Corpus-Paul

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Russell,

> Blood is prohibited to those under the Noahide Covenant (Gen 9:4) and to 
> those under the Mosaic Covenant (Lev 3:17, 7:26-27, 17:10-14, Deut 
> 12:16,12:23-27,15:22-23). Saul acted to prevent people from having to suffer 
> the penalty for having violated this law (1 Sam 14:33-35 ). Did Paul do 
> something similar?
>
> Paul reported that he was informed of the body and blood elements of the 
> commemorative meal by a vision of the risen Christ (1 Cor 11:23).

HH: Paul's words do not require this, though that could have been the 
case. He could have received these things from the Lord indirectly 
through the apostles.


> He stated 
> that he did not receive this information from any eye-witness (Gal 1:15-23).

HH: Galatians 1:15-23 is not necessarily talking about Paul's statement 
in 1 Cor 11:23. It is talking about the gospel that he preached. 1 Cor 
11:23 concerns some facts about Christian practice, but one is not saved 
by taking communion. That is something one does after one has become a 
Christian. The gospel concerns how one is saved. Paul preached the 
gospel immediately after he was saved, but we don't know that he started 
any churches or held any communion services. Surely we cannot, on the 
basis of Paul's statements, refuse him the possibility of ever receiving 
any facts from the apostles that he did not previously have. That seems 
to absolutize the words in Galatians too dramatically. Paul said:

Gal. 1:11 ¶ I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is 
not something that man made up.
Gal. 1:12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; 
rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. 

Hh; This could be the basic saving message about Christ, and it would 
not preclude his later obtaining facts about Jesus' ministry from the 
apostles. However, we know that he did not consult with the apostles for 
some time after his conversion:

Gal. 1:15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his 
grace, was pleased
Gal. 1:16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the 
Gentiles, I did not consult any man,
Gal. 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles 
before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to 
Damascus.
Gal. 1:18 ¶ Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get 
acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.

HH: He could probably speak with Ananaias whern he returned to Damascus, 
and with the rest of the church. But he is saying that his essential 
message came directly from the Lord. Whether this included a special 
revelation of the details of the Lord's Supper is possible from 1 Cor 
11:23, but I am not sure that it is required.


> Barring supernatural causes, Paul's testimony allows body and blood elements 
> of the commemorative meal to be traced to Paul but not to the historical 
> Jesus.
>  


HH:  I am not following you here. Even in his report of what Jesus did, 
Paul says that it was Jesus who initiated the blood and body elements of 
the commemorative meal.


> The author of Luke/Acts depicted Peter, post-crucifixion, as claiming not to 
> have ever eaten anything unclean (Acts 10:14). Blood is unclean for all 
> humans according to the customs of Moses. Peter claimed not to have 
> participated in a meal that included blood.
>  


HH: You need to realize that here is a difference between drinking blood 
and drinking wine that symbolizes blood. The commemorative meal involves 
the latter, not the former.

> The Pillars - James, Peter and John - and the elders issued a decree 
> prohibiting blood to those under the Noahide Covenant (Acts 15:19-20, 
> 21:25). This would prohibit to them the commemorative meal that Paul was 
> teaching.
>  


HH: But the Gospels teach the same thing that Paul taught. And again, 
drinking wine that represents Jesus' blood is different from drinking 
actual blood.

> After the crucifixion, blood continued to be prohibited to those under both 
> the Noahide and Mosaic Covenants according to Jesus' direct successor, to 
> disciples who were with Jesus during his ministry and to their assembly.
>  


HH: Right. This is a good reason for denying the Roman Catholic teaching 
of transubstantiation, but they would no doubt have some way of 
eliminating this objection.


> Body and blood symbolism associated with the Eucharist cannot be traced to 
> the historical Jesus through Paul or through the disciples of Jesus using 
> commonly accepted historical-critical methods. Therefore, body and blood 
> symbolism associated with the Eucharist originated with Paul.
>  


HH: You lose me here. The same information Paul gives about the last 
Supper is contained in the Synoptic Gospels, which the Church traces 
back to the apostolic witness. So the idea did not commence with Paul 
but with Jesus.

> Theological refutation of this assertion would require simply an apologetic 
> affirmation of creed.
>
> Setting faith aside, how would one falsify this proposition?
>  


HH: I don't even understand how you think you can make this proposition. 
Even if Jesus specially revealed material about the Lord's Supper to 
Paul, he also revealed the same material to the apostles themselves 
during the last supper. If you say that Paul influenced the gospel 
writers, they certainly deny it by their writings. They trace the body 
and blood elements directly to Jesus and to his ministry on earth. Of 
course, so does Paul.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard