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.