In Paul’s letter to the Romans, Paul discusses in Chapter 3, verses 21 through 31 the ‘law of faith’. He writes, “But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe…. Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.”
I would like to examine these passages within the context of the discussions we have been having over the past several weeks. Simply put, I have been discussing the conflict between an emphasis upon ‘outcomes’ or an emphasis upon ‘processes’. By focusing on outcomes, I have argued, people emphasize the results of ‘works’. By directing their attention in this way, the ‘works’ can become idolized and become the ultimate concern of the individual. This was the problem that Paul ran into in his younger years. And, it drove him to the brink of despair.
If we focus on ‘process’, however, we take the emphasis off of specific outcomes and direct our attention to our approach to God, to ourselves, to other people, or to creation. We concern ourselves with relationships, rather than with objects. The relationships can become our ultimate concern, rather than the objects, themselves. And, for the person who stands within the Jewish/Christian tradition…what is the focus of this relationship?
Our focus is on God! Paul tells us that “the righteousness of God has been disclosed…” And, what is this righteousness that has been disclosed? That God loves us!
God loves us! Imagine…
And what does God’s love of us, mean for us? On March 28 I discussed the work of Franz Rosenzweig and quoted him on this point. He writes that we “are always in the presence of God” and, therefore, there is “essentially just one commandment, the commandment to love God.” Revelation is always ‘an event between the two.’ Thus, a ‘religious experience’ is known ‘again and again’—“For we know it only when—we do.” For God calls us to love him…and we respond “Here I am!” We do not always hear this voice saying “love me”, but it is there. The request is for us to step outside of ourselves, to enter into relationship.
Our revelation that God loves us is an offer of relationship. In loving us, God calls us to love him…to respond to him…to enter relationship. Thus, Jesus tells us that the “greatest and first commandment” is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” “And,” Jesus goes on, “the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Matthew 22: 37-40)
The great teacher Hillel, in agreement with Jesus, and in agreement with Paul, tells us that beyond these two commandments, all the rest, the “law and the prophets”, is just commentary or explanation of what these two commandments mean. The crucial question here pertains to the need for the law and the prophets if we have the two “Great” commandments? Aren’t the two commandments enough?
Here we see the difference between ‘outcomes’ and ‘process’. When we have a preset idea of what love means, that which is loved becomes an ‘object’ and we then record the ‘outcome’ of applying our preconceived concept of love to that ‘object’. The problem here is that ‘love’ cannot be a ‘thing’ because if it becomes a ‘thing’ then it becomes the focus of our action…it becomes a ‘law’!
What the commandments tell us is that love is a relationship…it cannot be either a ‘thing’ or an ‘outcome’. The first commandment is “to love” and the second is like it, “you shall love” which implies that we must respond to that which is loved as unique and not as an ‘object’. Our model of this relationship is Jesus, who revealed to us “the image of God” in what he did and said. Jesus revealed to us what it means to love. And, this is why we need all ‘the law and the prophets’. This is why we need a further two thousand years of theological and philosophical reflection. We need commentary and explanation as to what it means to be in relationship with God…within ourselves…with others…and with creation. It is not easy to love because love is not an ‘outcome’ it is a ‘process’!
And, this, to me, is what Paul is talking about when he talks about “faith in Jesus Christ” and the “law of faith”. It is this that Paul talks about when he says that “a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.” Paul is talking about faith in the two commandments…the commandments to love. This faith is not in Jesus Christ as an individual, because if we do this we make Jesus Christ into an idol. We have faith in the model that Jesus Christ showed us: the model to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves. This is a model of relationship and, as Paul says, Jesus showed us that a person is justified in this faith in loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves by “stepping outside ourselves” and “entering into relationship”.
At this point Rosenzweig writes that we are therefore called to reveal the image of God. “Once one becomes God’s lover, however, one can no longer be completely enclosed in oneself, but one cannot escape that fate simply by returning God’s love…To return God’s love properly involves imitation dei—‘Be thou holy, for I the lord thy God am holy’…love of God cannot have a, so to speak, ‘vertical dimension’ without a ‘horizontal dimension’; ‘love of God’ without a direction out to other fellow human beings is not really love of God at all.” Furthermore, “I have to be able to love each and every human being as a human being.” Therefore, “To sum up: the whole purpose of human life is revelation, and the whole content of revelation is love.”
