Paulinity versus Christianity?

Our working theme for Galatians: “Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, as taught in Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone”

 

CHARTING THE COURSE FOR THIS STUDY

Paulinity “versus” Christianity

 

PAULINITY “VERSUS” CHRISTIANITY (Galatians 2:11-21)

 

 

PAUL IN JERUSALEM: APOSTOLIC COMMENDATION (Galatians 2:1-10)

PETER IN ANTIOCH: APOSTOLIC CONDEMNATION (Galatians 2:11-21)

Paul goes to Jerusalem (2:1)

Peter goes to Antioch (2:11)

Paul did not yield to the Judaizers (2:5)

Peter yielded to Judaizers (2:11-12)

Not even Titus yielded (2:3)

Even Barnabas yielded (2:13)

Jerusalem added nothing to Paul’s Gospel (2:6)

Paul preached the Gospel to Peter (2:14-21)

Paul went in fear to Jerusalem (2:2)

In Antioch, Paul’s greatest fear was realized (2:11-13)

 

A. Galatians 2 is one of the passages that led scholars in the 19th century to drive a wedge between Peter and Paul.  A famous essay was published in 1831 by F.C. Baur arguing that Paul’s opponents were sent by Peter.  From this point on, a “contrast was thus established among interpreters between Gentile and Jewish Christianity, and this contrast has influenced the understanding of Paul’s relationship to Jerusalem even up to the present day” (William Campbell, “Judaizers” in Dictionary of Paul and his letters; edited by Hawthorne, Martin & Reid; p.513).

 

B. “At the end of the nineteenth century, in the heyday of classical liberalism, it became a commonplace to speak of Paul as the second founder of Christianity.  That was intended as the greatest of insults” (Silva, 149).

1. “The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity” by Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic scholar); published in 1986

2. “Paul: The Founder of Christianity” by Gerd Lüdemann; published in 2002

3. “How Jesus Became a Christian” by Barrie Wilson

4. “Early Christians appear to have been fundamentally divided over both the nature of Jesus and whether to adhere to the Mosaic Law or not. In the second phase of Christian development, St. Paul acquired the most pivotal character in giving Christianity a new philosophy and ideology. There were fundamental differences of opinion between Paul and James the Righteous. While James looked after the Jerusalem Church, Paul was preaching in the West, particularly to the gentiles. The Western Church evolved along Pauline doctrinal lines, whereas the Church in Jerusalem developed along monotheistic teachings” (Christianity: A Journey from Facts to Fiction; Chapter 7 “The Evolution of Christianity” by Mirza Tahir Ahmad founder of the Ahmadiyya religious movement).

5. “Christianity or Paulinity?” by Adeel Rehman

a. Paul said you cannot be justified by the law of Moses (Acts 13:38-39).

b. Jesus said salvation comes by keeping the commandments (Matthew 19:16)

6. For a biblical response to these anti-Pauline sentiments see J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul’s Religion and David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity?

 

C. Assumptions that cannot be proven by those who distinguish between Paul and Jesus or Paul and Peter:

 

1. Did Peter repent when Paul rebuked him in Gal.2:11-21? 

a. If he did then there was no “wedge” between their theology. 

b. The conclusion we must accept is that Peter did repent or else Paul’s argument falls apart in Galatians 2.

 

2. The assumption is that Paul was a liar at worst or badly mistaken at best.  His ministry, teaching and Gospel did not come directly from Jesus Christ and God the Father (Galatians 1:1; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2,21-26; Gal.1:1; cf. Heb.3:1).

“Granted, his [Paul’s] letters do not often refer to Jesus' teachings. But telling the story of Jesus when he wrote to his communities was not his purpose; presumably, he had talked about Jesus when he first created those communities.” (Marcus Borg, “Paul’s Unconventional Wisdom”)

a. “what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying” (Gal.1:20).

b. “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven” (2 Cor.12:1-2).

c. “And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak” (2 Cor.12:3-4).

i. These are oaths that Paul swears!

ii. An oath is an abbreviated covenant wherein a person places oneself under a curse (cf. Exodus 20:7).

iii. Truth is established through testimony and oaths.  Either Paul is accursed for lying under oath about his testimony or others are accursed for not believing Paul’s testimony.  

iv. If Jesus did indeed rise again from the dead and ascend into heaven (testimony of entire early church) then there is no reason to doubt Paul.

 

3. This view typically rejects the Christian belief in a transcendent, personal God Who reveals Himself in history.

 

D. Dangers of setting Paul against Jesus:

 

1. The Judaizers pitted Paul against Peter and Jesus.  So too does much of liberal theology.

2. Muslim apologetics makes great use of liberal theology’s contrasting Paulinity versus Christianity. 

3. Paul was hounded by the Judaizers wherever he went.  So too, Christians are hounded by liberal theology wherever we preach the Gospel in Muslim contexts.

