Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: SYMBOLISM OF 14 YEARS -& SOURCE OF PAULS GOSPEL

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: charles scott <crscottblu AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: SYMBOLISM OF 14 YEARS -& SOURCE OF PAULS GOSPEL
  • Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:49:17 -0700 (PDT)


Please see the quotes from Loren Rosson and Jim
Miller, below.

What was Paul doing in the time immediately following
the incident on Damascus Road? We have a few hints
from Acts and Paul's writings, but not enough to
satisfy us.

Could it be that after his encounter with Christ in
the person of Stephen, Paul spent the following months
and years "learning Christ" from "the Body of Christ",
the Church? I have come to that conclusion after
absorbing Paul's Christology.

The Damascus Road incident was an enigma to me for
many years until I started reasoning backwards from
Paul's theology. Here are some of the paths my
logic followed. Paul teaches that we are "baptized
into Christ" and that we have a new "life in Christ."
The Church becomes an extension of the incarnation as
"God was/is in Christ reconciling the world to
Himself." Through this Christ the Church, God is
renewing humanity, both Jew and Gentile, and indeed
the whole kosmos, as men grow in knowledge of Christ
and live the new life in Him. It is the responsibility
of Christian men (the Body) to pass on the sound
tradition to others.

Where did Paul get this idea? After using "Occams
Razor" on the various theories that have come up in
the last 150 years, I have opted for what seems to
be the simplest, and therefore probably true. Paul
received his gospel not from man, but from Christ the
Church. Remember Paul is a mystic, he gave us the
language and concepts for the "mystical body of
Christ." One is either in Christ or in the world.
If one is in the world as a natural man, he does not
know Christ, therefore he did not receive his
instruction from "man" but this does not rule out his
receiving instruction from Christ the Church.

At his first encounter with Christ the Church, Paul
did not recognize, did not perceive what his
eyes beheld and his ears heard. His first encounter
may not even be recorded. He was a Pharisee, and
would have heard of the Nazoreans in Jerusalem, as
they
were considered a threat to the uneasy peace between
the ruling class of Jews and the occupying Romans. So,
at his first encounter with Christ the Church, he
would have perceived them as enemies of God and the
nation. Well educated he may have been, but he was
employed as a thug by the chief priests to apprehend
and execute Christians.

Paul, (Saul at the time) most likely heard Stephens
testimony, and witnessed his martyrdom. Paul heard
the dying man say, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" and
"Do not hold this sin against them." Saul had
consented to this execution. He appeared to be unmoved
by this encounter with the Body of Christ for he
persists in his mission of extermination of
Christians.

Then, on Damascus Road, Paul encountered a bright
light and a voice saying "Why are you persecuting me?"
This may have happened about 37 A.D. Jesus
had been crucified 7 years before. The meaning of
the event was not immediately evident for Paul
asks, "Who are you?" The reply comes, "I am Jesus
whom you are persecuting. Now get up and go into
the city and you will be told what you must do."

In Damascus the young Paul is visited by Ananias
who lays hands on him, restores his sight, and
baptizes him. Logically, Ananias would have
explained the meaning of Baptism as per the seven
year old tradition begun on Pentecost day (Acts 2:38).
For the saying of Jesus on Damascus Road,
was "you will be told what you must do." Then
"he spent several days with the disciples in
Damascus." (Acts 9:19) Wouldn't it be the most
natural thing for the Body of Christ in Damascus
to share the traditions about Jesus as they had
received them?

After this early instruction He was equiped to preach
that Jesus is the Son of God, the long awaited
Messiah. Since he would have been familiar with the
Messianic traditions from the Tanakh, this would not
have been a difficult thing to do. I remember as a
young man in my early 20's it was easy for me to talk
about Jesus at a time when I really didn't have much
of a Christology and scarcely had a concept about
the Church being the body of Christ.

After many days in Damascus, Paul went to Jerusalem
where he met with the Apostles, being introduced by
his mentor, Barnabas. Acts 9:28 says that he stayed
with the Apostles until he had to be sent to Tarsus
to avoid being killed. Again they probably had other
things to discuss besides the weather.