Jesus says, “As God sent me, so I send you.” As Jesus reveals the image of God in his actions, so are we to reveal God to others through our actions. Our relationship with Jesus becomes the imago dei, the call to act in the image of God. To love God is to love the “Other” as God loves us. But, this is the call to be missional…and it begins with those that are closest to us and then moves on out. Jesus began with his disciples and then sent them into the world. But, they were missional within their community before they became missional to the rest of the world.
In my post of February 29, I invoked the ideas of Blaise Pascal of why people enter into a community of faith. They enter a community because they want to live in a way that will bring them to belief in God. The members of that community represent the way of life, the model of being loved and loving that individuals want to experience so as to grow in faith. In terms of the Christian Church, people join the community because they want to experience the example of love exhibited by Jesus and by those that are followers of Jesus.
Thus, mission begins within the community, itself. We live in community because the models used by the community are successful and lead to a life that we would like to achieve. We live to attain that life…and we are interested in the process, not individual, current outcomes. Mission starts ‘right at home.’ It starts there because we don’t know where everyone is within the community, itself. There are the new people that have joined because they like what they see…but need to be led and re-enforced. They need people to show them the way. There are others within the church body…even long time members…that need to be supported or re-enforced or re-converted. And, all of these people need to understand that they need to be Missional as well. “Do I really believe this stuff?” “Can I say this stuff to others in the face of rejection?” We learn this within the community…within the local church.
Then we spread out into the world at large.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Paul's Lesson (Part Two)
In the last post, we traced Paul, the Jew and the future disciple of Jesus, through his childhood and into his early to mid-twenties. Paul was sufficiently brilliant as a child student to be sent from his childhood home to Jerusalem to study with the renowned teacher Gamaliel, a Pharisee. Although we presume he did well, he was still an ‘outsider’ to the inner circle in Jerusalem because he was a Greek and not a Hebrew. He, in all likelihood, went to the synagogue of the Freedman, with Stephen and others of foreign birth. In order to prove his ‘worth’ to those in the inner circle he was zealous in enforcing the teaching of ‘the Law’ and became a force in persecuting the followers of a teacher named Jesus.
Paul, it appears, was “completely enclosed in himself.” As Franz Rosenzweig has argued, this is the “tragedy that threatens everyone.” People,” Rosenzweig goes on, “do not always hear this voice (the voice of God) saying ‘love me’” and they fail to heed “the request…to step outside of (them)selves, to enter into a relationship”…the relationship with God. It seems that Paul had this problem.
His emphasis seems always to have been on himself: “I strictly obeyed the Law of Moses.” (Philippians 3:5); “I was so eager that I even made trouble for the church.” (3:6); “I did everything the Law demands in order to please God.” (3:6); “I was cruel to God’s church and even tried to destroy it.” (Galatians 1: 13); “I was a much better Jew than anyone else my own age…” (1: 14); and “I obeyed every law that our ancestors had given us.” (1: 14). Everything seems to be focused on the “I”! But, this was about to change.
Paul was at Stephen’s death. He most assuredly was present when Stephen spoke to the high priest. It is highly likely that Paul had had heated and emotional debates with Stephen at the synagogue of the Freedman. He knew the story the followers of Jesus were telling and he knew all the arguments that supported this story. Could it be that within the highly tense situation that he found himself in that he could not get the story out of his mind?
Paul had time to mull the story over. In his position, he was probably a loner and isolated. He was a persecutor and a violent young man…probably not one to associate with. The crowd he could be with…the Greeks…he didn’t want to be a part of and the crowd that he wanted to be a part of…the Hebrews…wouldn’t have him. He traveled over substantial distances…as the trip to Damascus shows…and he probably didn’t eat well…observance of the law…and he probably fasted a lot.
He was a lonely, driven, and unhappy man! He was about 25 years old. And, then it happened!!!
