Peter's law

[visionary]

So no documented source... no one has a quote from the Jews that this is the way they feel back then.

 

[Crankitup]

You'd have to read carefully through the Pharisees additions to the Law. For instance; [FONT=times new roman, times new roman, times]Avod. S. ii. 1


[/FONT]

 

[Crankitup]

To expand;

Taken from HERE.

The following was written in 1876 by Alfred Edersheim (Jewish historian, who converted to Christianity).

[FONT=times new roman, times new roman, times]And what of Judaism itself at the period? It was miserably divided, even though no outward separation had taken place. The Pharisees and Sadducees held opposite principles, and hated each other; the Essenes looked down upon them both. Within Pharisaism the schools of Hillel and Shammai contradicted each other on almost every matter. But both united in their unbounded contempt of what they designated as "the country-people"— who had no traditional learning, and hence were either unable or unwilling to share the discussions, and to bear the burdens of legal ordinances, which constituted the chief matter of traditionalism. There was only one feeling common to all— and low, rich and poor, learned and unlettered: it was that of intense hatred of the foreigner. The rude Galileans were as "national" as the most punctilious Pharisees; indeed, in the war against Rome they furnished the most and the bravest soldiers. Everywhere the foreigner was in sight; his were the taxes levied, the soldiery, the courts of ultimate appeal, the government. In Jerusalem they hung over the Temple as a guard in the fortress of Antonia, and even kept in their custody the high-priest's garments, * so that, before officiating in the Temple, he had actually always to apply for them to the procurator or his representative! They were only just more tolerable as being downright heathens than the Herodians, who mingled Judaism with heathenism, and, having sprung from foreign slaves, had arrogated to themselves the kingdom of the Maccabees. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman, times new roman, times]* The practice commenced innocently enough. The high-priest Hyrcanus, who built the Tower of Baris, kept his dress there, and his sons continued the practice. When Herod seized the government, he retained, for reasons readily understood, this custody, in the fortress of Antonia, which he had substituted for the ancient tower. On similar grounds the Romans followed the lead of Herod. Josephus (Ant. xviii, 93) describes "the stone chamber" in which these garments were kept, under seal of the priests, with a light continually burning there. Vitellius, the successor of Pilate, restored to the Jews the custody of the high-priestly garments, when they were kept in a special apartment in the Temple.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=times new roman, times new roman, times]Readers of the New Testament know what separation Pharisaical Jews made between themselves and heathens. It will be readily understood, that every contact with heathenism and all aid to its rites should have been forbidden, and that in social intercourse any levitical defilement, arising from the use of what was "common or unclean," was avoided. But Pharisaism went a great deal further than this. Three days before a heathen festival all transactions with Gentiles were forbidden, so as to afford them neither direct nor indirect help towards their rites; and this prohibition extended even to private festivities, such as a birthday, the day of return from a journey, etc. On heathen festive occasions a pious Jew should avoid, if possible, passing through a heathen city, certainly all dealings in shops that were festively decorated. It was unlawful for Jewish workmen to assist in anything that might be subservient either to heathen worship or heathen rule, including in the latter the erection of court-houses and similar buildings. It need not be explained to what lengths or into what details Pharisaical punctiliousness carried all these ordinances. From the New Testament we know, that to enter the house of a heathen defiled till the evening (John 18:28), and that all familiar intercourse with Gentiles was forbidden (Acts 10:28). So terrible was the intolerance, that a Jewess was actually forbidden to give help to her heathen neighbour, when about to become a mother (Avod. S. ii. 1)! It was not a new question to St. Paul, when the Corinthians inquired about the lawfulness of meat sold in the shambles or served up at a feast (1 Cor 10:25,27,28). Evidently he had the Rabbinical law on the subject before his mind, while, on the one hand, he avoided the Pharisaical bondage of the letter, and, on the other, guarded against either injuring one's own conscience, or offending that of an on-looker. For, according to Rabbi Akiba, "Meat which is about to be brought in heathen worship is lawful, but that which comes out from it is forbidden, because it is like the sacrifices of the dead" (Avod. S. ii. 3). But the separation went much beyond what ordinary minds might be prepared for. Milk drawn from a cow by heathen hands, bread and oil prepared by them, might indeed be sold to strangers, but not used by Israelites. No pious Jew would of course have sat down at the table of a Gentile (Acts 11:3; Gal 2:12). If a heathen were invited to a Jewish house, he might not be left alone in the room, else every article of food or drink on the table was henceforth to be regarded as unclean. If cooking utensils were bought of them, they had to be purified by fire or by water; knives to be ground anew; spits to be made red-hot before use, etc. It was not lawful to let either house or field, nor to sell cattle, to a heathen; any article, however distantly connected with heathenism, was to be destroyed. Thus, if a weaving-shuttle had been made of wood grown in a grove devoted to idols, every web of cloth made by it was to be destroyed; nay, if such pieces had been mixed with others, to the manufacture of which no possible objection could have been taken, these all became unclean, and had to be destroyed. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman, times new roman, times]These are only general statements to show the prevalent feeling. It was easy to prove how it pervaded every relationship of life. The heathens, though often tolerant, of course retorted. Circumcision, the Sabbath-rest, the worship of an invisible God, and Jewish abstinence from pork, formed a never-ending theme of merriment to the heathen. Conquerors are not often chary in disguising their contempt for the conquered, especially when the latter presume to look down upon, and to hate them. In view of all this, what an almost incredible truth must it have seemed, when the Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed it among Israel as the object of His coming and kingdom, not to make of the Gentiles Jews, but of both alike children of one Heavenly Father; not to rivet upon the heathen the yoke of the law, but to deliver from it Jew and Gentile, or rather to fulfil its demands for all! The most unexpected and unprepared-for revelation, from the Jewish point of view, was that of the breaking down of the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, the taking away of the enmity of the law, and the nailing it to His cross. There was nothing analogous to it; not a hint of it to be found, either in the teaching or the spirit of the times. Quite the opposite. Assuredly, the most unlike thing to Christ were His times; and the greatest wonder of all—"the mystery hidden from ages and generations"— foundation of one universal Church. [/FONT]

He says a lot but only quotes a few source documents. You would have to say he had access to Jewish source documents for his statements though. Either that or he made it all up.

