Still Practicing Law: Paul in Acts

There is a tendency to view Paul as the first Christian; to view him in terms of Before and After the road to Damascus. The Damascus road event was perceived as so drastic that many Christians think that he used to be called Saul and that his name was changed to Paul after his so-called "conversion" in Acts 9¹. Going along with this perceived revolution, there is a tendency to believe that Paul rejected his former religion - Judaism - in order to form the new religion of Christianity. Among the early Christians, it was accepted that Paul was a charismatic and theological leader of this new religion - his works deemed significant and canon-worthy around the 5th century CE. In addition, the social distance between Jews and Gentile Christians was great enough (Christianity going from a religio licita² to the state religion of the Roman Empire³) that it was easy enough to read the Lukan account and Paul's epistles in a way that the Church could be seen as abrogating and replacing Israel as God's chosen people. And much of this narrative of the Church's supremacy over the Jews hinges upon the understanding that Paul defected from the Jewish way of life and the Jewish people to help found this new religion. What happens if that is wrong?

I am going to suggest that Paul did not convert to Christianity but rather remained and identified as a Jew who was instead called to be an apostle to the Gentiles in his new found knowledge that indeed the crucified and resurrected Jesus was the Messiah. Paul never stopped being a Torah-observant Jew nor expected any other Jew who believed in Jesus as Messiah to stop practicing Torah. Rather, he argued (rather vehemently) that Gentiles ought not be circumcised nor practice Torah but be accepted as distinct yet equal in the commonwealth of Israel who remained, for Paul, the people of God.

For this post, I will only give two passages in the Acts account and will not speak to the implications or other theological or practical speculations concerning what then it means to be Jewish or Gentile, or why this makes a difference historically. It will also become necessary to examine the Pauline epistles concerning these matters. I'll get to that in later posts. For now, I believe that if I can show that Paul remained Torah observant and expected other Jews who believed in Jesus to remain observant then there can be a more proper reading of his letters and will create better categories for understanding identity in the Messiah of Israel in regards to: Torah, Jews and Gentiles.

1. Acts 15 "Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.' And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders."

A few issues are made apparent here. First, certain individuals from Judea (most likely Ebionites) were probably believers in Jesus since they came to a group of believers to deal with the doctrine of salvation concerning the Gentiles' who believed in Jesus as Messiah. Otherwise they would have not come to them at all, or would have come to them to kill or imprison them as Paul had done prior. Secondly, Paul disagreed with their assessment concerning the Gentiles need to be circumcised and keep Torah, but what is absent yet implied is that the Jewish believers must have already been Torah observant and had no dispute concerning keeping the commandments. Why else would they even have bothered to send people to Jerusalem to consult James concerning Gentiles keeping the Law if the Jewish believers themselves weren't keeping it? The verdict of the Council of Jerusalem was that the Gentiles should only have to keep a few laws (sometimes correlated to the Noahide Laws) and the reasoning for only having to keep just those laws is stated explicitly in verse 21, "For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues." I suggest that James was counting on the fact that the Gentiles would be a part of the Sabbath services at the synagogues to learn Moses (read:Torah) which is tantamount to learning what it means to be a part of Israel and who God is. While they must have understood how this would be problematic, there is no assumption or implication that the new Gentile Believers would have formed an entirely separate entity from the Jews, but rather they viewed themselves as a sect within Judaism. It is worthy to note that in Chapter 16, Paul had Timothy circumcised because although his mother was Jewish, his father was Greek and he wanted no obstacle for the Jews they would encounter.

2. Acts 21 "When we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us warmly. The next day Paul went with us to visit James; and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. When they heard it, they praised God. Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law. They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law. But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having purified himself, he entered the temple with them, making public the completion of the days of purification when the sacrifice would be made for each of them."

The Jewish believers in Jerusalem praised God when they hear of God's works through Paul's ministry among the Gentiles. Surely then, they knew that Paul did not require the Gentiles to be Torah observant as they mentioned at the end of the passage. But what of the Jewish believers? Paul is told that there were thousands of believers among the Jews and that they were all zealous for the law. But apparently rumor 'round Jerusalem was that Paul was teaching the Jewish believers to forsake the law. They advised Paul to go through the rite of purification with four other believers to prove that "there is nothing in what they have been told about [Paul], but that [he himself] observes and guards the law." Paul then does purify himself and publicly shows that he does indeed observe the law. There is nothing to indicate that Paul was being disingenuous or appeasing the Jewish believers in some sort of political move, but rather he was upholding the goodness of the Law and Torah and in no way wanted to show that his faith in Jesus as Messiah is contrary to the Law.

What we find in looking at these two passages is that Paul maintains his Torah observance even after coming to the knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel. He instead wants to show that the Gentiles have no responsibility to maintain Torah in order to be brought into the covenant of God with Israel as equals (something he will argue for in his letters). Thus, he maintains a distinction of 'Jew' and 'Gentile' not in terms of salvation or equality, but rather in terms of role and responsibility.