“He (God) was kind and had decided to show me his Son, so that I would announce his message to the Gentiles.” (Galatians 1: 15-16) This, of course, is his reflection on the events that took place on the road to Damascus and later. After the revelation, Paul stayed with the disciple Ananias in Damascus and then began to talk with other disciples in that town. And then “he immediately began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues…” (Acts 9: 20) He “became increasingly more powerful and confronted the Jews who lived in Damascus…” (Acts 9: 22) He has to be right again…even if it was on the other side. He forced it on others.
How could this happen? Remember, Paul had probably been debating about Jesus for maybe up to 5 years by this time. Paul was extremely bright. Paul had been debating with some pretty astute people…and, we are told that he lost all the debates…while he was on the Jewish side of the argument. He probably knew the story backwards and forwards. Paul even says that “I didn’t talk this over with anyone.” That is, it all came together for him…it was revealed to him. “I didn’t say a word, not even to the men in Jerusalem…” (Galatians 1: 16-17) This, of course, is the basis of Paul’s claim to be an apostle…he got all his information from…Jesus, himself.
What happens next is cloudy: in Acts 9: 26-29 we get one story but in Galatians, Paul writes that “I went at once to Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.” (Galatians 1: 17) and this seems more consistent with the time line set out above. Paul, himself, says that “Three years later I went to visit Peter in Jerusalem.” (Galatians 1:18) At this time he also sees James, the brother of Jesus, who is now a leader of the Hebrew followers of Jesus. (Galatians 1:19)
Things apparently did not go well in Jerusalem. In general it appears as if Paul’s presence stirred up enough trouble that he was hastened out of Jerusalem. For example, the Hebrew followers of Jesus continued to worship at the temple. It seems that the early Christians wanted to remain within the Jewish faith and maintain their role within the temple. Paul seemed to be an embarrassment to the apostles and, in addition, Paul was a Greek!
Paul wanted to be within the ‘in’ crowd again…only this time, being with the ‘in’ crowd meant being with Peter and James and the other apostles and disciples. However, he was not allowed to ‘play ball’ with the varsity squad. There was no future for Paul in Jerusalem.
Before his departure, Paul had a dream…”After I returned to Jerusalem and while I was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance.” (Acts 22: 17) In his trance Jesus told him to leave Jerusalem and then Jesus said “Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.” (Acts 22: 21) This, along with the passage in Galatians, is the second reference to the fact that Paul is to be the apostle to the Gentiles. However, his personality had to change because he could not fulfill the role God had in store for him if he continued to be so focused upon being “a much better Jew” than anyone else.
And so, Paul was, in essence, sent off into the wilderness to grow and mature into someone who would be useful to God in the way that God wanted him to work. Believers, then, “took Saul to Caesarea. From there they sent him to Tarsus.” (Acts 9:30) In Paul’s own words, “Later, I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia.” (Galatians 1: 21) And, that is where Paul learned and developed. He could not play for the ‘first team’ as he was and he had to find out what he needed to do in order to be brought back into the major leagues. We know nothing of what Paul did for the time he was back in Tarsus. It was not earth-shaking for we have no record of it and apparently it was not significant enough for Paul to make mention of it…at least in the records we are limited to. We do know one thing, however…he was a different person when he came back on the scene…he was tolerant…he was focused…and his focus was on Jesus…and on God! His tragedy, as Rosenzweig might describe it, had played out!
In Paul’s own words: “Fourteen years later I went to Jerusalem with Barnabas.” (Galatians 2: 1) Since Paul was writing about his conversion, I am taking the fourteen years to mean fourteen years from his conversion, not that he spent fourteen years in Tarsus. This seems to be the only way the time line fits together and puts Paul back in action around 48 C. E. At that time he was around 38 years old, much different from the hot-headed zealot he was at 25 when he had the experience on the road to Damascus.
The reason for the call: After the death of Stephen, we are told that the persecuted followers of Jesus were scattered and some went to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch. (Acts 11:19) We are primarily talking about Greek Jews because Phoenicia and Cyprus were in Greek speaking areas and in Antioch we are specifically referring to the Hellenists there. (Acts 11: 20) When Jerusalem heard of the interest in Antioch, they sent Barnabas to that city. Barnabas had been the disciple that took Paul under his wing when Paul originally came to Jerusalem at the age of about 27 and ‘calmed the waters’ so that he could meet with Peter and James. Now, Barnabas remembers Paul…the Greek…and perceives that he could be useful with the group of interested people in Antioch. Consequently “Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul.” (Acts 11:25) and brings Paul back to Antioch to work with these people. The rest is history.
