Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Mathematical exactness and scientific precision...


Recommended Posts

One of the problems with building a theological distinction between Paul and James is that the whole of the early Church, from Gentile backgrounds as well as Jewish, didn't see such a distinction. Paul and James were regarded as equally valid for reading in the churches.

The great antagonism between proponents of grace and proponents of works didn't come into being until Luther published his ideas about Romans, and even then, the issue wasn't about salvation itself, but rather about how much time Christians would have to spend in purgatory before progressing on to heaven.

Steve, if there was no distinction between Paul's views and those of James, how do you explain Galatians 2:11 - 14?

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Peter was afraid of James and his cohorts. He withdrew from a fellowship he'd been enjoying just because some of James' associates arrived. His actions caused an immediate rift which Paul refers to as dissumulation; hypokrisis, aka hyprocrisy.

I don't see how Martin Luther could have invented that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they were going to edit.... it seems they would more than red line that Peter actually did tell the Lord of the universe NO......or that Jesus called him Satan(not Peter's best day) or that he denied the Lord or that he was so hot headed he cut off Roman's guards ear. How about going fishing after the resurrection? How about being cornered by Jesus and having Jesus quiz him on the veracity of his love? Not to mention refusing to eat with the gentiles after him being the one who got the shocking revelation that it was okay. But, we know all of this about Peter...

On the whole, I agree with you. It's good that we have an accurate record, not only of what they did, but of what they didn't do, so we can see how they grew. But we can't assume that Peter could have edited what we're reading to day given the inclination because the record in Acts that chronicle all of this wasn't written by Peter.

The book of Acts was written by Luke, who wasn't even one of the Twelve. I'm not implying that Peter would have edited those things out if he could. Merely pointing out that, since he didn't write it, it's a moot point.

Edited by Jbarrax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, if there was no distinction between Paul's views and those of James, how do you explain Galatians 2:11 - 14?

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Peter was afraid of James and his cohorts. He withdrew from a fellowship he'd been enjoying just because some of James' associates arrived. His actions caused an immediate rift which Paul refers to as dissumulation; hypokrisis, aka hyprocrisy.

I don't see how Martin Luther could have invented that.

I didn't mean to imply that there was NO distinction between Paul and James, but the differences between their views on "Law and Grace" or "Works and Faith" were not so divergent as they have been made to seem by Luther, and especially exaggerated by dispensationalists.

The early Church saw no reason to exclude either the book of James OR the book of Romans. According to James Dunn's Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, there was a spectrum of positions in the first century Church, and Paul and James were at the acceptable extremes of that spectrum. The spectrum was based on how people interpreted the confession "Jesus is Lord." At Paul's end, people stressed the lordship of Jesus more than his humanity, and at James' end people stressed the humanity of Jesus more than his Lordship. Beyond Paul, the Gnostics held the unacceptable view that Jesus had not really been human. Beyond James, the Ebionites held the unacceptable view that Jesus was nothing more than another prophet.

Dunn posits that Peter was the person the Lord had at the center, who kept the Church from flying apart into two separate Christianities, one Jewish and one Gentile. If that had happened, things would be very different indeed! Paul was acknowledged as apostle to the Gentiles. James was acknowledged as leader of the Jewish part of the Church. Peter's ameliorating actions may have been viewed very differently by others (possibly including the Lord) from the way Paul portrays them in Galatians.

It's interesting to note that the problem Paul seems to be addressing in the book of Romans is conflict at that city between Christians from Gentile and from Jewish backgrounds. While Paul argues forcibly in his writing that ALL have been concluded under sin, and ALL have been saved by grace through faith, it was probably Peter's practical ministry in Rome, while Paul was under house arrest, that kept the Christian community there from disintegrating into a failed movement.

Sometimes, Peter kept aspects of the law to please James' faction, and that didn't sit well with Paul, but Paul HIMSELF kept aspects of the law to please James when he made his trip to Jerusalem.

Salvation was never earned by works in the Old Testament, despite the fact that some factions of second temple Judaism misinterpreted it that way. Jesus didn't come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it.

