Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] Paul's silence about his gospel in Jerusalem

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Paul's silence about his gospel in Jerusalem
  • Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:47:07 -0800

Paul believed that, in Christ, uncircumcised Gentiles were sons of Abraham. He argued such radical views in his letter to the Galatians, and he laid them before the pillars (Gal 2:2), but did he express them to others in Jerusalem? I propose that Paul deliberately kept quiet about his true position on the inclusion of Gentiles during his Gal 2:1-10 visit to Jerusalem, except in confidential conversations with Peter, James, and John. Here's why.
 
Paul wrote, "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." (1 Cor 9:20).  By keeping quite about his controversial opinions about Gentiles, Paul might more easily win Jews for Christ in Jerusalem.
 
More importantly, Paul's silence avoided unnecessary conflict with Christ-believers in Jerusalem who were zealous for the law. We know from Acts 20:21-26 that many of the believers were zealous and that measures had to be taken to avoid conflict with them.  This explains why Paul presented his gospel to only the pillars, and did so in a confidential meeting (Gal 2:2). Gal 2:4-5 further confirms that Paul wanted to keep his full gospel confidential - "But because of false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you."
 
Acts 15 which shows that Paul was on a delicate diplomatic mission to secure the right of uncircumcised Gentiles to be members of the church. God-fearers were accepted in synagogue communities so the inclusion of Gentiles in the church was relatively uncontroversial. However, Paul went much further than this, since he believed that Gentiles, in Christ, had the same status as Jews. This would have been much more difficult for the Jerusalem elders to swallow, so it was important that Paul kept quiet about it. It they had found out what Paul really thought they would have proposed a counter-resolution in defence of the ethnic boundary. Discretion is the better part of valour and was expedient for Paul to keep a diplomatic silence about his more radical views.
 
A meeting of all the elders (Acts 15) was convened a few days or weeks after Paul had met privately with the pillars (Gal 2:1-10). The issue of Gentiles in the church was discussed and James and Peter did all the talking. Paul kept quiet about his views on the subject, speaking only on other matters: "The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles" (Acts 15:12)". Paul's low profile during the Acts 15 meeting surprises many commentators, but fits the thesis precisely. It seems that Paul, James and Peter had agreed before the meeting that James and Peter would do the talking and that Paul would stay out of the discussion to avoid revealing his radical position.
 
In his letter to the Galatians Paul does not mention the public meeting of Acts 15 or the decree. This demonstrates that the issue of conversion without circumcision (which is the subject of Galatians) was not the subject of the Acts 15 meeting or the decree. But that issue would surely have been brought up in the Acts 15 meeting if the elders and Pharisees Christ-believers had known about Paul's views. The harmonious agreement at the end of the Acts 15 meeting therefore demonstrates that Paul had prevented his views from leaking out.  
 
Paul's policy of conflict avoidance during his Gal 2:1-10 visit is further demonstrated by the later Antioch incident (Gal 2:11-14). In Antioch Peter was, for the first time, forced to choose between siding with Paul and siding with members of the circumcision partly over whether to eat with Gentiles.  The fact that the clash with Peter took place in Antioch, and not earlier in Jerusalem, confirms that the circumcision party members in Jerusalem were kept in ignorance. Peter and Paul probably ate with Titus in Jerusalem, but did not tell anyone that he was a Greek.
 
You will have noticed that this hypothesis demonstrates that Gal 2:1-10 is in complete harmony with Acts 15. This is important for Pauline chronology and for an assessment of the accuracy of Acts.
 
Richard.
 



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page