In Galatians chapter one Paul refers to two journeys
to Jerusalem separated by 14 years. I am not able
to reconcile the dates and account for the years, but
I refer to that chapter to discuss Paul's assertions
there that he had been called by God to be an apostle
of Jesus Christ and that after the Damascus Road
incident he "did not consult any man, nor went up to
Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before he
was called by God.

Some have interpreted Paul's statements as meaning
that
his entire knowledge of Jesus, Jesus' teachings and
the meaning of his life was communicated directly
from Gods mind to Pauls by some sort of telepathy.

Since he never says that, I think that the principle
of simplicity requires we look at the alternative.
Paul himself says that "we have this treasure in
earthen vessels." He may have been called directly
by God to be an apostle, but he learned the tradition
from Christ the Church.

Paul is a second generation Christian "born out of due
time" who did not see the Lord first hand as did the
12. Luke, since he was recruited by Paul, is a third
generation Christian. In his careful investigations of
the beginnings of Christianity, Luke does not look to
Paul for details of Christ's life. Luke goes to the
original sources, the "eye witnesses" to veryify what
was "handed down". So it is apparent that there was
a tradition being narrated to the churches at the
very outset while the Jewish Christians were still
meeting in synagogues and on the porches of the temple
at Jerusalem. I believe that it was this Christ the
Church who passed the tradition on to Paul.

In Galatians, it is apparent that the
main aim Paul has in mind is to establish his
apostolic
authority and to show that his gospel tradition is
congruent with the Apostolic college at Jerusalem. He
makes the point that God commissioned him, that Jesus
appeared to him, and that he was not called or
ordained
by the Apostles. He does not say anything to indicate
that he received absolutely no instruction from any
human being. Quite the contrary. In his speech
recorded in Acts 22 he tells of being instructed in
the Torah by Gamaliel. In Galatians, Paul does
affirm
that it is Peter and others who had "dissembled" from
the true tradition and that he had to get them back
on track.


Further he relates that on Damascus Road the Lord told
him to go to Damascus where he would be told "all that
you have been assigned to do." He again relates the
meeting with Ananias and we are given a summary of
what Ananias has to say. But this summary line or two
would not have been the entire content of the "many
days" that Paul remained in Damascus.

Paul pursues his missionary journeys around the
Mediterranean Sea. And as he works, he no doubt
expands his understanding of Christ the Church and
communicates that in his sermons and letters.

At the end of his journeys, he returned to Jerusalem
and while on trial reiterates his meeting with
the Lord Jesus on Damascus Road and how he was
directed to go to Ananias who interpreted the meaning
of the event to him.

Paul speaks of "growing in grace and knowledge of
Jesus Christ." Whether there was a 14 year dormant
period where Paul reflected on the meaning of his
Damascus Road experience, I don't know, and feel
we don't have sufficient information to determine.
Many of us have taken off more time than that to
reassess where we should be in the Lord's service
and to re-equip ourselves for leadership. It
required more than 14 years for me to really
appreciate
Paul's Christology, and I had it written out in
front of me.

Peace

Charles Scott
St. Pauls Anglican Church
Cincinnati, Ohio

===============================

--- Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jim Miller wrote:
>
> > > If Paul indeed did spend something
> like 14 years in Syria coming to terms
> with his new faith,

It’s been suggested in this thread that Paul needed
the 14 years to reflect, ponder, pray -- to assimilate
his “radically new faith”. I’ve already addressed the
so-called “radical” nature of his gospel, but with
regards to the large amount of time supposedly
required, we should respect Paul’s educational
background. He was well-versed in the scriptures, one
of Judea’s best, and it probably would not have taken
him too long to derive the details of his gospel after
the first revelation. Accepting the crucified messiah
was the real hurtle. After that, Jewish logic
followed: If Christ’s death and resurrection were
Yahweh’s means of liberating Israel and the world,
then the kingdom had already (partly) arrived,
proceeding apace with the present age; if the eschaton
were already here, then the Gentile nations need to be
brought into the covenant community, for (as foretold
by the prophets), the Torah was now being written on
the hearts of all God’s people, Jew and Gentile alike;
since these pagans are not flocking to Zion, I will go
out to them; etc. I’m not saying all of this came to
Paul overnight, but neither do I think it came to him
over the sluggish





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page