LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2.7 The Early Church and the Leaders' Solution to the Challenge of Multiculturalism
2.7.1 The Problem in the Early Church
2.7.1.2 The Problem - Galatians 2:1 - 16
the entry of the Gentiles into the Church \vas in accordance with God's plan as revealed in the Scriptures by the holy prophets of God, and obeying that law was not necessary for salvation (Acts 15: 13 - 18). In his speech James was referring to what has been prophesied long ago by the prophet Amos (Amos 9: 11 - 12).
because those Christians who had first been Jews and who had become Christians from Judaism retained a regard for ceremonial law. and continued to keep up the reputation of the law of Moses. but those who come from the Gentile background had neither regard or desire to keep the law of Moses for their salYation. but they took pure Christianity which was not mixed with the law as the natural religion. and resolved to adhere to that and that only (Co le 1995 : 2295). That it was a serious problem. we can tell from the abruptness with which Paul introduced the matter. that Paul does not follow his usual pattern of opening his letters to different churches with a section of tactful commendation of the particular local Church. (Galatians I: 6: in contrast to I Corinthians I: 1-9). The problem seems to have been some ne",; line of teaching. a different gospel. from that of Paul probably introduced soon after Paul's departure (Galatians I: 6) by unnamed persons or person (Galatians I: 7.9).
Paul dealt constructively with of multiculturalism, especially the practice of circumcision, and whether this was really necessary for the Gentile Christians. Paul's theology was that circumcision was the work of the lav.:. This is to show that multiculturalism had its own challenges in the Early Church as it is in today's Church (Varathan 2003: 141).
Whatever proponents of circumcision believed or claimed. Paul utterly denies this new teaching or gospel in verses 6 and 7 of the book of Galatians and says that it is only a distortion of Chrisfs true gospel. The new teaching or a different gospel certainly demanded of circumcision as a necessity for salvation. Whatever its proponents may have initially said. the acceptance of circumcision. involyed in Paul's eyes. the obligation to keep the whole of the Law of Moses (Cole 1996: 25). Paul saw that the obligation to keep the whole law implied that salvation \\as to be attained by obedience to the law. as opposed to what Paul had initially preached to the Galatians. that they can be save simple by faith in Christ. That was what made it a "new teaching" or "different gospel". For Paul, this kind of move was an abandonment of Christian liberty in Christ by faith for the old slavery under the law from which they had just been set free. It is also a rejection of the gift of the spirit of freedom in which was fultillment or the great promise made by God to Abraham. the father of all those who come to God by faith only.
All who rely on observing the law are under the curse. for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do
everything written in the book of the Law". Clearly no one is justified before God by the law. because. "The righteous will live
by faith" (Galatians 3:10-11 ):.
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. for all of you who were baptized in Christ have clothed yourself with Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek. slave nor free. male nor female. for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ. then you are Abraham seed. and heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:
26-29).
Commenting on these verses by Paul to the Galatians. Tasker explained that hupo Kalaran (Greek) in English means to be 'under a curse'. That there are certain times that Paul, in the ew Testament writings almost seems to give orge (Greek) 'wrath' and Kalara (Greek) 'curse' independent existence. This is not a theological concept of hostile powers waning against God or of abstract forces. This is purely a Jewish form of expression. and in many cases, the reason for the apparent abstraction can be found in some passages from the Old Testament. Faith brings blessings. but the law of Moses produces a curse upon all who rely on observing it. because of the requirement that one must continue to meet its demands faithfully (Deuteronomy 27: 26). Because it is practically impossible to be justified by the Law of Moses. therefore, there is another truth and a better one than the former. that God adds above this one-that the righteous shall live by faith (Tasker 1973: 95-96).
There was another problem in Galatians that may help us in understanding the writing of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. It is a passage dealing \\'ith the confrontation between Paul and Peter at Antioch (Galatians 2: 11-16). The problem herc is no longer that of circumcision. but of food. or to put it in a better way. the problem was of .Jews eating with Gentile Christians. The issue is still the same here. that of the relationship between the Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians in the Church. the challenges of multicultural ism.
At first. Peter and the other .Je\-vish Christians there had eaten freely with the Genti le Christians at Antioch. whether the reference is to ordinary meals or to the Lord's Supper. or more probably to both. This would involve ignoring. at least. the Jewish ceremonial food laws. for these were certainly not being observed. by the Gentile Christians. However. when cel1ain men came from lames,
Peter, along with the other Jewish Christians, stopped eating with the Gentile Christians, for fear of the circumcision party (or possible just the circumcised). something which aroused both Paul's anger and his rebuke (Galatians 2: 14) Indeed, it is in this context that Paul uses the verb to Judaize in the slightly different sense of to live like Jews (2:14) with reference to Peter's present behaviour. in opposition to his previous propensity to live like a Gentile (Co le 1996: 28-29).
