An
on-going argument: How "non-Jesus" was Paul, really?
[April
26/2003]
Our writer
continues...[his/her words in BOLD; mine in regular, but indented]
………………
"Paul had great confidence in the truth of his personal revelation.
As did Moses,
Isaiah, Jesus, Peter…
"He
seemed unaware of the teachings of the Gospel on the importance of the Law. It
is of course possible that Paul did not know what Jesus had actually preached
as he had not heard him and makes no reference to his teachings in his letters.
We have already seen in the first two parts of this discussion that this is fundamentally mistaken. Paul's teachings are barely distinguishable from Jesus' or Peter's, for example…and Paul's allusions/references/dependencies on the gospel material are substantial, as we saw in Parts ONE and TWO…
"Paul
writes: '...those who rely on the keeping of the law are under a curse, since
scripture says; Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in observing
everything prescribed in the book of the Law. The Law will not justify anyone
in the sight of God, because we are told: the righteous man finds life through
faith. The Law is not even based on faith, since we are told: the man who
practises these precepts finds life through practising them. Christ redeemed us
from the curse of the Law by being cursed for our sake, since scripture says:
Cursed be everyone who is hanged on a tree.' (Gal 3:10-13)
We
have already seen above that 'justification by faith' was taught by Jesus, so
Paul's statement here is nothing new.
But we should note that the 'redemption'
of which he speaks in this verse is NOT 'redemption from the Law' but
'redemption from the CURSE of the Law'--it is redemption from the judgment of
death which the Law should have pronounced upon us for our evil. We are freed--by the gracious
substitutionary death of Jesus--from bearing the just judgment (curse/death)
which the righteous Law pronounced upon lawbreakers like us. [This particular
passage does NOT teach that we are 'redeemed/released from under the (Mosaic)
Law'.] This statement is in keeping with another Pauline 'redemption'
statement:
the glory of our great God and Savior,
Christ Jesus; 14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every
lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession,
zealous for good deeds. (Titus
2.13b-14)
In other words, we are redeemed from
the judicial consequences of our 'every lawless deed'--by virtue of the
fact that our Jesus stood in our place of our punishment.
Elsewhere, though, Paul can talk about
the 'change of Law' predicted by the Old Testament/Tanach (and expected by the
Jesus), in which the Messiah ushered in a New Age with a New Law (see finaltorah.html). [This, of course, is a major
theme in the non-Pauline Book of Hebrews.] Paul can speak of not being under
the Mosaic Law, but still under the "Law of Christ" (i.e., the Law of
Love):
For though I am
free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might
win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those
under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the
law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became
as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under
Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. (1 Cor 9.19)
Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way
you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal 6.2)
And of course,
Paul was not alone in describing our freedom from the Mosaic-Law-as-a-way-to-earn-a-relationship-with-God.
So Peter says:
knowing that you were not redeemed
with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life
inherited from your forefathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a
lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. (1
Pet 1.18)
and again, in his Jerusalem
speech (about making Gentiles keep the Law):
And after there had been much
debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early
days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the
word of the gospel and believe. 8 “And God, who knows the heart, bore witness
to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made
no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 “Now
therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the
disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
11 “But we believe that we are saved through the
grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” (Acts
15.7)
The apostolic community understood that Jesus came to usher in a new
period of time (and a New Covenant), based upon faith and with a new 'Law'.
This was not simply a 'Pauline invention' by any means.
"The
teachings of Paul created great controversy at the time.
As did the
teachings of Noah, Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and Jesus…it
almost seems to be a necessary consequence of truth…(smile)
Of course,
you can have controversial claims that are outrageously false (i.e. opposition seems to be a necessary, but not a sufficient
condition of life-issues truth…smile), but it is rare in history for 'sober,
incisive, and humbling truth' to EVER go without controversy, opposition, and
censure…Nothing surprising here either.
"There
is evidence from Paul's letters and from other sources that they were not well
received by the Jerusalem Community or its leaders.
This sentence
is seriously flawed because it only uses a part of the data, uses
only 'ambiguous' aspects of the data, and seems to ignore even the qualifications in
that portion of the data. It certainly ignores the most relevant data on
the subject: the explicit statements about
this exact issue!
The clearest statement we have about Paul's relation to the
Jerusalem Community comes from Acts 15--all other 'circumstantial data' has to
be interpreted in light of this statement by James, and by the actions/letter
of the 'majority Jerusalem Community'
in Acts 15:
After they finished speaking, James replied, “My brothers,
listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first looked favorably on the
Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. 15 This
agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written,
16 ‘After this I will
return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; from its
ruins I will rebuild it, and I will set it up, 17 so that all other peoples may
seek the Lord— even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called. Thus
says the Lord, who has been making these things18 known from long ago.’