Paul was an entirely different person. He had been discriminated against much of his life…being of Greek heritage he was not fully acceptable to the Hebrew Jews or Hebrew Christians that he associated with in Jerusalem. After being rejected and kept on the ‘outside’ for most of his life, he realized that this was putting the focus on the wrong thing. Paul had matured sufficiently so that if he were to work with people he would focus on Jesus…and on God. He would not let the insignificant things of life get in his way of telling the good news. He was going to be all things to all people so that he could bring people to a greater happiness.
I close with this passage from Paul’s letter to the Romans, Chapter 3, verses 21-31: “But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction (between peoples), since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God….
Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”
The early Paul could not have written this. Yet, the later Paul has not forsaken his “Native Judaism.” His focus has changed. He has gone from a person that set out to prove his worth and has been transformed into a person who looks to God for all things. He has gone from a person who looks for outcomes to one who abides by the process of love. Before, Paul belonged only to Paul; now he belongs to God!
Paul, it appears, was “completely enclosed in himself.” As Franz Rosenzweig has argued, this is the “tragedy that threatens everyone.” People,” Rosenzweig goes on, “do not always hear this voice (the voice of God) saying ‘love me’” and they fail to heed “the request…to step outside of (them)selves, to enter into a relationship”…the relationship with God. It seems that Paul had this problem.
His emphasis seems always to have been on himself: “I strictly obeyed the Law of Moses.” (Philippians 3:5); “I was so eager that I even made trouble for the church.” (3:6); “I did everything the Law demands in order to please God.” (3:6); “I was cruel to God’s church and even tried to destroy it.” (Galatians 1: 13); “I was a much better Jew than anyone else my own age…” (1: 14); and “I obeyed every law that our ancestors had given us.” (1: 14). Everything seems to be focused on the “I”! But, this was about to change.
Paul was at Stephen’s death. He most assuredly was present when Stephen spoke to the high priest. It is highly likely that Paul had had heated and emotional debates with Stephen at the synagogue of the Freedman. He knew the story the followers of Jesus were telling and he knew all the arguments that supported this story. Could it be that within the highly tense situation that he found himself in that he could not get the story out of his mind?
Paul had time to mull the story over. In his position, he was probably a loner and isolated. He was a persecutor and a violent young man…probably not one to associate with. The crowd he could be with…the Greeks…he didn’t want to be a part of and the crowd that he wanted to be a part of…the Hebrews…wouldn’t have him. He traveled over substantial distances…as the trip to Damascus shows…and he probably didn’t eat well…observance of the law…and he probably fasted a lot.
He was a lonely, driven, and unhappy man! He was about 25 years old. And, then it happened!!!
“He (God) was kind and had decided to show me his Son, so that I would announce his message to the Gentiles.” (Galatians 1: 15-16) This, of course, is his reflection on the events that took place on the road to Damascus and later. After the revelation, Paul stayed with the disciple Ananias in Damascus and then began to talk with other disciples in that town. And then “he immediately began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues…” (Acts 9: 20) He “became increasingly more powerful and confronted the Jews who lived in Damascus…” (Acts 9: 22) He has to be right again…even if it was on the other side. He forced it on others.
How could this happen? Remember, Paul had probably been debating about Jesus for maybe up to 5 years by this time. Paul was extremely bright. Paul had been debating with some pretty astute people…and, we are told that he lost all the debates…while he was on the Jewish side of the argument. He probably knew the story backwards and forwards. Paul even says that “I didn’t talk this over with anyone.” That is, it all came together for him…it was revealed to him. “I didn’t say a word, not even to the men in Jerusalem…” (Galatians 1: 16-17) This, of course, is the basis of Paul’s claim to be an apostle…he got all his information from…Jesus, himself.
