The Apostle Paul on the Web

Well in momentarily losing the fight against the procrastination monster I suddenly realised Paul didn't stop causing trouble after his contributions to the NT, more recently he's been causing trouble for Christianity Today, (also available in Romanian) and contradicting Joel Osteen!  Who does he think he is?  :-D

Are Acts 15:36-41 and Gal 2:11-13 Describing the Same Event?

Will Willimon in his Interpretation commentary on Acts states,

The reasons that Luke gives for the breakup of the Paul and Barnabas team does not square with Paul's version in Galataians 2:11-13.  Paul's own assertion that he had doctrinal differences does not fit in with Luke's purposes (p133)

But it is surely incorrect to conflate the two events.  Paul gives no hint in Galatians that his disagreement with Peter led to a schism between him and Barnabas, but only expresses surprise that Barnabas should be led astray by Peter's actions (Gal 2:13).  Which statement surely evinces a high regard for Barnabas.  Rather, in this instance I think the criterion of embarrassment suggests that this episode in Acts does not show Paul in the best light, especially given the fact that Barnabas' trust in Mark is eventually proven correct (Col 4:10, Phil 24) and Paul and Barnabas later reconcile (1 Cor 9:6, Col 4:10), and is therefore a reliable account of the reason for the division. 

Is anyone aware of anything that would support Willimon's assertion?  Is there something I have missed?  It seems rather cut and dried to me.  let me know what you think :-)

Hurtado on Why S/Paul Persecuted Christians

In pp6-7 of his review essay of James Dunn's new book, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, Larry Hurtado gives a concise and convincing argument for what Saul of Tarsus (later to be Paul) found objectionable in Christian belief and praxis:

More directly to the question about why Paul opposed Jewish believers, nowhere in Paul’s letters or Acts do we find a statement that Paul’s persecution of them was on account of their supposedly lax (or non-Pharisaic) Torah-observance, their association with Gentiles, or their critique of the Temple. Instead, Acts depicts Paul as proceeding against “all who call upon [Jesus’] name” (9:14), as “opposing the name of Jesus” (26:9), and as seeking “to make them blaspheme” (i.e., probably pronouncing a curse upon Jesus, 26:11).

Moreover, nowhere does Paul say that his conversion was basically a capitulation to accepting a more relaxed Torah-observance, a more negative attitude toward the Temple, or more relaxed associations with Gentiles. Instead, he refers to the cognitive effect as a “revelation of God’s Son” (Gal. 1:15-16), and in Philip. 3:1-11 he contrasts his former Torah-centric life with his present fervent devotion to Jesus. The Damascus Road experience did not convince Paul primarily to approve a relaxed halakha, but to change his view of Jesus. In my view, that also suggests a lot about what he had previously found objectionable in Jewish believers.

It was therefore the way in which the Christians used and revered the name of Jesus that made them offensive to Saul, and it was Saul's encounter with that Jesus on the Damascus road that resulted in his change of heart towards the Christians and his acceptance and consequent advocacy of their beliefs and praxis (to put it mildly).

Sermon on Genesis 11:27-12:5, Galatians 3:6-9

pic from here

A sermon by yours truly, can be listened to here.  About 30 mins long, preached on the 25th July at Manurewa Baptist Church.  Can also be downloaded from here.  Texts: Gen 11:27-12:5, Gal 3:6-9.

Key concepts: the identity of God's people, whakapapa, introductions, pregnancy, faith, the gospel

BTW for non NZ listeners whakapapa ("wh" sounds "f") is a Maori word/concept which denotes ancestry, lineage, stories of identity and history.  See here for more details.

Sailhamer: The Adding of Laws in the Pentateuch

Well, Sailhamer may write long introductions, but he sure knows hows to get you hooked.  When considering the composition of the three legal codes of the Pentateuch he argues that the Mosaic law was added to the Sinai covenant as a consequence of Israel's transgressions. (p42)  So the structure of Exodus-Leviticus looks a little like this:

1. Sinai Covenant, Ex 19-31, original covenant >>>
2. Golden calf incident, Ex 32-33, priestly indiscretion >>>
   
3. Priestly Code, Ex 35- Lev16, extra laws >>>
4. Goat idols, Lev 17:1-9, popular indiscretion >>>
5. Holiness code, Lev17-25, extra laws

All of which serves to agree with Gal 3:19, where Paul states:  "What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions . . ." (NIV)  For Sailhamer the giving of the law is thus an act of God's grace (not a punishment) because it is God's remedy for the Israel's  breaking of the covenant (p48). All of which is really interesting, but it does ignore lots of larger narrative interuptions to the law codes and puts a lot of weight on the goat idols/demons which in Leviticus seem like more of an aside that a central interpretive signpost.  That said, Sailhamer is just sketching his arguments at the moment so he may well address these issues later in the book.

