corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
[Corpus-Paul] Paul's silence about his gospel in Jerusalem
- 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. 
 | 
- 
            
            [Corpus-Paul] Paul - his place in history as seen from today,
            Bob MacDonald, 11/11/2006
- 
            
            Re: [Corpus-Paul] Paul - his place in history as seen from today,
            David Hindley, 11/13/2006
- [Corpus-Paul] Paul's silence about his gospel in Jerusalem, Richard Fellows, 11/18/2006
 
 
 - 
            
            Re: [Corpus-Paul] Paul - his place in history as seen from today,
            David Hindley, 11/13/2006
 
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.