What happens next is cloudy: in Acts 9: 26-29 we get one story but in Galatians, Paul writes that “I went at once to Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.” (Galatians 1: 17) and this seems more consistent with the time line set out above. Paul, himself, says that “Three years later I went to visit Peter in Jerusalem.” (Galatians 1:18) At this time he also sees James, the brother of Jesus, who is now a leader of the Hebrew followers of Jesus. (Galatians 1:19)
Things apparently did not go well in Jerusalem. In general it appears as if Paul’s presence stirred up enough trouble that he was hastened out of Jerusalem. For example, the Hebrew followers of Jesus continued to worship at the temple. It seems that the early Christians wanted to remain within the Jewish faith and maintain their role within the temple. Paul seemed to be an embarrassment to the apostles and, in addition, Paul was a Greek!
Paul wanted to be within the ‘in’ crowd again…only this time, being with the ‘in’ crowd meant being with Peter and James and the other apostles and disciples. However, he was not allowed to ‘play ball’ with the varsity squad. There was no future for Paul in Jerusalem.
Before his departure, Paul had a dream…”After I returned to Jerusalem and while I was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance.” (Acts 22: 17) In his trance Jesus told him to leave Jerusalem and then Jesus said “Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.” (Acts 22: 21) This, along with the passage in Galatians, is the second reference to the fact that Paul is to be the apostle to the Gentiles. However, his personality had to change because he could not fulfill the role God had in store for him if he continued to be so focused upon being “a much better Jew” than anyone else.
And so, Paul was, in essence, sent off into the wilderness to grow and mature into someone who would be useful to God in the way that God wanted him to work. Believers, then, “took Saul to Caesarea. From there they sent him to Tarsus.” (Acts 9:30) In Paul’s own words, “Later, I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia.” (Galatians 1: 21) And, that is where Paul learned and developed. He could not play for the ‘first team’ as he was and he had to find out what he needed to do in order to be brought back into the major leagues. We know nothing of what Paul did for the time he was back in Tarsus. It was not earth-shaking for we have no record of it and apparently it was not significant enough for Paul to make mention of it…at least in the records we are limited to. We do know one thing, however…he was a different person when he came back on the scene…he was tolerant…he was focused…and his focus was on Jesus…and on God! His tragedy, as Rosenzweig might describe it, had played out!
In Paul’s own words: “Fourteen years later I went to Jerusalem with Barnabas.” (Galatians 2: 1) Since Paul was writing about his conversion, I am taking the fourteen years to mean fourteen years from his conversion, not that he spent fourteen years in Tarsus. This seems to be the only way the time line fits together and puts Paul back in action around 48 C. E. At that time he was around 38 years old, much different from the hot-headed zealot he was at 25 when he had the experience on the road to Damascus.
The reason for the call: After the death of Stephen, we are told that the persecuted followers of Jesus were scattered and some went to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch. (Acts 11:19) We are primarily talking about Greek Jews because Phoenicia and Cyprus were in Greek speaking areas and in Antioch we are specifically referring to the Hellenists there. (Acts 11: 20) When Jerusalem heard of the interest in Antioch, they sent Barnabas to that city. Barnabas had been the disciple that took Paul under his wing when Paul originally came to Jerusalem at the age of about 27 and ‘calmed the waters’ so that he could meet with Peter and James. Now, Barnabas remembers Paul…the Greek…and perceives that he could be useful with the group of interested people in Antioch. Consequently “Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul.” (Acts 11:25) and brings Paul back to Antioch to work with these people. The rest is history.
Paul was an entirely different person. He had been discriminated against much of his life…being of Greek heritage he was not fully acceptable to the Hebrew Jews or Hebrew Christians that he associated with in Jerusalem. After being rejected and kept on the ‘outside’ for most of his life, he realized that this was putting the focus on the wrong thing. Paul had matured sufficiently so that if he were to work with people he would focus on Jesus…and on God. He would not let the insignificant things of life get in his way of telling the good news. He was going to be all things to all people so that he could bring people to a greater happiness.
I close with this passage from Paul’s letter to the Romans, Chapter 3, verses 21-31: “But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction (between peoples), since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God….
Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”
The early Paul could not have written this. Yet, the later Paul has not forsaken his “Native Judaism.” His focus has changed. He has gone from a person that set out to prove his worth and has been transformed into a person who looks to God for all things. He has gone from a person who looks for outcomes to one who abides by the process of love. Before, Paul belonged only to Paul; now he belongs to God!
