Defending Paul – Part 7 - Addressing the Conflicting Evidence

Firstly, regarding Peter’s visit to Antioch and Paul’s rebuke of him, I believe that the timing of this event is relevant and helps us appreciate the circumstances and context. Most scholars believe it was in 48 CE or early 49 CE. That is, after the Cornelius event of 45 CE and before the Jerusalem Council of later in 49 CE. 

That is, Peter had experienced that Gentiles were being accepted by God without first becoming Jews, that is without undertaking or even beginning to undertake the rites of proselytization; the ‘works of the law’ (see Appendix or online version here) or ‘circumcision’ rituals. And yet not all of the ‘church’, the Messianic community, had fully accepted this change (this acceptance was hammered out at the Jerusalem Council only months later). 

    

What does Paul accuse him off? He accuses him of having first accepted the equal status of the Gentile believers and demonstrated this through table fellowship and then, when confronted by the ‘circumcision party’ (those of ‘The Way’, who had not yet fully embraced this new reality), Peter had now changed his tune and was no longer sharing table fellowship with ‘uncircumcised’ Gentiles (as had been the requirement of the traditions of the fathers).

If Peter had indeed done this, then Paul’s confronting him is valid and reasonable. Certainly we Gentiles, living our ‘sheltered’ Western lives may see his approach as ‘over the top’, but as I have tried to explain, this was the Pharisaic way.

This whole scenario sounds plausible and consistent with Paul’s great zeal as a Pharisee. Despite Peter’s time with Yeshua and his obvious commitment and devotion, I believe it is Paul’s deeper theological wisdom and appreciation that led to his being the driving force behind understanding the full implications of the Cornelius event and the ‘end-times’ fulfilment of the Abrahamic promises. Paul is no better person that Peter; as a Torah scholar of the highest order (as I argue) though, I would expect him to be the one to first see any inconsistent or unintentionally hypocritical behaviour and rightly seek to address it for the benefit of the message, the Gospel.

The historical evidence is that at that time, and for some years after, the Gentile followers of Yeshua were observing Shabbat; the festivals and the food laws[1]. A very good reason for this was that they had joined their local Jewish communities (containing both Jews who believed in Yeshua and many who didn’t). In this context; in this environment, they were clearly NOT eating idol meat.

So when Peter withdraws from table fellowship it was NOT because he had been eating idol meat, or that the Gentiles had been and he had accepted their ungodly behaviour.

Communal eating practices were very significant in Yeshua’s day. This quote from an article on Table Fellowship might help set the scene a little:

 “Judeans tend(ed) to make sense of a chaotic world by structuring that world in terms of maps of persons, places, and things. A map of persons as regards meals will typically mean unease about sharing food with those with whom there is no common system of values. A map of places with regard to meals will typically mean a concern about proper diet, the proper preparation of food, and proper serving utensils along with washing them (they observe the tradition of washing cups, pots, and bronze kettles-- Mk 7:4). A map of things pertaining to meals will typically manifest itself in a concern about which foods are proscribed and prescribed. Issues related to holiness and purity and pollution and defilement are open to fierce intramural debate and disagreement.

Disagreement on what constitutes purity divides the Pharisees from Sadducees, Judean from Samaritan, the Qumran community from the rest of society, and the Jesus group from the religious elite. The desire to regulate purity and holiness is driven by a concern to maintain the values and meanings that support a specific way of life of a group or society. Purity practices and distinctions embody the values of groups and ultimately define a way of life, draw lines that mark out boundaries, and mark off relationships with outsiders.
These boundaries determine who is in and out, pure and impure, and loyal and disloyal to the group ethos.” – see ‘Jesus’ Open Table Fellowship of The Marginalised’ by Dietmar Neufeld

And: “Food marks social differences, boundaries, bonds, and contradictions. Eating is an endlessly evolving enactment of gender, family, and community relationships.... Food sharing creates solidarity ... food is life"

If it is true that the table that Peter was sharing in Antioch was a ‘kosher table’, then his removing himself from this table fellowship when certain ‘circumcision’ men arrived, had nothing to do with eating idol food, as they weren’t eating it! The historical evidence supports this contention.

