The Gentile Question (Part 4)

 
PAUL’S GOSPEL IN THE JEWISH WORLD
 
“When the Apostle (Paul) claimed that it was the being ‘in Christ’ that was fundamental, and not the being ‘in Israel’, for sharing in the Age to Come, and that is was the dead ‘in Christ’ who were to be raised up to share in its glories, and therefore that it was not Israelites as such but only those ‘in Christ’ who were being ingathered into the people of God, he was running counter to an integral part of the message of the great prophets as well as of his Rabbinic contemporaries.” (Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, WD Davies, 1965, page 85)
 
Paul’s “gospel” may have come by a divine revelation, but it ran contrary to Paul’s contemporaries and Rabbinic tradition. The frequent disputes between believers in Jesus and other Jews were not disputes about “faith verses works,” as is the common interpretation. Most disputes centered around the technicals of how a Gentile could enter into the promises given to the nation of Israel. By the first century, the Pharisees had largely accepted complete conversion to Judaism as the only way to receive the promises of Israel.
 
The position of the Pharisees was derived from the example of Abraham who received the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17:13), and circumcised “All the men of his household who were born in the house or bought with money from a foreigner,” (Gen 17:27). This understanding was reinforced by the commandment requiring any male who partakes of the Passover meal to be circumcised, (Ex 12:48). For someone, even with the halachic credentials of Paul, to suggest that entry into the promises of Israel was possible apart from circumcision and complete obedience to the commandments of Moses was completely heretical to the Pharisees.
 
To the first century Pharisee, Paul’s approach might be comparable to a believer preaching salvation apart from Jesus. It simply goes against all that believers have been taught and read in scripture. It should not be surprising that many Pharisees and synagogue members strongly opposed the message of Paul. However, they did not oppose Paul’s message because Paul preached faith as greater than works, but because Paul preached redemption apart from conversion to Judaism. Even Paul’s contemporaries in the faith questioned his teaching.
 
Peter called some of Paul’s teaching “hard to understand” (2 Pet 3:16), even though Peter had been present when the Spirit had been poured out on Cornelius. James the Elder had to deal with rumors that Paul was “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to walk according to the customs,” (Acts 21:21). Even Paul acknowledged that after receiving his revelation, “I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me,” (Gal 1:16-17). In other words, for a time Paul’s revelation was unique to Paul and not validated by two of three witnesses as scripture instructs the believer to do. Until Paul’s “gospel” could be validated in Jerusalem, he worried “that I might be running, or had run, in vain,” (Gal 2:2).
 
Paul may have been running against his contemporaries, Rabbinic tradition, and even the understanding of most believers, but he found support in scripture and the words of Jesus, “Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age,” (Matt 28:18-20).
 
The words of Jesus are directed to “the nations”, which we understand as the Gentile world, but the obligations placed on the “disciples” were not those of traditional proselytes, which “was threefold: it consisted of circumcision, immersion in water (i.e. baptism), and the presentation of an offering in the Temple.” (Ibid, page 121).  The obligations placed on Jesus’ Gentile disciples were consistent in the call for baptism, but circumcision was noticeably absent and the standard for living was not the Torah, per se, but observing “all that I commanded you”. The words of Jesus are consistent with the Messianic expectations of the Rabbis,
 
“When the Rabbis taught, moreover, that the Messiah when he came would bring a new Law, they thought of the Law as new not in the sense that it would be contrary to the Law of Moses but that it would be explained more fully. True to this expectation Jesus had come and preached a new Torah from the mount and had yet remained loyal to the old Torah, displaying ‘universalism in belief and particularism in practice.’” (Ibid, page 72-73)
 
(Next Part - The Gentile Question in the Church, Hi from Austin - Scott)