4. In his book, Christianity and Liberalism (1923) J. Gresham Machen argued that “the chief modern rival of Christianity is Liberalism.”  See also David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (1995)

 

E. Was Paul at odds with Jesus regarding table fellowship? (cf. Matthew 22:1-14; Luke 14:16-24)

 

1. Jesus was going to go into the home of a centurion and heal his servant! (Matthew 8:6-8)

a. Jesus says that many with the faith of the centurion will “come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 8:10-11; cf. Luke 13:28-29).

b. The sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness (Matt.8:12).

c. Nothing is implied in this passage about faith + circumcision.  The centurion comes to Christ through faith alone and the implication is that the nations would also.

 

2. “It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” (Matthew 15:11; cf. Matt.15:18)

a. The larger context is the great faith of the Canaanite woman (Matt.15:28).

b. The Canaanite woman is eating the crumbs from the table of the Jews

i. “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (Matt.15:26).

“It is a well-known fact that all sorts of contrasts have been said to exist here.  But however different the modality in Paul’s ministry may be as compared with Jesus Christ’s, it can be rightly said that Paul does nothing but explain the eschatological reality which in Christ’s teachings is called the Kingdom” (Herman Ridderbos, When the Time Had Fully Come, “Redemptive-Historical Character of Paul’s Preaching” pp.48f.).

 

“Moreover, we can see continuity between the messages of Jesus and of Paul. Jesus' two focal points were "the way" as a path of radical personal transformation and "the Kingdom of God" as a radical political vision.

In the Gospels, Jesus speaks about "the narrow way" that leads to life, of "taking up one's cross," as the path of personal transformation. Paul speaks about "dying and rising with Christ." Jesus speaks about "the Kingdom of God"; Paul proclaims "Jesus is Lord." Despite the differences in language, I see these two sets of phrases as parallel in meaning….Like Jesus, Paul was executed by the Roman Empire [and rejected by the Jews].  Is this coincidental?  I don’t believe so.  I believe it is because both subverted the conventional wisdom of their day.” (Marcus Borg, “Paul’s Unconventional Wisdom”)

 

ii. “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs…” (Matt.15:27).

iii. The plea of the woman was heard on the basis of faith alone.

 

3. “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)” (Mark 7:18-19)

a. The larger context is the faith of the Syrophoenician woman whose daughter had an unclean spirit.  This woman went into the house where Jesus was staying (Mark 7:24,25)!

 

b. The “woman was a Gentile” (Mark 15:26).

c. This Gentile woman’s request is answered by Jesus on the basis of her faith.

i. “Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (Mark 7:27).

ii. “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children’s crumbs” (Mark 7:28).

 

F. It was Peter and the Judaizers who were at odds with Jesus regarding Gentiles and table fellowship (Gal.2:11-21. cf. Acts 15:7-11).

a. “Are you so lacking in understanding also?  Do you not understand…” (Mark 7:18)

b. The voice from heaven said to Peter, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” (Acts 10:15)
c. Peter said, ““You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean” (Acts 10:28).

 

G. Were Jesus and Paul at odds with the Old Testament teaching about table fellowship?

1. Eschatological blessing comes through the seed of Abraham and not through circumcision or the Law of Moses (Genesis 12:1-3; Galatians 3:8-9).

2. A sign of the Messianic Age was all the peoples of the earth partaking in the eschatological banquet (Psalm 22:26-31; Isaiah 25:6-9; 56:3-8).

 

H. What accounts for the differences in Paul’s style of teaching and the other Apostles?

 

1. The genre of Paul’s writing is epistolary.

2. Jesus taught the other Apostles primarily in parables.  Presumably He did not teach Paul in this fashion.

3. The other Apostles were with Jesus during His earthly ministry whereas Paul was not.

4. Paul’s education at the feet of Gamaliel was different than the other apostles and this may have affected his teaching style.

5. The origin of Paul and the Apostle’s message was the same, but Paul’s mission was more greatly felt in the Gentile world.

 

 

Why does Paul prefer the name “Cephas” to “Peter”?

 

 

 

For those who argue that the Pope is the successor to Peter: How does Galatians 2:7-9 poke a hole in their argument? (cf. Ephesians 3:8; 2 Timothy 1:11)

 

 

“Peter, so far from usurping the title of universal bishop, confines his charge to the circumcision, and resigns the rest of the world to Paul.  Peter opened the gate to the Gentiles, but Paul gathered them in.  A universal bishop could make out a better claim by proving his succession to Paul than to Peter” (John Brown, 79).

 

 

previous page

Contact Us