If instead, these Gentiles were NOT in the process of proselytization or already proselytes, then to share table fellowship with them (even though it was a kosher table) was not considered ‘proper’ or pure by some groups (especially strict Pharisees).

So what was most likely?

Peter shared Paul’s understanding that the Gentile followers of Yeshua could share the table with them and even have a reasonable place of honour at the table. When Peter fears the reproach of the visiting men of the ‘circumcision’, men believing that the Gentiles need to undertake the ‘works of the law’ to enjoy such fellowship, he withdraws temporarily from such fellowship. Paul then accuses him, and all who join him, rightly of hypocritical behaviour.

Thus, again this passage’s context is about the ‘rites of Jewish identity’ issue, NOT idol food.

I possibly need to repeat that ‘works of the law’ is a term for Jewish proselytization; like circumcision, it is a metonym for going through the rituals to become a Jew. No-one is justified or ‘saved’ by undertaking these rituals. All are only justified by Torah obedience, though this means slightly different things to Jew and Gentile[2].

So now, I recommend that you re-read Galatians 2 above and see if you now see it differently and perhaps no longer as evidence against the good character of the Apostle Paul.

I might add as an aside that I find the recording of this dispute as positive evidence for it’s very authenticity. If the authors of the NT had wanted to present some propaganda, some narrative that they had embellished for their own personal agenda in some way, then we would be less likely to read of such a serious dispute.

Another common argument against the character of Paul is his apparent over-reference to himself. A typical refrain is: “It should be evident that Paul is at least as concerned with making a statement about himself as he is in communicating what he believes to be the truth about God.”[3]

Before we look at a classic example where Paul refers to himself a lot, a think it vital to return to and reconsider the position that Paul found himself in (or choose to put himself in).

For the first decade or so since the resurrection, followers of Yeshua had not really had to consider the role of Gentiles, other than those who fully joined Israel as proselytes. It appears though, that when Paul had his Damascus Road experience, he was almost immediately placed in the position of reaching out to the Gentiles, as the emissary (apostle) to the Gentiles (and initially, most likely, the only one).

If his revelation was around 33/34 CE and the Cornelius event around 45 CE, then it appears that for some years, it was really only Paul who was considering how Gentiles could be ‘grafted in’, in some new way.

Consider how Nanos[4] describes this outsider status and the resultant persecution that followed:

“Paul was an outsider to Galatia (4:12-20); in fact, he is the only one from elsewhere of whom we can be certain. And Paul’s message—to the degree that it offered inclusion of gentiles as full and equal members while opposing their participation in proselyte conversion—ran counter to prevailing Jewish communal norms for the re-identification of pagans seeking full-membership, at least according to all the evidence now available to us.

Pursuit of this non-proselyte approach to the inclusion of pagans confessing belief in the message of Christ resulted in painful disciplinary measures against Paul from the hands of Jewish communal agents to whom he remained subordinate, but in ways that he considers mistaken, for he refers to this as “persecution” (Gal 5:11; cf. 2 Cor. 11:24).

It is not difficult to imagine that pagans convinced by Paul’s gospel that they were entitled to understand themselves as righteous and full members of Jewish communities apart from proselyte conversion, but rather on the basis of faith in a Judean martyr of the Roman regime, would also, in due time, meet with resistance from Jewish communal social control agents.

Might not the resultant identity crises of those non-proselyte associates develop along the lines of the situation implied for the addressees of Paul’s (Galatian) letter?”

So, given the very lonely and challenging path that Paul had begun, without any support from the Jerusalem ‘church’ in these early days, we can expect that he felt a good deal of isolation and the need to defend himself as he was fully committed to his revelation and understanding.

