(14 votes, average: 3.71 out of 5)
Loading...Was Paul responsible for the split between gentile Christians and Jews? Did he have regular visits with Jesus after he converted? Did he consult the Alexandrian philosopher Philo about the issue?
These are some of the controversial issues raised in this this guest post by Platinum Member Manuel Fiadeiro. Check it out. What do you think?
Blog members at the platinum level are allowed to submit posts for other Platinum members only; after several come in, we take a vote and the winner gets posted to the entire blog for all to see. Manuel’s is our current winner. If you’d like the same opportunity, check out the Platinum membership tier and its various perks, and give it a thought!
For now here’s Manuel on Paul:
********************************
Circa 35 CE, on the outskirts of Jerusalem, a young man, no more than 20 years old called Saul, with scribes and Pharisees, was stoning a man belonging to a sect of a Galilean called Jesus. Saul was in Jerusalem to study with the Pharisee master Gamaliel. Few students could match Saul in intelligence, brilliance and knowledge. He was a devout Jew who knew the scriptures by heart, fluent in Greek and Hebrew, able to read and write, he could beat anyone in theological discourse.
Saul was also an ambitious fellow. He “knew” God set him apart from his mother’s womb. He wondered what God had in mind for him. Was he destined to liberate Israel from the Roman rule? Would he be a Messiah? He discussed with Gamaliel the situation in Judah. Preachers and prophets were predicting this era was going to end. The God of Israel was going to end soon the suffering of his people, and bring in glory His kingdom to Earth. A great upheaval was going to happen. The dead in Hades will be resuscitated, and the Son of Man will come in Glory to judge mankind, annihilate the sinners and take the saints to His kingdom in eternity. Wouldn’t a Messiah come soon? Gamaliel reminded him that there were many so called Messiahs appearing lately but none had any success. A Theudas, a Judas and a Jesus from Galilee had tried to convince people they were the Messiah but finished by being killed by the Romans.
Saul knew the pernicious disturbances those followers of Jesus of Nazareth were doing in synagogues and in the courts of the Temple. They were swearing that Jesus was crucified by the Romans but that he was resuscitated, was taken by God to heaven and was going to come back as the Son of Man to judge the living and dead; that he was the true Messiah. Was it possible? Gamaliel was sure that was nonsense; Deuteronomy (21:23) says “anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse”. Jesus was killed on a wooden cross! God could not allow that to his Messiah.
Saul was fierce in stopping that blasphemy. He couldn’t understand how a Jew could follow a Messiah that died on a cross. But those followers of Jesus were preaching love to their neighbors, they lived in communities sharing everything with each other, calling themselves brothers and sisters; and that scene of Stephen being stoned to death, his serenity, praying for those who were stoning him, couldn’t leave his mind. He started to have visions. He saw a man asking him “Saul, why do you persecute me?” He couldn’t stop his thinking. One day, suddenly, he had an epiphany, a Eureka moment. Why would God allow his Messiah to suffer and die? It must be a sacrifice! He died to liberate humanity from sin. Adam brought sin to the world; the world was taken by sin. Jesus was brought to life and God’s kingdom had just started. Jesus, by his death and resurrection defeated sin and death, he brought salvation to those who believed and accepted him. Jesus offered himself as sacrifice. Jesus was the Passover Lamb of God! With his extensive knowledge of the Torah and Talmud, he found reasons to vindicate his discovery. It was “according to the Scriptures”!
Saul started having regular visits with that Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus told him that on the night he was betrayed, he took bread, and when giving thanks, broke it and said “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me”. Jesus established a new covenant with God. It made sense! Blood is life. By drinking his blood he WAS in Christ.
Paul did not want to talk to the apostles in Jerusalem. He had his own Gospel given to him by Jesus himself. Jesus died on the cross to atone for the sins of the world. To accept Jesus sacrifice was necessary and enough to bring salvation; no need to follow the Law, be circumcised, be kosher, or pay for sacrifices in the Temple to atone for our sins. Jesus had done that for us.
Jesus ordered him to take his Gospel to the world. He applied all his strength to the News. He was the vehicle God used to bring the News to the world. He became Paul, the “true apostle” of Jesus. Do gentiles need to become Jews? No! The Law is useless for salvation. Forget the circumcision and kosher laws. Follow the Way and live as you are until Jesus comes back very soon to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. No time to lose!
He went to Egypt to confer with Philo. Philo was in strong conflict with the orders of Caligula to Romanize the Jews of Alexandria and found Paul’s ideas complete nonsense: “You are out of your mind, Paul! Are you drinking something?”. He felt humiliated. That taught Paul the total futility of attempting to convince the Jews; he would preach to the gentiles.