19 Therefore I have reached the decision that we should
not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but we should write to
them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and
from whatever has been strangled and from blood. 21 For in every city, for
generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read
aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.”
22 Then the apostles and the elders, with
the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and
to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called
Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, 23 with the following letter:
“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers of
Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have
heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no
instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your
minds, 25 we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them
to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 who have risked their lives for the
sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who
themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed
good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: 29
that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from
what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you
will do well. Farewell.”
This would
certainly constitute strong and unambiguous evidence against the
position that Paul was NOT received positively by the Jerusalem community.
And, from the other
side, Paul reflects the same experience of acceptance in his
explicit words:
And from those
who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they
actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders
contributed nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had
been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been
entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through
Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in
sending me to the Gentiles), 9 and when James
and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that
had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of
fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to
the circumcised. 10 They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which
was actually what I was eager to do. (Gal 2.6ff)
These are the only two passages that deal explicitly with the relationship of
Paul with the Jerusalem community and leadership, and they
BOTH indicate a closeness, mutual acceptance and respect, and mutual support
for their ministries and teachings. Whatever other data is brought forward
about this issue MUST be interpreted in light of these very, very clear passages
indicating unity and cooperation between Paul and Jerusalem. Let's be clear on
this.
They were so
different from the teachings of the prophets, including Jesus, that Christian
scholars are still writing explanations of his views.
Two
major problems with this statement:
1. There
is tremendous continuity between the Prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles
(including Paul). One can simply look at all the OT citations, allusions, and
arguments in the NT that are based on OT themes to see this. Paul
constantly grounds his theology, practice, and self-understanding on the
OT/Tanach, as did Jesus. One has only to study Romans 3-4 and 9-11 to see how
important this was to Paul. And Jesus' self-understanding of His identity as
God's Davidic Son, the Messiah, the Danielic Son of Man, and the Suffering
Servant of Isaiah was completely grounded in the Hebrew Bible. And Paul, of
course, doesn't differ from other NT authors in this regard either. The author
of Hebrews has major points of continuity (Heb 8-10) with Jesus' use of the New
Covenant (Luke 22.20), as it does with Paul's use of the New Covenant (1 Cor
11.25; 2 Cor 3). Peter refers to the same OT/Tanach 'Stone of Stumbling' (Ps
118.22ff, cf. Is 8.14) as the image of the 'Controversial Christ' (1 Pet 2.8)
as did Jesus (Matt 21.42) and as did Paul (Rom 9.32f). It is simply false to
label these early teaching strands as "so different".
2.
Christian scholars are still writing 'explanations' of the views of Moses,
Isaiah, Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, etc.…this means nothing, relative to
Paul's fidelity to the truth of God.
Again, this doesn’t mean anything relative to the relation between Jesus and Paul… Jesus was controversial, too.
"Paul's
defensiveness in the letters which can be clearly attributed to him, suggest
that he was under constant and sustained attack. He denies that his message
comes '...from any
delusion or impure motives or trickery' (1 Thes 2:3)
and denies that he seeks to flatter human beings (Gal 1:10) or seek honour from
them (1 Thes 2:6). His authority to preach is questioned for he comments '...you are
asking for a proof that it is Christ who speaks in me' (2 Cor 13:3). He complains that he is not universally
accepted as an apostle, writing: 'Even if to others I am not an apostle,
to you at any rate, I am, for you are the soul of my apostolate in the Lord' (1 Cor
9:2). He is also most sensitive to the charge that he lives off the church
members and wants to emphasise how hard he and his companions work and how they
suffer (1 Thes 2:9; 2 Thes 3:7, 1 Cor 4:12-13). That he was at some stage
referred to as the 'enemy' is intimated in his Letter to the Galatians in which
he asks 'have I turned into your enemy simply by being truthful with you?' (4:16).
Several comments here:
1. First
of all, being under constant attack is similar to being 'controversial', and
means absolutely nothing. Jesus was under constant attack by the Pharisees,
Jeremiah by the false prophets, Elijah by the king/queen of Israel, and Moses
by a steady stream of troublemakers (e.g, the 'rabble', Korah & Co., even
Miriam & Aaron).
2.
Actually, there is no solid reason to assume that these charges were actually
leveled against Paul (although they easily could have been). It was commonplace
to preclude such accusations, given the background of the time. These were
common rhetorical devices, used to distinguish oneself from the (theoretical)
mass of others:
"Religious and philosophical charlatans were
widespread in the ancient Mediterranean, and genuine
philosophers were thus at pains to distinguish themselves from the phony
variety by denying these characteristics…2:4. This contrasting style (“not … but”) was a common way of emphasizing the point, whether or not these
exact charges had been leveled against Paul and his companions.