Friday, April 4, 2008
Paul's Lesson (Part One)
In the last post we reviewed Hilary Putnam’s book “Jewish Philosophy as a Guide to Life.” In discussing Franz Rosenzweig, it was stated that ‘God calls us to love him…and we respond “Here I am!” We do not always hear this voice saying “love me”, but it is there. The request is for us to step outside of ourselves, to enter into relationship. However, this is the hardest thing to do. Rosenzweig argues that “the tragedy that threatens everyone, the tragedy of being completely enclosed in oneself” is “the greatest danger facing the soul.”’ Paul, the Jew, the disciple of Jesus, knew this for a fact…but he learned.
However, “Paul’s theology is often portrayed as the antithesis not only of the teachings of Jesus but also, paradoxically enough, of first-century Judaism.” (Calvin Roetzel, The Letters of Paul, p. 174) I believe that this interpretation is incorrect and that Paul was thoroughly Jewish, not only before his conversion, but also, after his conversion. However, he went through a change following his conversion that was very important for the work that God had in store for him. In order to fully understand Paul and his ministry we must understand this change that took place in him and how it applied to his spreading of the gospel into the Diaspora and to the Gentiles.
It is estimated that Paul was born around 10 C. E. and was raised in Tarsus in Cilicia. (Acts 22:3) I believe that we can assume three things about his youth: he lived in Tarsus long enough to be at home in the urban culture of the Greco-Roman world; he was born a Roman citizen which implied something about the position of his parents within this society; and he must have been quite bright, exceeding that of other children and drew the attention of people within the Jewish community.
He was connected enough and bright enough that he was sent to Jerusalem at a relatively early age…maybe 14 or 15. Why can we say this? He lived long enough in Tarsus to absorb the culture there. His family was well enough placed within the religious community that he was recognized for his abilities. The religious community had to be involved for he was sent to one of the well know teachers in Jerusalem, Gamaliel. There were sufficient connections so that Paul was taken care of in Jerusalem. “I was a student of Gamaliel,” or, “…was brought up (educated) at the feet of Gamaliel.” (Acts 22:3) [Gamaliel, the Elder, or identified as Gamaliel I in rabbinic literature. “A Pharisee in the Sanhedrin, honored by all the people, who counseled letting the apostles out of prison (Acts 5: 34-39) and a teacher of the Law who instructed Paul.” He flourished in the mid-first century. He is listed after Hillel in the list of princes or patriarchs of Judaism in the Mishnah. Bible Dictionary, revised. Paul J Achtemeier, General Editor, Harper-Collins, 1996.]
If this is true, Paul would have come to Jerusalem around 24 or 25 C. E. It is estimated that Jesus was born sometime around 6 B. C. E. and his public ministry was around the period 25 to 27 C. E. At the earlier date for the ministry of Jesus, Paul would have been around 15 years old. At the later date he would have been around 17 years old. And, here are some other dates to remember: Stephen was martyred around 32-33 C. E.; Paul’s conversion came about 35 C. E. or when he was about 25 years old; he spent 3 years being ‘instructed’ by the Lord and then went to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James; from Jerusalem Paul goes back to Syria and Cilicia (to Tarsus); fourteen years later, Barnabas gets Paul from Tarsus and brings him to Antioch somewhere around 48-49 C. E.; the first letter attributed to Paul, the First Letter to the Thessalonians, is dated around 52 C. E.
Let’s return to Jerusalem: Paul was special and he was blessed to be able to go to Jerusalem and study at the feet of Gamaliel. But, there was one problem…he was Greek! Even though he was a Jew and he was a bright student…he was not Hebrew! He was Greek and Greeks were not the equal of Hebrews! Hebrews made up the inner circle, the people to be with, the ‘in’ crowd. Greeks were second-class citizens.
For evidence of this kind of discrimination, look at the story in Acts 6: 1-4: “Now during those days, when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food.”
The solution: the disciples said…”It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables.” But, it was alright for the Greeks to ‘neglect the word of God’ and to ‘wait on tables.’
