Tackling Tradition 78: Cephas In Galatians
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus •along with me. 2 •I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were •makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 7 •On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing •I was eager to do. (Galatians 2:1–11, ESV)
The text draws a distinction between Peter & Cephas.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Galatians 2:11–14, ESV)
Using a set commentaries for the majority view is a classic example of semantic anachronism. You read your own theology, thusly defined, back into the text. The disputant maps dogmatic usage back onto Biblical usage, then appeals to Biblical usage, thus redefined, to disprove or prove dogmatic usage.
Using John to define the referent for Cephas as Peter commits semantic incest.
This is where a disputant uses one Bible writer’s usage to interpret another Bible writer’s usage. For example, James’ use of “justification” is employed to reinterpret Paul’s usage—and thereby disprove sola fide.
It also commits semantic inflation. The use of Cephas for Peter in John (with or without the support of one or more commentaries) becomes a monolithic tradition read into the text. The disputant will equate the mere occurrence of a word with a whole doctrine associated with the word—- so, one error leads to another error, leading to a third error which then establishes & perpetuates the error. Over time, Ecclesiastical Tradition becomes increasingly entrenched & ever more monolithic.
When I say that Cephas is Joseph of Arimathea, I am recognizing that the author of Galatians draws a distinction between Peter & Cephas & that the text is either informing us that Cephas is a composite Cephas (Peter himself & one or more other people or another individual altogether.
I think the preponderance of evidence points more properly to Joseph of Arimathea because of Galatians 2’s relationship to Acts 15. Acts 15 was written by Luke, & the Pauline churches overlap with Luke’s audience. Acts 15 names the major players in both Jerusalem & in Galatia, regardless of whether or not Galatians itself was written in 49 - 50 AD or about the same time as 1 Corinthians. In both texts, the Circumcision Party appears as do Peter, Paul, James, & Barnabas. Acts 15 lists James, Justus, Joseph Barsabbas.
Why would he be left out of Galatians 2 while appearing in Acts 15, when a look at the names applying to him supplies us with his identity? Either he is conspicuously absent from the Galatians narrative or he is present as Cephas.
Luke, as we have seen before, uses Hebrew naming convention. Let’s survey these names:
Thaddeus - Gift of God: This name calls attention to Isaiah 22. Joseph is the steward within the House of Judah who uses the key of David as a civic leader & is associated with a tomb. He is Shebna, via being a lawyer & member of the Sanhedrin (whom Yeshua reminded had both built the tombs of the prophets & agreed with their persecution (even murder) by their forefathers).
He is also Eliakim, a faithful steward whom God raises up & entrusts with the Key of David, a civic key. The key itself denotes empowered civic/civil authority to Judge & rule Israel (Isaiah 22).
Justus - Just/Upright: This name calls attention to his work as a lawyer & his recognition by the people as a prophetic ecclesiastical authority.
Judas - Praised/Let H/him be praised: This name associates him with worship. It’s use in Acts is ironic, calling attention to his zealotry for Israel, his witness to what Judas Iscariot (the assassin) had done, & his reputation for seeking to strengthen and encourage other people.
Barsabbas - Son of the Sabbath: This name calls attention to his ecclesiastical office. It also corresponds to Paul’s statement in Galatians 1 that he was a believer in the principle that the Sabbath & its regulations are for man not man for the Sabbath & its regulations. It also speaks of his relationship with Christ (the (living) Sabbath).
Joseph - God will add: In Genesis God providentially places Joseph in Egypt. He becomes Pharaoh’s right hand & protects both his own people & those of Egypt and the nations. In Matthew & Luke, Joseph is kind, listens to the angel who warns him about Herod’s plan, & protects his family by migrating them to Egypt.
When we put these names together & survey the list of New Testament characters who might fit all of these names simultaneously, it’s pretty clear that there is only one candidate whose presence in the narrative comprehensively fits the bill — Joseph of Arimathea, a town many believed might have once existed in Judea, but whose name is most likely fictional (on the Earth at least), being instead a literary device that calls attention to his “home office,” Mount Moriah & his heavenward outlook.
Cephas: - This name, found in Galatians 2, signifies his stalwart character. He also seems to understand church politics, & at the heart of the drama Paul describes in Galatians 2 is an ecclesiastical dispute with roots in the disputes between Hillel & Shammai, which a member of the Sanhedrin would most certainly have known & understood.
With this is mind, this is what happened:
Cephas withdrew strategically (which is the meaning of the Greek word for “withdraw”) in order to expose the villains in the story, **not** because he agreed with them.
What happened in Galatia was an act of inductive & intuitive prophecy that answered not only the Judaizers & followers of Shammai & legalism in general but also certain Ecclesiastical Traditions that appear in the Talmud.
According to the Talmud, the adherents to the School of Beit Hillel were forced to vote, and perhaps were even violently suppressed. Beit Shammai took majority through an inappropriate ruse.
Providentially Cephas, Peter, Barnabas, & James themselves engaged in an elaborate “inappropriate ruse” to answer this later Talmudic Tradition literarily. If the Talmudic Tradition records a historical fact, the Apostles & the LORD answered it literally.
One of the purposes of the Shammaic 18 Edicts was to weed out Roman sympathizers, infiltrators, &tc. Cephas, Peter, Barnabas, & James themselves engaged in an elaborate ruse to turn the tables/flip the script upon the legalists, Judaizers, &tc., the “Roman sympathizers” who needed to be rooted out.
They kept Paul out of the loop in order to provide some theater that they believed would expose the Judaizers, convince anyone on the fence of the truth, &, if the Jerusalem Council had not yet happened get the ball rolling, & if it had already occurred, make it known that the major Aposolic players, all of whom are listed in Acts 15 were on the same page, Cephas (Joseph of Arimathea) included. Why would a man of his stature be left out of the Galatians 2 narrative when he would most certainly have all the tools necessary to pull all of this off at his disposal and one of the men sent by the Council with the letter.
What happened in Galatians 2 is just like the cleansing of the temple in Matthew 21. Yeshua enters the temple courts as part of a massive dramatic act of inductive & intuitive prophecy that, after their medical mission was set up, drew the attention of the Sanhedrin (of which Joseph of Arimathea was a part). In Galatians 2, the Apostles stage a strategic intervention in order to italicize the issues at stake on the hearts & minds of the souls in their care.
Comments
Post a Comment