Pleasing God rather than people was an important part of Diaspora Jewish
ethics. Divine authorization and inspiration were accepted as a sure sign that
one was not a charlatan, although not everyone who claimed such inspiration was
believed. 2:5. Despite the
encouraging proem (opening) in this letter (1:2–10), Paul disclaims
dishonest flattery. False philosophers were often guilty of flattery, which
could earn them more money by begging; demagogic politicians likewise catered
to the masses, becoming “all things to all people". But most philosophers
and moralists complained that flattery was not for the hearers’ good; although
one should speak gently, a true teacher ought to correct faults boldly. Contempt for flatterers is thus one of the most common
characteristics of ancient moral literature (cf. also Prov 28:23;
29:5)." [REF:BBC, at 1 Thess 2]
3. Arguments over
apostolic authority were not limited to Paul! John the Apostle complains
about this authority issue in 3 John, too. And don't forget the rejection of
Jesus by much of the Jewish elite…
4. There is no reason
to assume that Paul was ever referred to as an 'enemy' in Galatia--this is
reading too much into the simple literary statement:
"It is not, of course, Paul’s own
statement of relationships, but his evaluation of what seems to be his
converts’ attitude: “So, [it seems,] I have become your enemy
because I am telling you the truth!” [WBC, at Gal 4.16]
5. The
Corinthians' 'asking for proof' was a pathology, not a 'repudiation' by earnest
and honest Christians! They wanted a spectacular apostle, both in miracles and
elite rhetorical skills--a worldly celebrity!
"The well-to-do in the Corinthian church
want an apostle they can be proud of—one who conforms to their high-society
expectations for a professional moral teacher. Thus they want Paul to stop
working and to accept support from them, to become their client or dependent.
Paul avoids playing into the hands of the well-to-do faction of the church by
accepting support from others instead; here he replies in irony: “Forgive me!”…The
powerful members of the Corinthian church despised humility, as did most of
their pagan colleagues; but if they worried that Paul had been too humble
before (11:7), their wretched spiritual state (12:20) is about to humiliate him
further. So much for his boasting of them (9:3)!… Because Judaism talked
of God speaking by the prophets, Paul’s appeal to “Christ speaking in” him is
probably an appeal to his prophetic gift. Paul often drives home God’s power
revealed in the weakness of the cross to the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:18–2:8), mainly
because the Corinthian Christians, like their pagan culture, valued rhetorical
and miraculous power that drew attention to speakers and miracle workers, not
to the supreme God. [REF:BBC, at 2 Cor 12.11ff and 13.3+]
6. The passages in 1 Thess and Corinthians about
flattery, etc. are sometimes expressed in the 1st person plural
("we", "our") and applies not just to Paul, but to his
companions as well. One main companion identified is Silas (and Timothy). Silas is a leader of the Jerusalem church(!)
sent by the Council of Acts to 15 to verify it was from the Jerusalem Church!
Not only does this show that Paul is not 'different' from the Jerusalem-centric
leaders, but it also shows that they worked very, very closely together (they
were traveling companions, in the missionary activity that generated the
epistles).
There's just nothing in all this 'data' to truly
differentiate Paul from the Jerusalem leaders, or to indicate that his
'defenses' and 'battles' were in any way unique. All the apostles were opposed,
contradicted, persecuted, etc…
"The
strength of his attacks upon his opponents suggest a fierce ideological
struggle between the Pauline 'saved through the blood sacrifice of Jesus'
school and the Jerusalem Community, advocating adherence to the Law and the
Gospel of Jesus.
This is
a strange statement: one cannot move from ‘Paul attacked someone strongly’ to
determining what that ‘someone’ believed! The strength of a feeling cannot
‘suggest’ anything about the ‘content target’ –it is entirely
speculative to attach Paul’s ‘attacks’ to some theoretical dispute with the
Jerusalem community.
We have already seen that there is no radical difference between Paul and the “Jerusalem Community”, at least as represented by James, Silas, and Peter.
And the
‘saved through the blood sacrifice of Jesus’ theme is certainly not distinctly
Pauline! It can be found in numerous non-Pauline expressions of the
early church (most of whom represent leadership of the Jerusalem
community):
1.
Peter:
knowing
that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver
or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your
forefathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a
lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
1 Pe 1:18-20.
and
He Himself bore our sins in His body on the
cross, that we might die to sin and
live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were
healed. 1 Pe 2:24-25.
