Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul and the Jews 1

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Antonio Jerez <antonio.jerez AT privat.utfors.se>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul and the Jews 1
  • Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:01:48 +0200


Me and Richard Fellows thought a discussion we had off-list on
earlier C-Paul messages could be of interest to other members
of the list. Any comments are appreciated:

Richard wrote:
> Your post was very well put and made a lot of sense. An implication of
> what you are saying, it seems to me, is that Paul did not think of
> Christians as belonging to two categories, Jew and Gentile, with different
> obligations concerning the Law. Rather, there was to be no ethnic boundary
> for those in Christ. This seems to lay to rest the commonly held view that
> Paul made a distinction between Timothy and Titus, circumcising Timothy
> because of his Jewishness, but not Titus because he was a Gentile. i.e.,
> quite apart from the fact that Timothy WAS a Gentile, Paul would not have
> made that distinction anyway.

Antonio replied:
You are absolutely right that I believe that Paul was adamant that there
were not to be two categories of Christians - Gentiles and those of
Jewish decent. Interestingely enough another Paulinist is forcefully
trying to convey the same message in another NT writing; I'm thinking of the
author of gospel of Mark (see the feeding miracles and specially 8:14-21).
I also think it is very clear in Paul's letters that he didn't
believe it was necessary any more for Jewish-Christians to stick to the
Mosaic Law in the Messianic Age (Rom. 10:4), but for practical reasons,
and because he met a lot of opposition inside the Church from the
conservative wing (mostly former pharisees) he probably didn't press the
point that Jewish-Christians SHOULD stop practising the Law. His policy
was that if you wanted to keep the Law yourself it was OK, but he was
also adamant that Jewish-Christians had absolutely no right to try to
convince Gentile-Christians that they had to be Law-abiding to be
full members of the Church and God's Israel.
As for the question about the circumcision of Timothy I believe it is
another example of Paul adjusting to the circumstances as usual.
Personally he didn't believe that Timothy had to be circumcised to
be part of Israel, but since he didn't want to create unnecessary
problems for his mission he bowed to the pressure from the Jews
(and possibly from the conservative wing in the Church). And it must
have made a difference that Timothy had at least one Jewish parent,
in contrast to Titus who was 100% Gentile. It is of course contested in
some scholarly circles if "Jewishness" went through the maternal side
in the first century, but the question is hardly solved yet.

> One thing puzzles me. I'm unclear why you think that the picture of Paul
> in Acts is so different from the one that you have reconstructed from the
> letters. Some people say that Luke underplayed Paul's conflicts with the
> Roman authorities, while you seem to be saying that he underplayed the
> conflicts with the traditional Jews. It seems to me that Tertullian was
> right when he interpreted the circumcision of Timothy and the introduction
> of the Nazarites into the temple as examples of Paul becoming a Jew to gain
> the Jews. It would be good if you could elaborate on your interpretation
> Luke's view of Paul's view of the Jew-Gentile question. I think other list
> members would also be interested.

It isn't strange at all that Luke does his best to to portray Paul as
a Law-abiding Jewish-Christian in Acts. One of the main purposes
of writing Acts was precisely to show that "Christianity" was in full
continuity with the Israel of the OT. Luke does not want to portray the
Church as a breakaway movement from Judaism - on the contrary
his purpose is to show that the Church is the true heir to God's
promises through the OT prophets. In Luke's view it is the
Jews who have deserted God and his Messiah. A possible reason
why Luke would want to paint this picture of the Church is that he
wanted to assure Gentile Christians who might have been asking
questions about God's thrustworthiness. Many probably asked why
God had rejected Israel in spite of the promises he had given to his
chosen people in the OT. Could you trust such a God? And in what
way can we former Gentiles claim to be the true Israel despite us
having given up things like circumcision and the Mosaic Law?
Another reason for Luke trying to show the Church in continuity with
Judaism might have been to persuade the Roman authorities that
"Christianity" was not a new religion but a continuation of the Judaism
of the OT. It does appear that many traditional Jews tried to persuade
the Romans that the Church was NOT Judaism and should not have
the special priviliges that the Romans had granted the Jews as a
religio licta. Luke wants to counter those claims. And that is why he
starts Acts in Jerusalem and in the Temple...

> You say that Paul preached that, in Christ, (former) Gentiles were part of
> the true spiritual Israel. It seems to me that rather than concede that
> Acts is against you, you should be using Acts to support your case. For
> example, consider the incident that got Paul killed. Rumours only spread
> when people find them plausible, so if we take the story seriously, then
> taking Trophimus into the temple area was an act that was consistent with
> Paul's reputation among the local Jews (Acts 21:29). The incident seems to
> support the idea that Paul was at least comfortable with Gentile believers
> passing as Jews.

I don't know if Paul really took Trophimus into the Temple. Luke
doesn't say so. But you are right that many Jews probably believed
that Paul was capable of taking an uncircumcised beyond the court
of the Gentiles. Paul must have had a reputation for eating with gentiles,
having them as co-workers and even claiming that they were part of
Israel. Not popular at all among traditional Jews.

> Furthermore, the mention of the father in Acts 16:3 (for
> they all knew his father that he was a Greek) suggests to my mind that if
> they had not known that his father was a Greek he would not have needed to
> be circumcised because we would have passed as a Jew. So can we use Acts
> to support the view that Paul believed that, in Christ, Gentiles could pass
> themselves off as Jews. If so, is this really very different from the more
> nuanced view that we get form Paul's letters, namely that Gentile believers
> were part of the spiritual Israel?

Yes, I think we can use Acts to support the view that Paul believed
that Gentiles were true Israelites (although I still don't think neither
Paul nor Luke would call converted Gentiles "Jews"). Luke believed
it himself, even if he isn't as clear about it as Paul.

> Do you think that Paul did actually teach Jews not to circumcise their
> children? Do you think that Acts denies it?

No, I don't think Paul went into a synagogue and preached that
every Jew should stop circumcising their children. The letters
show that he was too pragmatic for that (see 1 Cor. chapter 8).
Maybe Paul preached from time to time that it wasn't really
necessary any more to circumcise in the Messianic Age, but
that message alone would probably have been enough to earn
him the lashes from enraged Jews.


Best wishes

Antonio Jerez





  • Re: Paul and the Jews 1, Antonio Jerez, 06/16/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page