____________________________________________
¹ Luke writes in Acts 13, "Saul, who was also called Paul..." and then chooses to maintain the name Paul for the rest of the book. Paul had already been a believer before this point and there is nothing that explains why Luke maintains the name 'Paul' for the rest of the book.

² religio licita or tolerated religion. Christianity was officially tolerated via the Edict of Milan in 313 CE which gave the freedom of religion to the Roman people.

³ Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire via the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 CE.
____________________________________________

Windows and Mirrors: Postmodernity and Existentialism

I was struck by the phrase 'Windows and Mirrors' one day. Two similar objects that present notions of perspective. From a window, one can see that which is outside, and of course, from the mirror, one has a perspective of what is inside. Both of these are necessary qualifiers of an understanding of the world. And it is not as if any of our windows or mirrors are objective sources of pure information, nor is it true that individuals alone endeavor to make out what Reality is. Our windows and mirrors are molded by our experience and perhaps our genetics or innate-ness. Furthermore, not just individuals but ages and spirits of ages wander and wonder together in moments - in eras. We have stumbled into this great expansive age that some have dubbed 'postmodernity' but it is steeply rooted in the existential movements typified by such writers as: Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, Jaspers, Camus and Kafka. In sort of a self-defining move, postmodernity and existentialism is seeing where we are seeing where we are.

In no way is this work meant to describe postmodernity nor existentialism with any depth deserved, but it is my hope that it will show a glisten of light off a moment which is the only moment that ever existed - now. And in this one moment of now, there are simultaneously two moments. The first moment is the historical moment. This moment we are in was only made possible by all preceding moments of a great galactic and human history. Political and social progress, wars and famines, works of art and science have all pushed life on earth into this moment. It is complete with a multiplicity of traditions and remnants of ages past all mixed with ideologies and utopias that we strive towards. A pushing of the ancient with a pulling of the future culminate for the individual - for a society - in this historical now. And where is this historical now? It is postmodernity.

Postmodernity is the child of democracy and communications technology (to reduce it greatly). Essentially, democracy from its theoretical birthplace in Greece to its slow but steady growth through various codes (or bills) of rights and political institutions that seek to give voice to the individual has, in quite a few ways, dethroned the monolithic voices of traditional authority and instead enthroned a harmonious (or chaotic) pluralism of perspectives that no longer allows a single tradition of belief as arbiter of justice, save allowing a pluralism of belief as the single tenet of justification. The growth and assimilation of rapid long-distance communications (television, radio, cellular phones, internet)into many lives and institutions has developed concomitantly with this ideological strain of pluralism and allowed many of the marginalized voices room in which to speak and justify previously dismissed or unheard views. We have an explosion of information ranging from many views to many ears with little regard to space or time, as information on anything from anywhere can be grasped by an individual here and now.

Whereas the traditional modern (read: Enlightenment) modes of understanding may simply relegate this uprising of seemingly disconnected, fragmented and even contradictory claims as another mode of cultural relativism, this reduces it to something that would simply not have enough force to push itself into the public market of ideas with the tenacity with which it has done. Cultural relativism may work as a descriptive assessment. That is, within a culture or cultures there are many modes of understanding, of ethics, of political theory and so on. Cultural relativism as a strict prescriptive belief does not allow for any vital ethical or political stance because in doing so it does not allow certain beliefs justification and thus breaks its own rules of relativizing. To put it another way, though we may differ in views, it is not simply that "anything goes" and there is no hope for justice, but rather we work hard in the face of the tentative and impermanent towards an unspeakable justice that keeps this sort of dynamic of tolerance and disagreement alive. We can, by maintaining certain traditions and tenets, face injustice and wars against human dignity and certainly we will not be alone. The project is undergirded by some sisyphusean liberation in that we have come to terms with the fact that this may never work and we will always have a remainder in our equation or may never be able to plot a end-all doctrine or position - the fight towards such a utopia and the beauty of an ideal justice is more moving and inspiring than inevitable failure. This is not logical and this is postmodernity.

The second 'now' that exists is the ahistorical now of being. It is the eternal essence that has always existed regardless of any physical changes to the universe, nor any alterations in the human project. This is existentialism: The understanding that the moment as it unfolds before you is as much a part of you as you are of it. There is a newness that disregards the past in the sense that the past does not currently exist and you are only faced with what you are facing now. It grasps itself and it is this now that presents and feeds every individual in the historical sense and drives them to choices which will continually push history forward creating new history. It is the dread we feel when we face up to our own ability to interpret, choose and express and know that we are the liabilities of the outcomes in our lives and the lives of others. When one becomes aware of this be-ing that pervades all things there is a sharpness of a knife cutting against the present moment into the future and one realizes that there is no such thing as standing still. We are who we will be. However, this does not mean that there are unseen forces tinting or affecting our awareness, nor does it mean that we do not give ourselves to various faiths (religious or otherwise) that will inevitably intertwine themselves with our eternal awareness and our historical perspective.