Now consider this passage from Paul:
“21 But whatever anyone else dares to boast of—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast of that.
22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they offspring of Abraham? So am I.
23 Are they servants of Messiah? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death.
24 Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one.
25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea;
26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers;
27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.
28 And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. 2 Cor 11: 21-28

Note firstly the rhetorical nature of this passage. He is ‘speaking as a fool’; he is ‘talking like a madman’.

That is, note that he is using hyperbole (a common Hebraic approach) to make his point that he is very much Jewish; very much a zealous and committed emissary; but that as a result of his initially, very singular and lonely task, he has been greatly persecuted by both his own people and the Gentiles.

He has suffered much and yet also had it very much on his heart to support the followers of the Way, the believers in Yeshua as the Messiah, both Jew and Gentile throughout the Diaspora.

When I read this and other similar passages with this appreciation of his unique position, I don’t see a self-centred and arrogant man; but someone sharing the challenges that he has faced in his race because of the greatness of the prize when he crosses the finish line.

Here is another one of these apparently conflicting and questionable passages:
“5 I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles[5].
6 Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.
7 Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God's gospel to you free of charge?
8 I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you.
9 And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way.
10 As the truth of Messiah is in me, this boasting of mine will not be silenced in the regions of Achaia.
11 And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!”  2 Cor 11:5-11

The language, even after translation may sound somewhat strange to us, but I think a couple of points are worth emphasis. Firstly, the term ‘apostle’ translated from shali'aḥ in Hebrew and meaning messenger does not in itself require any divine appointment or even appointment by the mouth of Yeshua. While it may be true that Yeshua did indeed appoint the first 12 apostles to represent the 12 tribes of Israel, the appointment of a replacement for Judas was not directly by Yeshua (lots were cast with the understanding that the Spirit of the Almighty would guide them to the correct choice).

So, while no-one could claim to be one of the 12 Apostles other than by having been selected by Yeshua himself or by the other 11 apostles, to call yourself a ‘messenger’ to the Gentiles was not to contradict any direct command of God, or to go against the explicit and acknowledged instructions of Yeshua.

In fact, if we take the Apostle Paul’s word for it, Yeshua did in fact give him this commission. I also see the witness of Annanias as evidence for this commissioning.

While Paul’s comment with regard to being compared with the 12 Apostles may sound strong and even to some come across as arrogant, if seen within the context of his ‘rhetorical adaptability’ it can be seen as an effective tool of persuasion.

“1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,

2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Messiah died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures[6],

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.

7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” 1 Cor 15:1-11

Here we see the Apostle Paul clearly articulating his lowly position with respect to the 12 Apostles and to Yeshua’s brother James (Yaa’cov). I appreciate that this can be seen as contradictory to the previous passage (2 Cor 11: 5-11), as in 1 Cor 15:9 Paul states that he is the ‘least of the apostles’ and in 2 Cor 11:5 that he is ‘not in the least inferior to these super-Apostles’.

Again, it is vital to consider both the context and his use of ‘rhetorical adaptability’. In 1 Corinthians 15 we see a short factual narrative on the death and resurrection of Yeshua, followed by a very brief description of who Yeshua appeared to. In this short historical narrative, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that he was initially opposed  to (he ‘persecuted’) the followers of Yeshua. In this context, he displays his appreciation of his humble position, of how it was only through the great grace of the Almighty that he his eyes were opened to the truth of Yeshua as the Messiah and that from this very humbled beginning, why he then worked so hard to try to overcome the pain he has caused.

Now consider the 2 Corinthians 11 passage. First, appreciate that his letter, while sent to a Jewish community in Corinth, it is primarily addressed to Gentile believers within this community of faith. When speaking directly to these Gentile believers, the Apostle Paul often uses the approach of assuming a fairly limited knowledge of Torah, and will also often refer to common Greek/Hellenistic understandings and concepts. We see this in a great many of his epistles, for example, it is very evident in Philippians 3 and Colossians 2.