2. John:
but
if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with
one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 Jn 1.7)
But
if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous; 2 and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for
ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 Jn 1.1f)
3. Jesus:
And
when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink
from it, all of you; 28 for this is My
blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness
of sins. (Matt 26.27)
4. John
the Baptist:
The
next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who
takes away the sin of the world! (John 1.29)
5.
Author of Hebrews:
For
if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who
have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more
will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself
without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the
living God? (Heb 9.13)
For
the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the
high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus
also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered
outside the gate. (Heb 13.11)
There is simply no biblical warrant for claiming that Paul’s ‘blood of Jesus’ theology was different from other views of Jesus’ death in the early, core church.
He attacks
the pro-Law advocates who have apparently had great impact upon the Galatians
as 'troublemakers who are seeking to pervert the
Gospel of Christ' (Gal 1:7) and goes on in the same chapter to put such
people 'under God's curse'. He attacks them again as 'false
brothers who had secretly insinuated themselves to spy on the freedom that we
have in Christ Jesus, intending to reduce us to slavery' (Gal 2:4).
One has
to be very careful about statements like this, since the opponents of Paul
varied by community. The objector here somehow assumes that the ‘attacks’ by
Paul in Thessalonians and the Corinthian correspondence apply to the same
problem-group he encountered in Galatia (the alleged pro-Law Jewish group from
Jerusalem). [The examples of Paul’s defense, given by the objector above, come
from 1 Thess, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, and Gal.]
In fact,
the consensus of modern scholarship is that these groups are not at all the
same, and that a "pro-law Judaising group from Jerusalem" may
not even be represented! Paul (and all the apostles) encountered many
different strains of proto-heresy: “Judaising”, “libertine”, incipient
Gnosticism (both Jewish and Christian), mysticism, early docetism, and simple
‘fleece the flock’ religious frauds.
Consider this modern assessment of the state (and rejection of the
Jewish Judaizer position):
"Diversity in
Opposition: The Variety of Paul’s Opponents. Baur’s attempt to portray
all Paul’s opponents as Judaizers
has been gradually modified and to some extent refuted over the years. The oversimplification of dividing early Christianity into two opposing
sections and the failure to distinguish between differing emphases within each
section was soon found to be lacking in various respects, even in the last
century. More recent studies by W. Lütgert, J. Munck and W. Schmithals offer alternative perspectives
on the situations Paul addressed. Lütgert drew attention to the existence of
spiritual enthusiasts of a gnostic libertine variety and saw them as Paul’s
opponents in 1 Corinthians and (in company with Judaizers) also in Galatians.
Munck stressed the particularity of each letter as addressing a specific and
therefore probably a different situation. As noted, he saw the Judaizers in
Galatians as originating from Gentile converts; nor were there any Judaizers at
Corinth or even at Philippi (where at least some of the opposition came from
Jews). In place of what J. D. G. Dunn ) calls Baur’s “pan-judaizer” hypothesis,
W. Schmithals has proposed a “pan-gnostic” hypothesis so that the opponents in
Galatians are viewed not as Judaizers but as Jewish-Christian Gnostics, and
likewise in Corinthians and Philippians.
As has
been shown above, comprehensive hypotheses are not fully adequate to account
for the enormous diversity of the first century. Nor is it
appropriate to see the heresies that were inflicted upon early Christianity as
all emerging from Jewish sources. Current
research as exemplified in
the studies by D. Georgi, R. P. Martin, J. L. Sumney and C. C. Hill has sought
a reappraisal of division within the earliest church. More attention has been
devoted to the Hellenists and to their role in opposition to Paul. For example,
it may be that Paul faced the same opponents in 1 and 2 Corinthians (though
there were developments between the writing of the two letters) and that these
opponents were pneumatics. The only real
evidence for Judaizers is in Galatians, and, it may be argued that Munck’s
thesis that they were of Gentile origin is worthy of serious consideration." [NT:DictPL, s.v.
"Judaizers"; note--if this last
scholarly statement is correct, then the entire objection under
discussion disappears, since there IS NO such 'Jerusalem pro-law' faction
involved in Paul's letters/attacks!]
Secondly,
we must note that ‘defenses’ and ‘strong attacks on opponents’ are not unique
to Paul! One has only to notice the condemnation of the Pharisees by John the
Baptist and Jesus, of the Sadducees by Jesus, the false teachers by Peter and
Jude, the ‘conceited preachers’ of
Philp 1, the ‘upstart’ in 3 John, the harsh condemnations of false
teachers and false Jews by the Risen Jesus in Rev 1-3, and the various
‘opponents’ in James (e.g., rich, double-minded, partial-to-favorites, etc.).