The Church is not some wholely new thing, but the believing remnant of Israel under the new (renewed) covenant of Jeremiah 31:31ff, with believing Gentiles grafted in on the same basis as believing Jews, by grace through faith.

People are saved by faith and not by works. They always have been, even in the Old Testament! But if people are not willing to do the good works they've been saved to do, it raises some serious questions, and SHOULD.

As always, I have tremendous respect for your thinking, Jerry, and the thought provoking questions you ask me!

Love,

Steve

Edited by Steve Lortz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't say Peter was afraid of James and it doesn't say they were James cohorts or that James sent them......it says they recently came from James. Funny choice of words as Paul could have said they recently came from Jerusalem. I guess you can read into that, but that is all it is.....reading into Paul's choice of words. It could mean something, but it might just be the way he decided to communicate where they came from. One word as good as another.

Here is why it is important to know all the things we do about Peter......Peter's reaction in this instance is not going to shock us, or even cause us to read more into it than we should. This was the same Peter I described earlier......he was like this his whole life. This is the same Peter who denied the Lord, the same guy who went a fishing and the same Peter who told the Lord how he thought it should be. Does it surprise anyone he got up and moved his chair when pressure was applied? It shouldn't.

It was a really short lived rift and Peter obviously responded well to the rebuke as he later defended Paul against the Judaizers. Peter obviously took it to heart and one of the reasons we even see it in scripture is that it serves to illuminate Paul's Apostleship as standing on its own.

There is some tension between works and grace, but as Steve points out it is not in regard to salvation. We have seen first hand what happens when people use grace as a reason to sin without transformation or concern and understanding about God's ordained good works or the work of the HS. We also have a unique opportunity to understand from Peter's perspective. We know what it is like to be pressured by an intense group hell bent on an incorrect theology.

We also have some insight into James who was the Lord's brother, lived with Him, saw Him everyday.......and tried to push Him off a cliff. He didn't believe Jesus until he saw Him resurrected. James was devout, once very pious, and now dealing with serious issues in his church. They were poor, hungry, persecuted and having to make important decisions. You can see why James focus is perhaps different than that of those from more prosperous churches. Human nature. It doesn't go away when reading scripture. Personalities don't go away, individual leanings don't go away and there is usually some insight into why people react the way they do in scripture. James, old Camel Knees, was a very devout Jew, and the cultural changes that were happening were probably the most shocking and difficult for him.

It was Jesus who said "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." and Jesus who called gentiles dogs who could lick the crumbs from under the table. Jesus came first for Israel. It was Paul, who was raised up by Jesus to carry out the second half of His ministry and bring the gospel to the gentiles. Paul, who persecuted and killed Christians. Paul, who was also a devout Jew. You have got some wild and crazy things going on here.....culturally shocking....a whole new way of looking at things....doing things.

As Christians, we can tend to set some strange moral standards for ourselves and then judge by them as Paul talks about in Romans......but these were not arbitrary standards to those who were once Jewish and now found themselves in a new faith......this was the law. It is not difficult to understand how there was some confusion and temptation.....these were culturally deeply ingrained norms and some had racially motivated prejudice.

Add to the mix these men who went from place to place trying to yoke people again to bondage......and they were, I believe, in reality an outside element......and you have some tension. The church was being built facing real opposition coming from more than one direction. Sometimes appearing to come from within. This is why it is important to be able to understand and make a distinction between true and false believers. I know that doesn't set well with some, but it is important and helps to distinguish what is going on. . . . that is probably why so much of the NT is devoted to the subject.

We can't forget the personalities and backgrounds of James, Peter and Paul when looking at these things. It doesn't help to create an insurmountable issue that in reality may not really be there once we step back and take in the big picture. Great advice by the way Jerry. :)

My 2 cents and probably not even worth 2 cents!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good insights and info Steve.

I might quibble about the degree of division in the early Church based on the attempts to murder Paul by the "Christians of Jewish background" in Jerusalem. You and I agree that the Gentiles were added to the Church as equals, but a sizeable number of the Israelitish believers didn't accept that truth.

But in the end, different people see things from different perspectives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...