may have been, as Plumptre conjectures, connected with the family of the Roman philosopher Seneca and the poet Lucan.

The Pulpit Commentary: Colossians, ed. H. D. M. Spence-Jones (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004), 214.

Was Luke a Jew or a Gentile? Part 7

21 Monday May 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in Acts, Colossians, Hebrews, Luke

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Acts, Circumcision, Colossians, Colossians 4:10-14, David L. Allen, Gentile, Hebrews, Jew, Joseph Barber Lightfoot, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, Luke, Paul

The second question is purpose of the separation between Luke and the men described in verses 10-11:

Lightfoot writes:

Λουκᾶς] St Luke had travelled with St Paul on his last journey to Jerusalem (Acts 21:1 sq.). He had also accompanied him two years later from Jerusalem to Rome (Acts 27:2 sq.). And now again, probably after another interval of two years (see Philippians p. 31 sq.), we find him in the Apostle’s company. It is not probable that he remained with St Paul in the meanwhile (Philippians, p. 35), and this will account for his name not occurring in the Epistle to the Philippians. He was at the Apostle’s side again in his second captivity (2 Tim. 4:11).

Lucas is doubtless a contraction of Lucanus. Several Old Latin MSS. write out the name Lucanus in the superscription and subscription to the Gospel, just as elsewhere Apollos is written in full Apollonius. On the frequent occurrence of this name Lucanus in inscriptions see Ephem. Epigr. 11. p. 28 (1874). The shortened form Lucas however seems to be rare. He is here distinguished from οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς (ver. 11). This alone is fatal to his identification (mentioned as a tradition by Origen ad loc.) with the Lucius, St Paul’s ‘kinsman’ (i.e. a Jew; see Philippians pp. 17, 171, 173), who sends a salutation from Corinth to Rome (Rom. 16:21). It is equally fatal to the somewhat later tradition that he was one of the seventy (Dial. c. Marc. § 1 in Orig. Op. 1. p. 806, ed. De la Rue; Epiphan. Haer. 51.11). The identification with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts 13:13) is possible but not probable. Though the example of Patrobius for Patrobas (Rom. 16:14) shows that such a contraction is not out of the question, yet probability and testimony alike point to Lucanus, as the longer form of the Evangelist’s name.

ὁ ἰατρός] Indications of medical knowledge have been traced both in the third Gospel and in the Acts; see on this point Smith’s Voyage and Shipwreck of St Paul p. 6 sq. (ed. 2). It has been observed also, that St Luke’s first appearance in company with St Paul (Acts 16:10) nearly synchronizes with an attack of the Apostle’s constitutional malady (Gal. 4:13, 14); so that he may have joined him partly in a professional capacity. This conjecture is perhaps borne out by the personal feeling which breathes in the following ὁ ἀγαπητός. But whatever may be thought of these points, there is no ground for questioning the ancient belief (Iren. 3.14.1 sq.) that the physician is also the Evangelist. St Paul’s motive in specifying him as the Physician may not have been to distinguish him from any other bearing the same name, but to emphasize his own obligations to his medical knowledge. The name in this form does not appear to have been common. The tradition that St Luke was a painter is quite late (Niceph. Call. 2.43). It is worthy of notice that the two Evangelists are mentioned together in this context, as also in Philem. 24, 2 Tim. 4:11.

ὁ ἀγαπητός] ‘the beloved one,’ not to be closely connected with d ὁ ἰατρός, for ὁ ἀγαπητός is complete in itself; comp. Philem. 1, Rom. 16:12 (comp. vv. 5, 8, 9), 3 Joh. 1. For the form compare the expression in the Gospels, Matt. 3:17, etc. ὁ υἱός μου, ὁ ἀγαπητός κ.τ.λ.; where a comparison of Is. 42:1, as quoted in Matt. 12:18, seems to show that ὁ ἀγαπητός κ.τ.λ. forms a distinct clause from ὁ υἱός μου.

Joseph Barber Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon., 8th ed. (London and New York: Macmillan and co., 1886), 239-40.