We should also notice the ‘unauthorized missionaries’ implicitly condemned by
James and the Jerusalem community in Acts 15. Attacking and defending is not in
any way an indication of a false position—Jesus himself predicted false
prophets, persecutions, and synagogue-rejections for His followers.
There is
no reason—from these passages—to assume any disagreement between Paul and the
authoritative Jerusalem community. (Indeed, we have explicit data to the
contrary, remember).
Although it
had been instituted by God, Paul claimed that return to observance of the Law
would mean that the Galatians would again 'be
fastened to the yoke of slavery' (5:1). He warns his followers against
those who wish to obey the Law and the Gospel, describing them as 'self-mutilators' (Phil 3:2). He accuses Cephas and
Barnabas of insincerity in his account of what occurred in Antioch after some
people came from James in Jerusalem (Gal 2:13). This attack upon the very
people whom he elsewhere refers to as 'God's holy
people in Jerusalem' (1 Cor 16:1-4; and 'Pillars
of the Church' (Gal 2:9) suggests, at the very least, a deep ambivalence
in the relationship between them and Paul.
Good
grief! This conclusion is seriously mistaken! Yes, he rebuked Peter—for
a single act of inconsistency! This doesn’t mean (or ‘suggest’) ANYTHING about
some ‘deep ambivalence’ in their relationship! [I have “rebuked” my precious
kids on numerous occasions, but this couldn’t be construed as evidence of some
‘deep ambivalence’ toward them!!!] Paul speaks highly of Peter/James in
Galatians, Peter speaks highly of Paul in 2 Peter, Paul treasured his
relationship with Barnabas on and after
their missionary journeys (and were only separated over the pragmatics
of taking a ‘deserter’ along with them on a missionary journey), Paul takes
James' advice upon a later trip to Jerusalem (Acts 21.17), and James/elders
speak highly of Paul at the council. These data points are so much less
ambiguous and so much more weighty than “conclusions” drawn from a single
inconsistency in early Church praxis!
How many
times did Jesus rebuke Peter (and others) for acts of inconsistency?!
Plenty—but this doesn’t ‘suggest’ any ‘ambivalence’ on Jesus’ part toward
Peter! When the problem/inconsistency in the case of the “Greek widows” in Acts
6 came up, the Church learned, changed, and resolved the issue—just as happened
at Galatia (as evidenced by Peter’s later position in Acts 15: “And after
there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren,
you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth
the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 “And God, who
knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He
also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing
their hearts by faith. 10 “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck
of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been
able to bear? 11 “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the
Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.””). Paul was disapproving
(and communicative of that disapproval) of Mark, but that didn’t stop him for
utilizing him later in his ministry.
Also,
the charge against them was not insincerity, but hypocrisy. It was a charge of
inconsistency in their praxis. Peter unquestionably
held to the same substitutionary death view of Paul:
knowing
that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver
or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your
forefathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a
lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
1 Pe 1:18-20.
and
He Himself bore our sins in His body on the
cross, that we might die to sin and
live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were
healed. 1 Pe 2:24-25.
Another important point: there is no reason to connect the ‘problem teachers’ in Galatians with James’ own point of view (or Peter’s and that of the Jerusalem community as well). This reconstruction of the events at Antioch is simply a-historical and false. As Bockmuehl notes:
"All the evidence, therefore, suggests that the "men
from James" (Gal 2:12)
genuinely represented him and were not pretenders or impostors. More importantly, they and their mission must be carefully
distinguished from Paul's opponents in Galatia and elsewhere, including in Galatians the false brethren
(2:4: ; cf. 2 Cor 11:26), the agitator (5:10), the troublemakers (5:12) and
those who fear Jewish persecution and therefore undergo and promote
circumcision (6:12-13). The same is true a fortiori for the super-apostles of 2
Corinthians (11:5-13; cf. 12:11). In all these cases, the Pauline opponents are
people who make a direct approach to Gentiles in order to persuade them to be
circumcised. In none of them is there any mention of table fellowship or of the
name of James. The opponents and agitators are far more likely
related to the unauthorised Jerusalem Christians mentioned even in the
Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:24
(cf. 15:1-2): they are people "whom we did not send," but who have
gone out among the Gentile Christians and "said things to disturb you and
unsettle your minds."...By contrast, the men from James address themselves
solely to Jewish Christians; and this would of course be the only appropriate
stance in keeping with the Jerusalem agreement as reported in Gal 2:7-9. James
appeals to the constituency for which he feels responsible, and on a topic of
particular relevance to Jewish life in the Holy Land. His emissaries therefore cannot be Judaizers, as is still
often presupposed."