For three years he preached his Gospel in the Roman provinces of Asia. There he saw that Peter and other apostles were already preaching a message of Jesus that contained nothing of what he received directly from Jesus. They were even preaching to “his” churches. He went to Jerusalem to discuss with Peter.
Peter was completely surprised that Jesus, who was already 10 years late in establishing his kingdom, was appearing to an apostate Jew that was saying the followers of Jesus did not need to follow the Law[1] and were told to drink the blood of Christ, which was anathema by Jewish Law[2]. They agreed on some facts: Jesus was going to appear soon to bring the resurrection of the dead and bring the Kingdom of God to Earth. They had to spread the News to the world soon. Despite their differences, better be friends than enemies. Besides, Paul promised to send money to support the congregation of Jerusalem.
He also talked to James, the brother of Jesus. He had to explain to him that, yes the scribes and Pharisees sent Jesus to Pilate to be crucified because he claimed to be the Messiah; but Jesus had to be crucified because that was God’s plan. Jesus gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age. Judas carried out God’s plan and the scribes and Pharisees had to execute it. That WAS NOT the Jesus he knew; but James compromised. Let Paul preach to the gentiles, let them not be circumcised. But, they MUST abstain from blood.
Paul did not comply with the deal. He was also telling Jews they did not have to follow the Law. James was enraged. He commissioned the rules to teach gentiles the proper Way and ritual to pray and obey the Lord, the Didache[3]. That brought confusion and consternation to the new churches of Christians. Paul rebutted them with letters and envoys. The split between Pauline Christians and Jewish Christians was born.
[1] Matthew 5:19 – Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.
[2] Leviticus 17:10 I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people.
[3] The Didache has the right procedure for breaking bread and Kiddush wine blessing by Jewish tradition. It does not say that bread is the body of Jesus and wine his blood.
[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]
A good piece.
Hi!
The problem is that Christ/the anointed cannot die because he is already dead! He who we call Christ/anointed is already dead.
Paul may indeed benefit from some kind of change of state of mind which he describes as having received the revelation of the Son (Gal 1:16). Here it is specifically about the Son, directly about the Son, whose name no one knows, and who is only mentioned as the Son of someone, namely the Son of God. Not his Christ, therefore not God’s Christ, not Jesus, not Jesus Christ, but the Son. This is how we get to know him. He is the Son.
God himself gives the Son to death. But why is this necessary? Why does God have to give his Son to death, why didn’t God entrust this to people? Because the Son in this narrative is not a real (flesh and blood) person, but a spiritual entity in a state/form similar to humans (Romans 8:3; Phil2: 6-8). How can anyone accept the boy’s blood if he doesn’t have it?
Sonship is the heart of the Pauline gospel. This is what Pál wants to convey to his audience. But you can’t get here, to this “faith”, only by “faith”. In Paul’s gospel, “the justification of God (making him a son) is declared from faith to faith”. Not just “by faith”, but “from faith to faith”. No, one does not exist without the other. You can reach “faith” (sonhood) only and exclusively through “faith”. From the faith of Christ/Anointed One. As long as there is no faith in Christ/Anointed One, there can be no faith in the Sonship either.
Thank you for sharing this very interesting article. Some of the information that you include seems to be unknown for if it actually occurred:
Was there really a Stephen that was stoned and was that stoning at least observed by Paul?
Was Paul in Jerusalem and study with Gamaliel? He does not say he did.
Did Paul meet and talk with Philo?
Just wondering your thoughts on these items.
Thank you
I am relying on Acts accounts. I don’t have an opinion whether they are historic. I try to recount the stories, as plausibly they could be. Just like Thomas Jefferson did with “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”.
I always wondered why Alexandria was never mentioned, connected to Paul. Alexandria was the intellectual center of the Empire at that time. The center of science and philosophy. The site of the famous Library. If Paul had a bright idea, that’s where he would go. So, I imagined him going to discuss with Philo, getting humiliated, and deciding to preach to Gentiles instead. Apparently he didn’t do great in Athens either.
Why would he go to Arabia? Lately, after taking James Tabor lectures on the Dead Sea Scroll, and noting that some of Paul’s ideas looked more Essene than Pharisaic, I wondered if there was an Essene community in Arabia, and he went there to know more about their ideas.
Interesting depiction of those early years. Thanks for sharing these thoughts.
This is how I envision Paul. I see him arrogant, with mellifluous false modesty, preaching “his Gospel”, overshadowing the poor peasants and fishermen of Galilee followers of Jesus with his superior education, knowledge of the Scriptures, fluency in Greek and Hebrew, and knowing how to read and write.