Personally, as a father of young children, I like this scheme because it is true to life.  At home we do not create new rules till the kids' behaviour demands it. In our house, as in Sailhamer's scheme, rules are purely pedagogical. The default setting is freedom and grace. However, the jury is out at this stage over whether or not this really works as an explanation of the laws in Exodus-Leviticus.

Pentateuch = Galatians?? So says Sailhamer,

Sailhamer's massive book has received glowing endorsments from John Piper.  I will be slowly working my way through it.  It is far too long, and even the introduction is heavy going, but there are some fascinating ideas here.  Sailhamer makes the assertion that "The law given at Sinai neither had the same purpose nor carried the same message as the faith taught by the Pentateuch." (p13)  Instead the argument of the Pentateuch is a contrasting of two covenants, "Mosaic and Abrahamic, or law and gospel." (p14)  The meaning of the Pentateuch is thus not found in the laws within, which represent the broken covenant, but in the way that it "looks beyond the law to God's grace" and "to teach its readers about faith and hope in the new covenant (Deut 30:6)." (p26)  Thus, "the Pentateuch's view of the law is simailar to that of Paul in the book of Galatians." (p28)

It will be interesting to see what he does when he finally comes to dealing with the law and its meaning for us (Christians).  But my initial concern, although I do think he is on to something, is how Pauline, even admittedly Pauline, this approach is.  He is also arguing for a messianic consciousness to the Pentateuch which so far I'm not overwhelmed by, but that will have to wait for another post anyway.  So I hope he doesn't just show how compatible his reading of the Pentateuch is with Paul but also goes beyond that to show how it points to Jesus Christ, with more than just some strained references to a possibly messianic figure.

For those of you interested in redaction critical matters, Sailhamer considers the Pentateuch to be a 2nd edition work, with Moses being responsible for the first edition, but the final edition being produced late in the piece, after the prophetic canon was completed.  The Pentateuch is thus chronologically both the first and last book of the OT!   Annoying he refers to the Pentateuch as book, singular, when surely it is only book as Torah, but as Pentateuch (i.e. five books) should be books, plural, right?  Otherwise, this is shaping up to be an interesting read for anyone who think it would be fun to read 600 ages of thoughtful evangelical interpretation of the first five books of the Bible.

What say you? :-)

What's the drama and who's the snake?

Thanks to James McGrath for lovely quote which inspires me to make two observations about Gen 2-3.

1. The suspense of Gen 2:18-20 relies on the reader not having read Gen 1:26-28.  The way the story is being told the audience are expected not to know what partner might be found for the man.  But Gen 1:26-28 has already given it away, man goes with woman and the two of them are supposed to "go forth and multiply."  Thus the suspense and resolution of Gen 2:18-25, which arrives at essentially the same answers by a different route makes no sense if treated as part of a continuous narrative with Gen 1.  The two creation accounts should not be harmonized but read as alternative accounts.  This is not because I feel the need to do this to satisfy some modernist need to justify my enjoyment of and adherence to these ancient myths, but because the text (which I believe is God's word) actually demands it. 


2. The serpent is introduced in 3:1 as being "more crafty than any other wild animal that God had made."  Because of this, and the resultant loss of limb for said serpent in 2:14, I have never understood the ease with which this chatty little reptile is conflated with Satan and the Devil.  To do so takes the story out of the category of myth and into allegory.  If it is allegorical then why do we need to get so excited about whether or not it is historical?  This also makes it hard for me to accept that in Gen 3:15 we find the proto-euangelion.  To me 3:15 is simply a folksy explanation of why snakes are nasty.  The true proto-euangelion is, IMHO at least, Gen 12:1-3 and it would seem that here the Apostle Paul agrees with me (cf. Gal 3:8, which might count for something with some people).


Let me know what you think :-)

Paul's double barrelled shotgun

I tried to duck, but there was no way to avoid the hits...

"May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,

by which the world has been crucified to me,

and I to the world."

- Galatians 6:14