[NT:JJCO:180f]
So, the
objection is making a 'problem' where there is none…the combative
situation between Paul and Jerusalem leadership simply cannot be detected in
the texts before us. The data is simply otherwise.
He can only
mean the Jerusalem leaders when he states that he does not consider himself at
all inferior to the 'super-apostles' and
writes that 'those super-apostles had no advantage
over me' (2 Cor 11:5,12:11).
Actually, scholars do not normally make this connection at all. The quote above by Bockmuehl alone shows that these 'super-apostles' are NOT Jerusalem pro-law Judaizers…The objection is simply false in this identification.
Paul in fact
recognised no earthly authority above himself, claiming that he had been
appointed an apostle by Jesus, not any human being (Gal 1:1).
This is no different from the other apostles. Peter says as much in his ‘defense’ to the Jewish leaders in Acts 5.29 and 4.19! Apostolic authority came from Jesus—not from Councils, or rabbi’s, or even from other apostles. Paul DID, however, recognize the differences in ministry-authority, for he delimits his authority to the Gentile arena--in cooperation with Jerusalem:
“But
on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the
uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who
effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually
worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been
given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to
me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the
Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. ” (Gal 2.7ff).
Others, of course, recognized this God-given authority.
The local communities believed that “The Spirit said ‘set aside Paul and
Barnabas for the work…’” (Acts 13:2f: "And while they were ministering
to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and
Saul for the work to which I have called them.").
We
should note, by the way, at this point in the discussion that instead of
finding major differences between Paul and the ‘others’, we are actually finding major points of commonality
(e.g., under attack, defenses, sense of divine calling/authority, focus on the
death of Christ for sin, etc). Increasingly, Paul looks like ‘everybody else’…
This
tremendous sense of total correctness led Paul to interpret all opposition to
him as devilish. He suggests that those who oppose him include 'counterfeit apostles' and 'dishonest
workers' (2 Cor 11:13) and even Satan's servants disguised as 'servants of uprightness' (2 Cor 11:14-15).
Again,
Paul is in good company…Compare Paul’s statement with these ‘characterizations’
on the part of Jesus (in the gospels), Jesus (Risen, in Revelation), the
Apostle John, and Peter:
·
But He turned and
said to Peter,“Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me;
for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” (Jesus, Matt 16.23)
·
Jesus answered them,
“Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?”
71 Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was
going to betray Him. (Jesus, John
6.70f)
·
You are of your
father the devil, and you want
to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and
does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he
speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father
of lies. (Jesus, John 8.44f)
·
But Peter said,
“Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and
to keep back some of the price of the land? (Peter, Acts 5.3)
·
I know your
tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who
say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. (Risen Jesus, Rev 2.9; cf. 3.9)
·
and every spirit that
does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the
antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is
already in the world. (Apostle John,
1 Jn 4.3)
This was
not “Pauline”—this came from the awareness of the early church that there was a
spiritual dimension of existence that was opposed to God and to His love for
people, and which resisted His efforts to breathe peace, warmth, and life into
our world…and that this malignancy would express itself in ‘false prophets’ and
‘false teachers’:
Jesus said…
Beware
of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly
are ravenous wolves. (Matt 7.15)
“And many false prophets will arise,
and will mislead many. (Matt 24.11)
“For
false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs
and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. (Matt 24.24)
And this
awareness can be found in other (non-Pauline) writings in the New Testament:
The
Apostle John:
Beloved,
do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from
God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 Jn 4.1)
The
Apostle Peter:
But
false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be
false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies,
even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon
themselves. (2 Pet 2.1)
These
types of expressions (on the part of Paul), accordingly, cannot be ‘used
against him’ in trying to make him look pathological or different from the rest
of the leadership. These expressions reflect a
common understanding of Jesus and the apostolic community.
He wishes
that his opponents would 'mutilate themselves' (Gal
5:12). The advocates of the Law were self interested people who just wished to
boast about their success (Gal 6:13),
Self-interested,
boastful religious leaderships, of course, was a common problem of the day—as
well as for ours!
Jesus commented about how some of the Pharisees liked to ‘be important’ and successful in the eyes of the people:
"Beware
of practicing your righteousness before men to be
noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who
is in heaven. 2 “When therefore you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before
you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to
you, they have their reward in full. 3 “But when you give alms, do not let your
left hand know what your right hand is doing 4 that your alms may be in secret;
and your Father who sees in secret will repay you. 5 “And when you pray, you
are not to be as the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the
synagogues and on the street corners, in order to be seen by men. Truly I say
to you, they have their reward in full. (Matt 6)
And similar accusations are raised by John, Peter, and Jude:
·
These men are springs
without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for
them. 18 For they mouth empty, boastful
words (2 Pet 2.17f)
·
I wrote to the
church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do
with us. (3 Jn 9)
·
These men are
grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast
about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage. (Jude 16)
wished to stir up disagreements (Rom 16:17)
This statement from Romans is not at all exclusive to the “Judaizers”…In Romans, it applied to Jews who wished to be superior to Gentiles, and to Gentiles who had no use for the Jews (e.g., part of Romans 9-16 is to show that God still loved the Jews and planned to save them in the future).
and who preached differently to Paul 'out of malice and rivalry' or 'out of jealousy, not in sincerity' (Phil 1:15-19).
