God's Truth,
OK. Here is the reply I promised you.
I don't know how much you know about Jewish laws so I'll give you a little background first.
The Jews have what they call their Oral Law. It's made up of two sets of laws. One is called the Mishna. The other is called the Gemara. The two combined are called the Talmud. The Mishna is commentary on the Scriptures--the Old Testament. The Gemara is commentary on the Mishna. It's more complicated than that, but that is the basic structure and good enough this purpose. However, we find throughout the Oral law instances where it conflicts with what is taught in Scripture, as it is of completely human origin.
To begin to understand how large and comprehensive this set of laws is, I have a pdf copy of what is said to be the complete Babylonian Talmud. Whether that is so or not I do not know, but it is more than 10,300 pages long. It's massive. And there are two sets of Talmuds. The Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud.
What I am going to quote from here is a book written by a Jew who was raised to be an Orthodox Rabbi until his mid teens, and who became a Christian in his mid twenties. He was born 8 days before the Day of Atonement so he was considered to be a very special child, possibly the looked for Messiah as he was to be circumcised on the Day of Atonement. The book is titled "Practical Lessons for the Church Today from the Experience of Israel". The author's name is F.C. Gilbert. The book was published in 1902.
Now to Peter's comments on how it was unlawful to associate with Gentiles. Peter had been raised from infancy to do a couple of things: regard the teaching of the Rabbi's as equal with that of the voice of God and to strictly follow the Oral law.
To show you the power the Rabbis held in Jewish culture then I'll give you a couple of quotes from the book I mentioned that address this. You will see numbers at the beginning of paragraphs when I have quoted an entire paragraph. The author, for some reason, maybe ease of reference, put the numbers there.
“As a man is commanded to honor and fear his father, so he is bound to honor and fear his Rabbi
more than his father.”
“If a man should see his father lose something, and his Rabbi lose something, he is first to return
what his Rabbi has lost, then to return that which his father has lost.”
“If his father and his Rabbi be oppressed with a load, he is first to help his Rabbi down, then assist
his father.”
“If his father and his Rabbi be in captivity, he is first to ransom his Rabbi, after that his father,
unless his father be the disciple of a wise (or learned) man.”
“Thou must consider no honor greater than the honor of the Rabbi, and no fear greater than the
fear of the Rabbi. The wise men have said The fear of thy Rabbi is as the fear of God.” pg 12
To really understand this "fear of thy Rabbi is as the fear of God" you need to understand some of the teachings that the Jews were required to accept. If they did not accept at face value all the Rabbis taught they were excommunicated, meaning they could no longer worship in the temple, buy and sell with fellow Jews, and were shunned from Jewish society and family. The penalty was extremely daunting.
15. They were putting themselves in the place of God to the people; their sayings were placed
upon equality with God’s teachings. Hence we read that the written law was like water; but the oral law,
Mishna, was like wine: the Gemara, like spiced wine. Some went as far as to say that the words of the
scribes are lovely above the words of the law (meaning the written law), for the words of the written law
are weighty and light; but the words of the scribes are all weighty. One, Rabbi Judah, son of Tamai, said:
“A child at five years should study the Bible, at ten the Mishna, at fifteen the Gemara.”
From this last statement it can be seen that three times as much value is placed upon the words of
men as upon the words of God. The person as he comes to years of maturity should regard the words of the
Scripture only one-third as much as he does the words of the rabbis. Yes, they go so far as to say:
“Yea, though they should tell thee that thy right hand is the left, and the left hand that it is the
right, it must be believed.”
18. Two of the most noted contemporary teachers were Hillel and Shammi, who flourished about
the time of Christ’s advent. Each represented a different school of theology and were frequently were
engaged in strong arguments. On one occasion there arose a heated discussion about a hen that laid her
eggs on the Sabbath, whether or not it was lawful to eat such egg or eggs. As a result of this strong debate,
an entire treatise, called “Bet-za “ (egg), is written on this subject. Hillel stuck to his legal decision, and
what he claimed would be the position of the other great rabbis, namely, that the egg was not to be eaten.
Shammi, however, who was of the more lenient class, claimed that it could be. What was to be done? Both
of these men were held in great esteem. Their disciples were sitting by and awaiting the outcome. The
whole structure of their interpretation of Scripture might crumble should either admit defeat.