What is the evidence that he has used this ‘rhetorical adaptability’ approach here?

Consider these verses:

2 Cor 11: 1 “I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me!”

2 Cor 11: 16-17 “I repeat, let no one think me foolish. But even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little. What I am saying with this boastful confidence, I say not with the Lord's authority but as a fool.”

2 Cor 11: 19: “For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves!”

2 Cor 11:21 “… But whatever anyone else dares to boast of—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast of that.”

While anyone, Jew or Gentile can be a fool if they reject the ways of God; it was a common approach in Paul’s day to call Gentiles ‘fools’, because they did not know the oracles of God. This understanding was in part derived from the Tanakh, from verses^[7] like Ps 14:1 (which Paul actually quotes in this context in Romans 3), or Proverbs 16:22. So Paul here, is trying to use their approach, their way of thinking and work from their position of a more limited understanding of Torah and Tanakh, than if he were just addressing his fellow Jewish brethren.

Thus, he is stating that from the perspective of these Gentile God-fearers, he is not inferior in his knowledge of Torah to the Apostles to Israel, appointed by Yeshua. So, when understood in context as a rhetorical device, the Apostle Paul is not being contradictory or disingenuous at all.

If this rhetorical approach is recognized, I believe Paul’s apparently contradictory passages are seen as not contradictory at all, but consistent with his teaching method in trying to be the ‘apostle to the Gentiles’.

Next: Part 8 - Chronology & other inconsistencies between Paul’s epistles and other NT books:

Or get the book: http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Apostle-Paul-Weighing-ebook/dp/B009TLLK0U/

---

[1] See my article on ‘Colossians 2 and the Sabbath’ for more detail.

[2] Please see my article ‘Circumcision: A Step of Obedience?’ for more on this.

[3] From http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm

[4] ‘Locating Paul on a Map of First-Century Judaism’ Mark Nanos, p20

[5] The word ‘APOSTLE’, Greek for ‘messenger’ or emissary (shali'aḥ in Hebrew), was a term applied to the disciples of Yeshua whom he had sent out to preach his message, and occasionally also applied to other missionaries of the first few years. The word "apostle" occurs around 79 times in the New Testament. Normally, the term ‘apostle’ was used to denote someone of special eminence such as the original 12 disciples, but it is also used at times inter-changeably  with disciple (‘talmid’). The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John called the special 12, disciples, but Mark and Matthew often also called them apostles, though without any clear differentiation. In Luke, there is a clear distinction, with the 12 being called Apostles. Clearly there was an understanding that the 12 Apostles had been appointed by Yeshua, although Judas’ replacement, Matthias was not directly chosen by Yeshua. In a similar way, it would appear that Sha’ul  can claim some form of endorsement/selection as another Apostle. Unlike the first 12 who represent the 12 Tribes of Israel, Sha’ul can clearly be seen from the historical and biblical evidence to be an Apostle to the Gentiles. The witnesses to Sha’ul’s commissioning would be those who were travelling with him and some in Damascus, especially Annanias.

[6]  While I am quoting 1 Corinthians 15 as a means to evaluate the character of Paul, there is a phrase here, as commonly interpreted, that cannot be correct. While it can be argued that the Scriptures (see the phrase ‘in accordance with the Scriptures’) do intend prophecy about the death of the Messiah, nowhere does the Tanakh explicitly state or even imply that a man’s death, even the death of an innocent man, could pay the price for the sin of other men. In fact, the Tanakh states the exact opposite. This is a huge issue that I will deal with elsewhere. In the context of the theme of this book, I believe the problem here does not impact on the character or integrity of Paul.

[7] “The fool says in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.” Ps 14:1

“Good sense is a fountain of life to him who has it, but the instruction of fools is folly.” Prov 16:22