This statement seems to misunderstand the context of the Philippians passage. Those preachers were NOT preaching ‘law’ but were preaching ‘Christ’—Paul’s message. Paul, indeed, was even happy that these ‘rivals’ were preaching, because their message was correct. He certainly would not have said something like this about any Judaizers!
So,
[WBC]:
"There
are several important things to notice in this section: (1) Whatever Paul might
say later about his “brothers,” he affirms first and foremost that all of them
preach Christ. To emphasize this fact he uses three different verbs
successively and synonymously—lalei`n (v 14, “speak”), khruvssein (v 15,
“preach”) and katallevllein (vv 17, 18, “proclaim”). Christ himself, or the
message (lovgo") about Christ, including the account of his death, burial
and resurrection (cf. Acts 4:29–31; 1 Cor 1:23; Col 1:27–28; 4:3), is the
gospel that they were preaching, and this pleased the apostle (v 18a). The
content of their message was sound. Therefore,
it is impossible to say with Lightfoot that the group whose motives Paul
questioned were of the Judaizing party. For the Judaizers preached a different
gospel, which to Paul
really was not a gospel at all. Rather to him it was a distortion of the gospel
of Christ and contrary to the gospel he approved and preached (Gal
1:6–9)."
The
Philippians passage cannot be used to support the objector’s thesis here at
all.
Although
certain that he was following the correct path, Paul could not totally ignore
the community of those who followed the Gospel of Jesus. The prestige of those
who had walked with him and heard his Gospel as he had preached it, the
Jerusalem Community and its three leaders, James, Cephas and John, could not be
ignored. To have some credibility with the Gentiles and overseas Jews, Paul had
to have their support or at least their apparent support. He is much concerned
with the collection being taken for 'God's holy
people' the Jerusalem Community leaders (1 Cor 16:1-4), a theme
continued in both his Letters to the Corinthians. That he felt it necessary to
answer the charge that he might embezzle the collection (2 Cor 8:20-21) shows
the suspicion with which he had to contend.
This is another case of where Paul is defending himself against ‘global suspicion’ not ‘suspicion of Paul’. This is like the earlier cases we saw where he ‘defended himself’ against accusations typically made of various classes of people (e.g., traveling teachers). There is no reason in the least to believe that Paul was suspected or accused of being an embezzler, although the situation with Judas Iscariot (who WAS an embezzler) perhaps made the other apostles more sensitive about this issue, and perhaps encouraged them to ‘go overboard’ to preclude the question.
This is,
again, just a cultural expectation and NOT an implicit 'accusation' of Paul:
"
In a culture obsessed with shame and honor, Greco-Roman writers were quick
to emphasize that leaders and other beneficiaries of the public trust must be
open and of irreproachable moral credentials. Judaism also stressed that
charity collectors must act irreproachably to prevent even false accusations.
Verse 21 echoes the Septuagint of Proverbs 3:4 and the proverbial saying that
grew out of it; Jewish teachers stressed doing what was good in the sight of
both God and people." [REF:BBC]
These careful
precautions for the above-reproach character of conveying the money to
Jerusalem is evidence of a wise leader and sensitive public agent--it is NOT
evidence of some actual 'charge'.
But in any event, the data of these biblical texts indicates no on-going or theological differences between Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. In fact, the data we have seen indicates the opposite—that Paul stood squarely in the salvation-by-grace-through-the-Cross tradition as taught by Jesus, and promulgated by the apostolic band.
He must
claim the authority of the Jerusalem Community for the validity of his teaching
to the Gentiles (Gal 2:1-10)
Not quite. His
statement only showed that he thought it important or instructive to the
Galatians for them to know that his message was NOT in contradiction to
Jerusalem, and that 'true Jerusalem Jews' agreed with his teaching/mission to
the Gentiles. There is no warrant in the text to support the position that Paul
felt it 'necessary' to get approval per se…
and he
writes that 'they asked nothing more than that we should remember to help the
poor'.
Notice how this
single statement would overthrow the objection. That the Jerusalem leadership
did not try to 'correct' Paul's theology would single-handedly establish the
continuity between the two!