Was Luke a Jew or a Gentile? Part 6

20 Sunday May 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in Acts, Colossians, Hebrews, Luke

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Acts, Circumcision, Colossians, Colossians 4:10-14, David L. Allen, Gentile, Hebrews, Jew, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, Luke, Paul, Peter T. O'Brien

The second question is purpose of the separation between Luke and the men described in verses 10-11:

O’ Brien writes:

Luke and Demas add their greetings. Both names recur in Philemon 24 as Paul’s fellow-workers and at 2 Timothy 4:10, 11. Only here is Luke (on the name Λουκᾶς see BAG, 480) called “the beloved physician” (ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητός), and this has led to speculation that he was Paul’s doctor during his imprisonment. But there is no evidence for this. Luke’s profession was an unusual one so Paul mentions it, yet without further emphasis.

It is mainly on the basis of this verse, which separates him from Jewish Christians (οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς, v 11), that Luke was regarded as a Gentile Christian. Although this is possible, it is by no means certain, and if Ellis’ arguments above about “those of the circumcision” referring not to Jewish Christians generally but to one group within a twofold diaspora mission are correct, then it is possible he was a Hellenistic Jew (see E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke NCB; London: Nelson, 1966) 52, 53; and note the comments above; Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 437, 438, favored identifying him with the Lucius of Rom 16:21).

Peter T. O’Brien, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary : Colossians-Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 256.

Was Luke a Jew or a Gentile? Part 5

19 Saturday May 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in Hebrews, Luke

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Circumcision, Colossians 4:10-14, David L. Allen, Gentile, Hebrews, James D.G. Dunn, Jew, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, Luke, Paul

The first question is whether “men of the circumcision” is used to include all Jews or whether it referred to some sub-set of Jews.

Dunn explains:

These three (Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus Justus), or perhaps just the latter two (the inclusion of Aristarchus in Acts 20:4 may point to his being a Gentile; so Dibelius, Kolosser, Epheser, Philemon 51), are together described as “the ones who are from circumcision” (οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς). Similar phrases occur elsewhere in the Pauline corpus with a hint of menace or at least of hostility (Gal. 2:12; Tit. 1:10). Here it may simply denote Jews, the people marked out by the distinguishing feature of circumcision (see on 2:11), but probably with the hint that “those of the circumcision” were usually active in hostility to Paul’s mission.10 The reference presumably is intended to assure the Colossians that there were such Jews, or at any rate other Jews apart from himself, who, as Jews, were fully approving of and cooperative in the Gentile mission (“fellow workers”), despite, presumably, the disapproval of most of their compatriots (cf. Ollrog 45–46). This point is obscured by those who translate “Jewish Christians” (NEB/REB) or “Jewish converts” (GNB), which suggests that it was something more than their Jewishness which qualified them for mention here (but Paul does not say οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς ἐν Χριστῷ). Rather, it is precisely that they can be described as οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς pure and simple which gives the reference its significance.

That the reference is thus made strengthens the likelihood that any threats to the Colossian church’s self-understanding came from the Colossian synagogue; why otherwise such a full reference added to them, when the notes added to Luke and Demas (equally “coworkers” in Phm. 24) are so brief (4:14)? And why mention these individuals, less well known to the Colossians, before he mentions their own Epaphras (4:12; contrast Phm. 23–24), unless he wanted to give particular prominence to them precisely because they were Jews? Furthermore, that the reference is made without any sign of resentment or hostility to “the circumcision” (contrast Gal. 2:12 and Tit. 1:10) equally strengthens the suggestion that the threat from the Colossian synagogue was not at all so forceful as earlier in Galatia, nor was it making such an issue of circumcision as there.