So, as we, as constantly as possible, recall our finitude and infinitude within the context of our social, economic, political, and religious orientation we are faced with a strange piece in front of us. We have a window and a mirror occupying the same position as some optical illusions force us to see two entirely different things at the same time. The window of now shows us a world where as you read, you are connected to a vast network of communications spanning the entire globe, coded and decoded, traveling at light speed and translating itself onto a computer screen. The mirror allows us to see how we are affected and what is possible beneath social construction. We are able to see the oneness of being and the multiplicity of worlds in a breath and become part of it and interact with it.

In a world of complexity, suspicion, and surprise, we are faced with new tasks that the up-til-now faith in empirical methods of understanding the world as some physical phenomenon will simply not be able to explicate. We are faced with a type of spiritual and intellectual non-euclidean geometry - something that (with some grace) bows out of traditional arguments but also engages the arguments with fresh innovation that is inherent in the human spirit which is the Spirit of God. The grittiness and mistake-making potential make it something wholly of our own, but we are all our own, and the sooner we can recognize this in the midst of our overwhelming reality, the sooner we can come back to some sort of peace that transcends understanding in the midst of this chaos of globalization... or whatever it is.

On Criticism

A number of things must be done before performing criticism of any institution – namely those of major influence or power over a group of people. What comes to mind is: definitions of concepts being employed to describe and understand the context of power which can (and should) range from the very broad speculation of human nature(s), justice and power to more specialized or narrow definitions of roles of particular members and mechanisms within the framework of power. There also ought be a wealth of research or data that at least has the good possibility of drawing tentative, if not certain, conclusions about implicit modes of justification, methods of the exertion of the power or influence, factors influencing the movement of power and information both direct and indirect, and effects of the exchanges between the members within the framework as well as possible or actual externalities.

Regardless of the intent of a criticism or analysis, I believe that a tremendous amount of work must go in to it. In addition to the definitions and research, a just approach, at least in terms of presentation to non-specialized audiences, much detail and energy should go into making the work accessible through clear writing. This is not to say that it should be dumbed down or that complex notions and events should be called something different that the monikers that they are commonly referred to in their spheres of research, or that the vocabulary or glossary of terms surrounding the concepts and events should not be employed. For instance, when discussing Marx, we have to understand terms like ‘Historical Materialism’ or ‘Modes of Production’, but the communicator par excellence will be able to provide sentences that are not convoluted with jargon and endless obscurities. However, the writer or presenter must also expect a great deal from their audience. The audience must be disciplined and dedicated to sustained critical thought. Quite often the reader should keep a dictionary nearby and also should take it upon themselves to verify information that they are being presented.

To go back to the initial necessity of any dialogue or exposition, definitions need to be set in order to create an effective context from which one can survey the area of analysis. An important note ought be made in regards to contextual definitions: definitions are tentative and very rarely maintain anything like ‘timeless’ status. We might liken contextual definitions to the “pause buttons” of history. It is not as if we define terms in order to complete the game of philosophy or discourse. They are the moves we make to continue the conversation perhaps towards some end as we may envision, but it is not for us to determine the end but merely resting points and mile markers along the way.

Definitions serve simultaneous functions. The impossible task is at hand: to remove ambiguity. As one seeks to carve a distinct shape of concept out of words another function is accomplished, and that is limiting the geography of the content. One may take a word like ‘justice’, or ‘democracy’ or even an event like the Vietnam War and the definition must narrow and focus the scope of the word to a manageable size. Not just democracy as a whole but democracy in the west in the past 50 years pertaining to cultural movements of minorities through the expressions of protest. It is not as if one ought disregard a more abstract definition but rather the definition will probably include not only a strict dictionary entry type of definition but will hopefully be a coherent and connected explanation of general to specific maneuvering the nuanced in-betweens, the hows and whys.

Definitions set the stage and engineer the pieces and the qualities they possess. You might say the definitions control the physics of an environment and the objects within it. The application of criticism is the exploration of how the pieces will react within the environment when exposed to particular conditions. Literary and philosophical criticism might be the closest art comes to science without actually being science.

Definitions provide basic limitations in sketches and broadstrokes, but the accurate revisions needed to bring a detailed view of the situation comes from research and verification of data. Mountains of data must be amassed and assessed to see if original hypotheses still retain integrity or ought to be reconfigured or demolished altogether. Once a wealth of data/information is brought into the sketch to provide a complex and detailed framework, the “physics” of the environment and objects become much more rigid but the creativity and intensity instead of being applied to speculation has to be transferred to interpretation. Criticism is the dynamic interation of definitions and data ultimately interpreted into a bona fide monument – a reference point for future discussion.

start with a quote

Language is a process of free creation; its laws and principles are fixed, but the manner in which the principles of generation are used is free and infinitely varied. Even the interpretation and use of words involves a process of free creation. ~Noam Chomsky