This was
some 17 years after his conversion, for as he states, he was in no hurry to
confer with any human being as he had been selected in his mother's womb for
this work (Gal 1:15-17). Even so, he was fearful that he and his gift might not
be accepted by the Jerusalem leaders, writing: 'I
pray that the aid I am carrying to Jerusalem will be acceptable to God's holy
people' (Rom 15:31).
Actually, it probably wasn’t the leaders
he was concerned about, since his relationship with them was pretty good--as
the little data we have clearly indicates. It was probably sub-groups within
the Jerusalem church which were still 'growing in grace' that he was probably
concerned about. This 'not finished yet' crowd is alluded to by James and the elders,
upon Paul's visit:
When
we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us warmly. 18 The next day Paul
went with us to visit James; and all the elders were present. 19 After greeting
them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles
through his ministry. 20 When they heard it, they
praised God. Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many
thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for
the law. 21 They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living
among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise
their children or observe the customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23
So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. 24 Join these
men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of
their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been
told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law. 25 But as for
the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment
that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood
and from what is strangled and from fornication.” 26 Then Paul took the men,
and the next day, having purified himself, he entered the temple with them,
making public the completion of the days of purification when the sacrifice
would be made for each of them.
(Act 21.17ff)
It seems clear that James himself is a
bit 'afraid' of this crowd for he/they warn(s )Paul about them. But James himself had praised God over Paul's missionary
work in verse 20! And notice that Paul had no problem in following
their advice--he did the vow and sacrifice thing. Remember,
the Jerusalem leadership had their OWN problems with Judaizers--the
'unauthorized men' of Acts 15. When coupled with the remarks above,
it is clear that the Jerusalem leadership faced similar
problems with 'too pro-law' groups! Paul could be genuinely
concerned about the 'sub-group' refusing gifts 'tainted by Gentile
hands'--although the Jerusalem leadership obviously had NO PROBLEM WITH IT
(since they had actually requested the same of Paul in Gal 2)…
Again, the data is contrary to the
objection.
But still there might be another barb for these 'super-apostles' for Paul throws in the line 'One person may have faith enough to eat any kind of food; another less strong, will eat only vegetables' (Rom 14:2). James the Righteous, leader of the Jerusalem Community was a vegetarian and supporter of the Law and the Gospel.
I cannot
tell where this comes from…no good Jerusalem Jew would have been
a vegetarian (in spite of Eusebius' later comment about James!). The
requirements to eat the meat at Passover and at many of the Thank Offerings and
other sacrifices preclude a 'Good Jew' from being a vegetarian (especially in
Jerusalem, where kosher meat products were easily obtained). And if it was only
'meat offered to idols' that is under discussion, there is nothing in the
context to suggest such. James could NOT have been a vegetarian under
then-current Jewish orthodoxy.
But this discussion on James' diet is
immaterial, since we have already noted that one cannot identify the 'super
apostles' of Corinth with the party of James. Our objector is obviously aware
of this since he used the word 'might'.
But we
will have more to say on James when we get to Part 4 of this series…
…………
Concluding
Reflection:
When I look back at the objector's argument here, I
think I can see the basic problem. The objector is working with an outdated
view of the early church. Decades and decades ago, Baur had set forth a simple
model of "Jerusalem Law vs Paul" antagonism, and described the early
church conflict in this simple polarity. As we noticed from some of the scholarly
quotes above, that view has been abandoned, as we have learned more
about the early church. There was plenty of division and discussion and
factions and arguments--fierce and heated--in this period of rapid growth and
definition. But the data we do have indicates
that there was basic and extensive theological agreement between Paul and the
other apostles during this time. There would always be
disagreements--as a prelude to working through those disagreements (as seen in
the Peter-Paul incident in Antioch)--but these disagreements were not
permanent, nor constitutive of some major 'axis of difference' between Law and
Grace.
We have seen in this part that the data the objector
advanced to show the isolation/uniqueness of Paul could also be found in
other, more "Jerusalem-ic" leaders as well. The continuity and
similarities are pervasive and significant. The data of the New Testament
indicates (a) radical continuity, and at the same time (b) challenges and
disagreements which were catalysts to growth and development and (later) unity.
At the end of the day, Paul still looks like a 'good Messianic Jew' in his
terminology, dependence on the OT/Tanach, veneration of the Torah/revelation of
God, assessment of humanity's need and only hope in the Messiah, and belief in
the resurrection of the dead…
So, not only was Paul not 'non-Jesus', but he
also was not 'non-James', 'non-Peter', 'non-John', 'non-Jerusalem', etc…
Ever and onward the road leads on…
Glenn Miller
April 2003