 

[visionary]

Do you have a website that I can go to?

 

[Crankitup]

Do you have a website that I can go to?

The website will be found by clicking on the link I provided before the quote.

 

[Crankitup]

Actually p. 166 of 'James the Just and Christian Origins (Supplements to Novum Testamentum) by Bruce Chilton (Editor), Craig A. Evans (Editor) provides a lot more Jewish source material from the period.

You can read the page here.

A google search in the following terms might throw up some more;

Google search: jewish historian josephus "acts 10:28"

 

[visionary]

To expand;

Taken from HERE.

The following was written in 1876 by Alfred Edersheim (Jewish historian, who converted to Christianity).

He says a lot but only quotes a few source documents. You would have to say he had access to Jewish source documents for his statements though. Either that or he made it all up.

Thank you, that is a good one but like you said "quotes a few source documents" and that is what I have been finding, statements but no or very little documentations to back it up.

 

[Crankitup]

Thank you, that is a good one but like you said "quotes a few source documents" and that is what I have been finding, statements but no or very little documentations to back it up.

My post #26 which was posted simultaneously with your post #27 might be of help.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yeah, but is there no recorded source other than the bible that documents this ideology?

I found the greek word used for "corners" in Acts 10:11 interesting.

#746 is used 56 times in the NT/NC but this particular form is used but 4 times: Acts 10:11, 11:5, Eph 3:10 and Titus 3:1.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Acts 10:11 and he is beholding the heaven having been opened and descending a certain vessel as a sheet, great, to four corners/arcaiV <746> being let down upon the land,

746. arche ar-khay' from 756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank):--beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thank you, that is a good one but like you said "quotes a few source documents" and that is what I have been finding, statements but no or very little documentations to back it up.

What sources to the Messianics use to back up the Bible? Just curious. Thanks

 

[visionary]

We have no full commentary as of yet. There has been some work on it, but it is not any where close to even getting but a touch on a few books of the Bible. Hence the need to find other works on the Word.

 

[Crankitup]

We have no full commentary as of yet. There has been some work on it, but it is not any where close to even getting but a touch on a few books of the Bible. Hence the need to find other works on the Word.

Hi. Did you see post 26? Did you try the google search terms I suggested or read that page of the book 'James the Just and Christian Origins' that I linked to? It referred to quite a few Jewish documents of the period dealing with the issue at hand.

 

[wayseer]

I am enjoying the posts and the links. However, I am still wondering just what is this 'Peter's Law'. I accept the division between the sacred and the profane and the issues it raised for the fledging Christian community. But could someone spell out exactly just what is this Peter's Law. What is the purpose of the thread?

 

[Crankitup]

I am enjoying the posts and the links. However, I am still wondering just what is this 'Peter's Law'. I accept the division between the sacred and the profane and the issues it raised for the fledging Christian community. But could someone spell out exactly just what is this Peter's Law. What is the purpose of the thread?

It hinges around this verse;

Acts 10:28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

 

[MamaZ]

It hinges around this verse;

Acts 10:28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

So why is this called Peters law for this is what Jesus was saying when He said other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Also were it is written that in Christ there is neither bond nor free nor Jew nor Greek nor male nor female. For salvation was not just for the Jews.

 

[visionary]

Yes, I read your link and already said I appreciate what you have found for me.

The reason for calling it "Peter's law" is because the Jews that I have ask so far state that such a requirement does not exist. Since Peter is the only one have stated it, unless we find a source for this; it belongs to him.

 

[ThomasDa]

Does anyone have a source for Peter's law that he is not allowed to eat or come into a gentile's home?

This was a tradition that had developed among the Jews at that time. It was not a Law of God.

 

[wayseer]

OK - I think I'm on track now. Because some Jewish friends of Visionary have claimed that there was no requirement for Jews to separate themselves from Gentiles by not eating with them or entering their home AND the only reference to this phenomena is Peter's claim in Acts 10:28; Peter's act becomes a once only event and is not indicative of the social fabric of Judaism.

As far as my understanding of Jewish laws it is certainly not proper for Jews to eat anything that does is not 'kosher'. There are, from my limited knowledge of the subject, any number of laws that would circumvent any thought of Jews eating in a Gentiles home.

I am also lead to believe that Jews cannot enter a place where any depiction of God (or gods) are displayed. In fact Jews cannot write or pronounce the name of God. So it would seem that the safest bet to avoid breaking this law was to refrain from placing oneself in a position where one might 'see' a icon or picture of God - namely within a Gentile's home.

There are 613 individual commandmets required to be kept by Jews. Many of these are now unable to be kept because there is no temple in which to make any sacrifice - however a sizeable number remain. You might like to check here

From a brief review of the list it would appear that stepping into a Gentile's home would immediately increase the likelihood of breaking any number of these commandments. So while there is no commandment forbidding a Jew to enter a Gentiles home such would have been fraught with danger. Peter appears to be playing it safe.

 

[MamaZ]

They were to touch no unclean thing. This being the case only Jews were thought of as being clean before God.

 

[Crankitup]

Yes, I read your link and already said I appreciate what you have found for me.

That was after the link I gave in post #23. The one I gave in post #26 was much better with more references to actual Jewish documents of the era.