It will be right to assume that Peter and other Jev;ish Christians' did not eat with Gentile Christians when they saw some Jewish believers from Jerusalem because of hypocrisy in their hearts. By so behaving in a way which is contrary to his real belief. Peter aroused Paul's anger. Perhaps what bothered Paul was how could Peter ever have behaved like this after his personal experience of God's dealing and episode recorded in Acts 10 and 11? After all, this very issue of eating with Gentile Christians. and therefore presumably of eating ceremonially unclean food. had been the central point on that occasion to defend his part of eating with them. citing God's approval of Gentile Christians. by pouring out his Spirit on them and that God has told him that he should not call anything unclean that He (God) has cleansed.
After discussing the two challenging Issues. Cll'CumClSlOn and dietary laws, which affected the relationship of Gentiles and Je'vvish believers in the Early Church so badly.
we now look at what caused the Jewish Christians to be strong on these issues (Acts 15:5). Co le makes a good point about the Je\vish Christians strong view about these Issues. He says.
The problem for the Jewish Christians can be seen from another angle. The Christian Church was still living in a very uneasy relationship with the temple and with Orthodox Judaism, not to mention with the extremist political groups within Israel.
Obviously. the parent Church of Jerusalem \\'ould do everything in its power not to jeopardize this delicate relationship. endangered as it already was by false rumors of Paul's attitude to the law and circumcision (Acts 21 :20-24). was it not more important to maintain this Christian relationship with the parent body of Judaism than to enjoy some so-called liberty? They may well have hoped that perhaps Israel would yet heed the gospel and turn to her Messiah: the awful. days of AD 70 with the consequential irreconcilable break between Christianity and the new monochrome" Judaism was yet to come.
We can see how tempting and even appealing; this line of argument might have been to the Galatians. We may be sure that this was one of the lines followed by the Judaizers of Galatia. and no doubt sincerely believed by them. but Paul would have none of it. as is clear both fi'om the contents of this letter and his relationship with the Jerusalem apostles (I :6-2:24). To him therefore there must have been a far deeper theological principle involved. outweighing all these considerations: Compromise here, despite his flexibility elsewhere, was impossible (Cole 1996: 47- 48).
This is a similar picture of the Church' s state in South Africa before 1994. The Church was divided according to racial lines. Many denominations were divided into four sections. that is. the Black, Coloured. Indian and White sections even though they were of the same name. professing to practice the same doctrines and to belong to the same Church. The first three sections where referred to as the 'mission field' of the White section while the White section was regarded as the main or mother Church. Most of the White local churches would not admit members of other sections during their worship meetings. mainly because they were of different skin colour. The White Church in South Ahica was married to the gO\ernment of the day. The government. kno\vn throughout the whole world for its oppression and its discrimination against all other people.
accepted the White community. The worst part of the South African history is the Church's role in the development and maintenance of the apartheid regime. The Church played a major role in the division of the people of this country. The missionary period is seen by many today as the beginning of Apartheid. This is so because the missionaries collaborated with the colonist in many ways. As a result of that. the Church in South Africa justified apartheid.
2.8 Conclusion
In this chapter we have learnt that the membership of the Early Church comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. Even though some of the leaders were specifically called to certain group of people. for example Paul an apostle to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews (Gal 2:
6 - 10) they would still go and preach to all people regardless or their race and culture. In Acts 10 God challenge Peter to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. On the other hand \-\le
read of Paul going to preach in the synagogues of the Je",\,s (Acts 17: 10 - 12).
The first multicultural model local church in the in the New Testament is the Antioch church. Unlike the Jerusalem church. we learnt that the Antioch church leadership team was multicultural in its composition and reflective of its own community (Acts 13: 1 - 3).
The Early Church was not free from the challenges of multiculturalism as the church of today want to believe. Some people in the church of the first century did not want to associate with believers of different cultural groups than their own as said by Peter when he said. "You are all aware that it is against our la\\" for Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him'" Peter continue to make a strong point out of his conviction when he said, "But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean (Acts 10: 28)'"
During the time of the persecution those that scattered went to a number of places telling the gospel message only to the Jev,s (Acts 11: 19) and many more examples. The multicultural problem in the Early Church is more clearly highlighted in Acts IS: I - 35 and Gal 2: 1 - 6.
In Acts 6 we learnt how they leaders of the Early Church actually dealt with this challenge. Through the delegated authority of the leaders people in the church chose and presented seven men who belonged to a different cultural group from the leadership of that time. We learnt that the integration of new leaders from the different cultural group from the initial leadership brought about growth in the church. As a result of this we read that, "So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly (Acts 6: 7)'"
CHAPTER 3
THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CHURCH AND RACISM IN SOUTH AFRICA (181'11 - 201'11 Century)