(Do to a previous problem with the Google Blog, I am resubmitting Part 4 to be followed by Part 5 of this series on the Gentile question motivated by Teresa's book "Paul and Rabbinic Judaism," WD Davies, 1965)
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, page 113)
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 position of access to the nation without becoming a proselyte 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.
To support his position that Gentile’s have access to the promises of Israel apart from circumcision, Paul developed a midrash based on the writings of Isaiah, “‘Shout for joy, O barren one, you who have borne no child…For the sons of the desolate one will be more numerous than the sons of the married woman,’ says the LORD,” (Isa 54:1). The sages understood that the barren woman was Sarah, seen as the mother of the promise and a metaphor for Jerusalem and Zion. So great would be those who ultimately came through the promise, Jews and Gentiles, that Sarah would need to, “Enlarge the place of your tent; Stretch out the curtains of your dwellings...Your descendants will possess nations” (Isa 54:2-3), which sounds like a reference to the Gentiles.
Paul used this understanding when he wrote,
“For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise…” (Gal 4:21-31)
This often misunderstood midrash of Paul was not arguing Grace verses the Law of Moses or old covenant verses new covenant, as is a common interpretation. According to Dan Lancaster, Paul was using this quotation in Isaiah to argue against the need for Gentiles to be circumcised to have access to the promises of Israel (Isaiah Audio, Lesson 9-3, 3rd – 11th minute).
According to Paul, Sarah allegorically represented the heavenly Jerusalem, the “Jerusalem above” (Gal 4:24), while Hagar represents the earthly Jerusalem. The earthly Jerusalem bears, “children who are slaves,” (Gal 4:24), while the heavenly Jerusalem bears children, like Isaac, “who was born according to the Spirit,” (Gal 4:28).
Paul argument is this; when a Gentile follows the man-made path into Israel, i.e., circumcision and becoming a proselyte, that person is not of the promise, but like Hagar who Abraham used to tried and fulfill the promise by his own human ability. However, when a Gentile is brought into Israel through faith in the Messiah, “in Christ”, he follows the path of Isaac, the son of the promise. Those who attempt to earn the promise through their own efforts will end up having no access to the promise.
“But what does scripture say? ‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.’ So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.” (Gal 4:30-31)
Paul's midrash did not necessarily sell his position to the other apostles. Peter called some of Paul’s teaching “hard to understand” (2 Pet 3:16), even though Peter had been an eye witness to the pouring out of the Spirit on Cornelius' household. 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 Chapter - The Gentile Question in the Church, Scott)
No comments:
Post a Comment