19. Finally one of the company raised his voice, and shouted, “Bath-kol” (literally, the daughter of
a voice). This was their substitute for “the spirit of prophecy.” They claimed this is the way God revealed
Himself to them. When some person said “Bath-kol” a hush fell upon the entire company. What said the
Bath-kol concerning the point under discussion. This was the reply:
“Both are the words of the living God, yet the rule of the school of Hillel should be followed.”-
Tractate Eruvin. pg. 12
As you can see from above the authority of the Rabbis was pretty much absolute. If they told you your left hand was your right hand and vice versa you simply had to say, Yes, Rabbi. To do anything less was to get kicked out of Jewish society. If two Rabbis disagreed then you had to accept both points of view even if they were diametrically opposed to each other. You couldn't choose one or the other to believe. Does this make it clearer when the Bible says the people were amazed because Jesus taught as one having authority and not as the scribes?
Now, to a synopsis of a very small portion of the laws concerning how a Jew was to relate to a Gentile. These come from a section of the Talmud called Avodah Zarah. In my Babylonian Talmud this section is 348 pages long. It is devoted to the topic of "Idolatry" and these laws are those designed, in Jewish thought, to keep a Jew from doing anything to help further idolatry.
If a Jew were compelled to transact any business with a Gentile, he was obliged to cleanse himself
both before and after the meeting.
If a Gentile were invited into the home of a Jew, the Gentile must not be left alone in the house
during any portion of the time of his visit. If he were, then all the food in the house became unclean; and
everything connected with the rooms through which the Gentile passed was defiled.
If a Jew were obliged to purchase any article of clothing, furniture, or any other utensil for
domestic purposes from a Gentile, after he brought it to his house, he first had to wash his hands, because
of his defilement in touching the object. Then the article itself would have to be cleansed, scoured, and
thoroughly renovated.
If any Gentile lived in the same community with a Jew, and peradventure the Gentile was to have
some festal celebration, for at least three days before this festal occasion, the Jew should have no
transaction with the Gentile. If the Jew should have any intercourse with him during this time, he would be
considered as assisting the Gentile in preparing his festivities.
If Gentiles were celebrating any heathen festivity, the Jew, if it were possible, should not pass
through the city at this time, for fear that some bit of uncleanness might adhere to him.
It was forbidden to the Jew under most any circumstance, to do anything for a non-Jew. A Jewess
was forbidden to assist a Gentile woman when giving birth to a child; she was not permitted to feed a child
of another nationality, because then it would not only be defiling the Jewess, but would at the same time, by
lengthening the life of the infant, encourage idolatry.
If a Gentile met with a disaster, such as having his house destroyed by fire, it was permissible for
the Jew to assist him only in extreme cases; and these extreme cases had so many limitations and
modifications, that the poor Gentile might have his house reduced to ashes and everything in it destroyed
before he could receive any assistance.
A Jew must not have any part in the erection of any dwelling for a Gentile; this would be a
defilement, and would cause him to become unclean. In the construction of no buildings was he permitted
to have part.
A Jew must not sell, lease, or permit the use of any lands, houses, or real estate to a Gentile; for,
after the Gentile had touched it, especially if he had used the house or land, all was unclean and defiled.
If a Gentile brought anything to a Jew as a gift, or for any other purpose, the Jew must not permit
him to bring it into the house. Should the non-Jew succeed in bringing it into the house, the goods must be
destroyed, and the house cleansed. pg. 26
We see Biblical evidence of this in places other than Peter's statement concerning Cornelius and his behavior in Antioch when he stopped eating with the Gentiles. When Jesus talked to the woman at the well we remember her question to Him: How come you, a Jew, are asking me, a Samarian, for a drink? This is because it was considered in the Talmud to be defiling to a Jew to eat or drink from a Gentile's container.
The above is the short version of why Peter said it was unlawful to associate with Gentiles. He'd been taught this as if it came from God since the time he was old enough to understand. It was completely embedded in the culture in which he grew up. That's why it took a vision from God on this to get him to go talk to Cornelius, and why, even after that vision he was still somewhat susceptible to these ideas.
This is why I said Peter wasn't a liar when he said it was unlawful to associate with Gentiles even though the idea is in contradiction to what God said in the Old Testament about the Israelites/Jews loving the stranger as themselves. In his mind all these laws came directly from God as they were thought up by the Rabbis. All his life he had considered a Rabbi to have had the same authority God has.