So, the Greeks were to choose among themselves those that would be appointed the task of waiting on tables and, for the Hebrews, “we, for our part, will devote ourselves to prayer and to serving the word.”
Paul, in my estimation, was not a part of the ‘in’ crowd, no matter how good a student he was. And, this accounts for his attempts to excel in not only his studies but in his observance of the Law. He was a “much better Jew than anyone else (his) own age.” (Galatians 1:14)
When the whole thing about Jesus and his followers boiled over Paul continued to show his value to the Hebrews by his zealous persecution against this sect. And, even further, he probably was most zealous against the Greek followers of this man Jesus…it just showed, Paul thought, that he was really one of the Hebrews, if not by birth…by commitment.
The example of the killing of Stephen is an example of this effort. We don’t know how much of an instigator he was in this death. But Stephen argued with Jews at the synagogue of the Freedman which was composed of “Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and others of those from Cilicia and Asia.” (Acts 6: 9) Was Paul one of those who argued with Stephen? He did like argument! But Stephen won all the arguments. (Acts 6: 10) Paul must have been furious…he, a brilliant scholar with Gamaliel, and to lose out to this upstart! Then some of the congregation plotted against Stephen and “stirred up the people as well as the elders and scribes.” (Acts 6: 12) Was Paul one of these?
Paul is never identified as one of these plotters but, he was at the stoning and we are told, “Saul approved the killing of Stephen.” (Acts 8: 1) We also learn that “all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria.” (Acts 8: 2) The scattering took place because of the “severe persecution” which “began against the church in Jerusalem” at this time. And, “Saul was ravaging the church” (Acts 8:3)
It seems to me that two points can be made here. First, the non-Hebrew Jewish followers of Jesus were the ones that were scattered from Jerusalem. Paul, and others, drove them out of their homes, put some of them in jail and chased the others away into the hinterlands. Paul, the zealous Greek, was intolerant of the Greek followers (and others) in an attempt to ingratiate himself to the Hebrews that were in power. After the surge took place in Jerusalem, the followers of Jesus were pursued into the surrounding areas…and this accounts for Paul’s trip to Damascus…probably one of many such trips he took. He was ‘wrath’ itself! He was then about 23 or 24 years old! Second, it should be noted that the Hebrew followers of Jesus were not chased out of Jerusalem and as we learn later they continued to worship at the temple and carried on their lives within the city. This strand will be picked up a little later for it is an important part of the story.
This is the first part of the story of Paul. In the next post, on April 7, we shall continue the story.
However, “Paul’s theology is often portrayed as the antithesis not only of the teachings of Jesus but also, paradoxically enough, of first-century Judaism.” (Calvin Roetzel, The Letters of Paul, p. 174) I believe that this interpretation is incorrect and that Paul was thoroughly Jewish, not only before his conversion, but also, after his conversion. However, he went through a change following his conversion that was very important for the work that God had in store for him. In order to fully understand Paul and his ministry we must understand this change that took place in him and how it applied to his spreading of the gospel into the Diaspora and to the Gentiles.
It is estimated that Paul was born around 10 C. E. and was raised in Tarsus in Cilicia. (Acts 22:3) I believe that we can assume three things about his youth: he lived in Tarsus long enough to be at home in the urban culture of the Greco-Roman world; he was born a Roman citizen which implied something about the position of his parents within this society; and he must have been quite bright, exceeding that of other children and drew the attention of people within the Jewish community.
He was connected enough and bright enough that he was sent to Jerusalem at a relatively early age…maybe 14 or 15. Why can we say this? He lived long enough in Tarsus to absorb the culture there. His family was well enough placed within the religious community that he was recognized for his abilities. The religious community had to be involved for he was sent to one of the well know teachers in Jerusalem, Gamaliel. There were sufficient connections so that Paul was taken care of in Jerusalem. “I was a student of Gamaliel,” or, “…was brought up (educated) at the feet of Gamaliel.” (Acts 22:3) [Gamaliel, the Elder, or identified as Gamaliel I in rabbinic literature. “A Pharisee in the Sanhedrin, honored by all the people, who counseled letting the apostles out of prison (Acts 5: 34-39) and a teacher of the Law who instructed Paul.” He flourished in the mid-first century. He is listed after Hillel in the list of princes or patriarchs of Judaism in the Mishnah. Bible Dictionary, revised. Paul J Achtemeier, General Editor, Harper-Collins, 1996.]