There is a qualification, however. The writer adds: “these alone fellow workers for the kingdom of God” — that is, “these are the only Jews among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God” (NIV). The qualification is not very extensive: it refers only to Paul’s “fellow workers” (there were many other Jews who had confessed Jesus as Lord), and since his circle of “coworkers” at previous and other times certainly included other Jews (e.g., Priscilla and Aquila, Timothy and Silvanus: Rom. 16:3, 21; 2 Cor. 1:24),11 the reference here must be to those presently with him. In fact the immediate circle does not seem to have been very large (six names in 4:10–14), so that the note of evident sadness (“these only”) is all the more striking. It underlines the extent to which Paul was (or was perceived by his immediate circle to be) deeply concerned about the relative failure of his people to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ, and probably still more about the seemingly negative effect of the success of his Gentile mission on his fellow Jews — an echo of old disputes of which we still have record (Gal. 2:11–18; 5:1–12; 6:12–14; 2 Cor. 11:1–23; Phil. 3:2–21). That he could so express himself, without yielding the point that the gospel was as fully for Gentiles as Gentiles as for Jews as Jews, is a reminder of the complexity of Paul’s personal involvement in the whole business. Presumably something at least of all this is in mind in the fact that it is just these fellow Jews who are described as having been or become such a “comfort” (παρηγορία, only here in the New Testament; see BAGD; MM; Lohse 173 n. 29) to Paul.

James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle: William B. Eerdmans Publishing; Paternoster Press, 1996), 278-80.

Was Luke a Jew or a Gentile? Part 4

18 Friday May 2012

Posted by memoirandremains in Acts, Hebrews, Luke, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Acts, Circumcision, Colossians 4:10-14, David L. Allen, Gentile, Hebrews, Hellenists, Jew, Jews, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, Luke, Paul, Peter T. O'Brien, Uncategorized

The first question is whether “men of the circumcision” is used to include all Jews or whether it referred to some sub-set of Jews.[1]

O’Brien notes the diversity of opinion:

These three men are said to be the only Jewish Christians who have remained faithful fellow-workers of Paul for the kingdom of God (the expression οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς, “those of the circumcision,” is best connected with what follows, οὗτοι μόνοι, “these alone,” so Abbott, 301, and Meyer, 473; note Moule’s discussion, 137). The expression οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς, “those of the circumcision,” is normally taken to refer to Jewish Christians generally (so most commentaries and note Meyer, TDNT 6, 81). However, E. E. Ellis (“The Circumcision Party and the Early Christian Mission,” Prophecy, 116–28, published in an earlier form as “ ‘Those of the Circumcision’ and the early Christian Mission,” SE 4 [1968] 390–99) has put forward an interesting alternative: he claims that the generally accepted definition is neither self-evident from the passage nor does it accord with the meaning of the phrase elsewhere (the expression occurs six times in the NT: Acts 10:45; 11:2; Rom 4:12; Gal 2:12; Titus 1:10, as well as this passage; it does not turn up in the LXX or the intertestamental literature, while Justin’s Dialogiue with Trypho 1, 3 is the earliest parallel in the patristic writings, so Ellis, Prophecy, 116). “Those of the circumcision” is to be understood within the framework of a twofold diaspora mission (according to Ellis, Prophecy, 117–19, who follows Cullmann, Schmithals and others, the expressions “Hebrews and Hellenists” in Acts point primarily to distinctive Jewish attitudes toward the Jewish cultus and customs: “Hebrews designated those Jews with a strict, ritualist, viewpoint; and Hellenists those with a freer attitude toward the Jewish law and cultus” [118, 119]. Both Hebrews and Hellenists were present in pre-Christian Palestinian Judaism and from the beginning both were represented among the followers of Jesus. Ellis suggests that these differences in ritual and discipline between the two groups had important implications for the structure of the early Christian mission, a mission to the diaspora that had a twofold character). On this hypothesis our text is referring to Jewish Christian preachers who took a nonproselytizing attitude to the law and worked with Paul as they evangelized Jews. “Paul and certain Hebrews were pursuing their distinctive missions in a co-operative fashion” (Ellis, Prophecy, 124, who notes that this “venture in ecumenical Christianity” probably also occurred at Antioch [Acts 11:20], while Paul’s Hebrew opponents of 2 Corinthians were the reverse; that Paul should say at Col 4:11 οὗτοι μόνοι, “these alone,” suggests that the cooperative effort was failing). Martin, NCB, 143, claims this description of a concordat sounds a little too modern while Ladd, RevExp 70 (1973), 510, considers it is difficult to see any particular Jewish emphasis in the mention of the kingdom of God.

Peter T. O’Brien, vol. 44, Word Biblical Commentary : Colossians-Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 251-52.