Paul, no doubt, was a very clever guy, self-confident and erudite, a Pharisee. Peter was bewildered by Paul. How could such an important person be a follower of Jesus? He had an answer to any question. He could cite any passage of the Law to support his opinions. Wow!!!
James detested Paul, and the sentiment was reciprocated. God looked upon his family and adopted his brother Jesus. Jesus preached humility, to serve the others. That guy was full of himself, talked gibberish, thinking he knew better than him who Jesus was. He didn’t know how to deal with him, but he sent messengers to Antioch, Damascus, and other Greek cities to be cautious of Paul. Paul was a heretic! Little did he know, it was his followers that would, one day, be called heretic.
I totally agree as Paul the smartest of his age, but Dr Pagel taught that he did open more churches/converts than anyone of his time.
Only Ananias can witness his conversion from blindness
The other issue is how could he not have had a 1st or 2nd hand witness to Jesus’ crucifixion as he was taught by Gamaliel?
Cool story.
When one follows Paul’s admonition to accept the belief that Jesus was crucified, buried, and resurrected, what actually happens to you? What does one do differently? When one is “saved,” how is one different in their daily routine, for example? When one accepts Jesus as one’s personal savior, how does He work in one’s life and how does one know it’s Jesus doing this?
I am going back and viewing your episodes involving Paul, including your eight-part course on him and am picking up a lot of material I missed the first time around.
I guess your question is for Bart.
Given that most of Christianity appears to be founded upon Paul’s vision, what would an authentic church without Paul look like? Has that ever existed?
I have been learning about Islam. It seems to me, their view of Jesus is in the tradition of Jewish-Christians, or Ebionites, that may have moved to Arabia. No Trinity, no virgin birth, no atonement of sins, just absolute submission to Allah (God) and reverence to the Prophet. That church would be more like Islam, I guess.
Except they somehow believe he was never crucified; instead it was apparently a look-a-like who took his place at the last minute, a la “Life of Brian”. I’m not sure why. Perhaps they had a hard time believing he would be back, in tip-top shape a few days later, but still wanted to hang on to the idea that he was around for at least the 40-day period afterwards. Possibly a noncanonical gospel with the story of Jesus escaping his execution made it down to Arabia, only to become the one the local community was first and best acquainted with. I think they do still subscribe to the virgin birth idea, to the exclusion of a belief in his divine sonship.
A couple of corrections.
1) Muslims *do* believe in a virgin birth.
2) The idea that Jesus was replaced with someone else on the cross is a later idea that developed from certain exegetes of the Quran. It was not present in the Quran or within the first generation of Islam. The question of what exactly happened to Jesus is one that has persisted throughout the centuries within the Muslim world. The Quran is the earliest text within the religion, most likely dating back
to Muhammad himself and what the Quran says is the following:
a) Jesus was not killed nor crucified by Jews
b) God gave him death and raised him up to himself
It is my opinion, and the opinion of some other Muslim & Non-Muslim scholars that the Quran isn’t denying the crucifixion. It is responding to rabbinic claims that the Jews had killed Jesus and then later crucified him.
Thanks for the correction, Rizwan.
It does seem that Paul had some kind of break with the Jerusalem movement at some point and also that the the Eucharist originates from him. However, I don’t think Paul came up with the idea that the death of Jesus led to salvation. I think that idea was already present. He never debates that with anyone in his letters, meaning it wasn’t a contested issue. I think the main source of contention was whether or not one had to become a fully practicing Jew in order to be saved. Paul was very emphatic: no. As for James and the others, I think they didn’t really care. To them, Paul was basically preaching about the Jewish God to the gentiles. That wasn’t common, but it wasn’t unheard of. The real question is was Paul teaching other Jews that they should abandon the law. I don’t think we can definitively say that he was. He never actually says this in his letters. According to Acts, Paul was accused of this, but nowhere in his letters does he he himself abandoned the Law or other Jews should too.
“I don’t think Paul came up with the idea that the death of Jesus led to salvation.” That is Bart’s view also.
I wrote a blog article about it: Did Jesus Think He Was Going to Atone for the Sins of the World? A Platinum Post by Manuel Fiadeiro. September 29, 2023. Unfortunately, it was only for Platinum members.
In short, Bart explained how one could arrive to the conclusion that Jesus died as a sacrifice for the sins of man. I think that reasoning applies to Paul, and since he was literate on the Bible, he found it “according to the Scriptures”. I don’t think the apostles or James, illiterate peasants and fishermen from Galilea, had the theological grasp and knowledge of the Scriptures to came up with that idea. In fact, I think that Paul converted, when in a Eureka moment, he got that idea. His problem with the Jesus movement, was believing the Messiah ended on a cross, as most Jews do.