If this is true, Paul would have come to Jerusalem around 24 or 25 C. E. It is estimated that Jesus was born sometime around 6 B. C. E. and his public ministry was around the period 25 to 27 C. E. At the earlier date for the ministry of Jesus, Paul would have been around 15 years old. At the later date he would have been around 17 years old. And, here are some other dates to remember: Stephen was martyred around 32-33 C. E.; Paul’s conversion came about 35 C. E. or when he was about 25 years old; he spent 3 years being ‘instructed’ by the Lord and then went to Jerusalem and met with Peter and James; from Jerusalem Paul goes back to Syria and Cilicia (to Tarsus); fourteen years later, Barnabas gets Paul from Tarsus and brings him to Antioch somewhere around 48-49 C. E.; the first letter attributed to Paul, the First Letter to the Thessalonians, is dated around 52 C. E.
Let’s return to Jerusalem: Paul was special and he was blessed to be able to go to Jerusalem and study at the feet of Gamaliel. But, there was one problem…he was Greek! Even though he was a Jew and he was a bright student…he was not Hebrew! He was Greek and Greeks were not the equal of Hebrews! Hebrews made up the inner circle, the people to be with, the ‘in’ crowd. Greeks were second-class citizens.
For evidence of this kind of discrimination, look at the story in Acts 6: 1-4: “Now during those days, when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food.”
The solution: the disciples said…”It is not right that we should neglect the word of God in order to wait on tables.” But, it was alright for the Greeks to ‘neglect the word of God’ and to ‘wait on tables.’
So, the Greeks were to choose among themselves those that would be appointed the task of waiting on tables and, for the Hebrews, “we, for our part, will devote ourselves to prayer and to serving the word.”
Paul, in my estimation, was not a part of the ‘in’ crowd, no matter how good a student he was. And, this accounts for his attempts to excel in not only his studies but in his observance of the Law. He was a “much better Jew than anyone else (his) own age.” (Galatians 1:14)
When the whole thing about Jesus and his followers boiled over Paul continued to show his value to the Hebrews by his zealous persecution against this sect. And, even further, he probably was most zealous against the Greek followers of this man Jesus…it just showed, Paul thought, that he was really one of the Hebrews, if not by birth…by commitment.
The example of the killing of Stephen is an example of this effort. We don’t know how much of an instigator he was in this death. But Stephen argued with Jews at the synagogue of the Freedman which was composed of “Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and others of those from Cilicia and Asia.” (Acts 6: 9) Was Paul one of those who argued with Stephen? He did like argument! But Stephen won all the arguments. (Acts 6: 10) Paul must have been furious…he, a brilliant scholar with Gamaliel, and to lose out to this upstart! Then some of the congregation plotted against Stephen and “stirred up the people as well as the elders and scribes.” (Acts 6: 12) Was Paul one of these?
Paul is never identified as one of these plotters but, he was at the stoning and we are told, “Saul approved the killing of Stephen.” (Acts 8: 1) We also learn that “all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria.” (Acts 8: 2) The scattering took place because of the “severe persecution” which “began against the church in Jerusalem” at this time. And, “Saul was ravaging the church” (Acts 8:3)
It seems to me that two points can be made here. First, the non-Hebrew Jewish followers of Jesus were the ones that were scattered from Jerusalem. Paul, and others, drove them out of their homes, put some of them in jail and chased the others away into the hinterlands. Paul, the zealous Greek, was intolerant of the Greek followers (and others) in an attempt to ingratiate himself to the Hebrews that were in power. After the surge took place in Jerusalem, the followers of Jesus were pursued into the surrounding areas…and this accounts for Paul’s trip to Damascus…probably one of many such trips he took. He was ‘wrath’ itself! He was then about 23 or 24 years old! Second, it should be noted that the Hebrew followers of Jesus were not chased out of Jerusalem and as we learn later they continued to worship at the temple and carried on their lives within the city. This strand will be picked up a little later for it is an important part of the story.
This is the first part of the story of Paul. In the next post, on April 7, we shall continue the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)