The Origin of Paul's ReligionMachen, J. Gresham (John Gresham)
Religion
The Origin of Paul's Religion
Machen, J. Gresham (John Gresham)
Bible. Epistles of Paul -- Theology; Paul, the Apostle, Saint
After the conference at Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas returned to
Antioch. According to the Book of Acts the letter of the Jerusalem
Church was joyfully received; it meant a confirmation of Gentile
freedom and relief from the attacks of the Judaizers. But new
disturbances began, and Peter was concerned in them. He had gone to
Antioch. There is not the slightest reason to think that his arrival
occasioned anything but joy. The notion that Paul was jealously
guarding his rights in a Gentile church and resented the coming of
Peter as an intrusion has not the slightest basis either in Acts
or in the Pauline Epistles. But at Antioch Jews and Gentiles were
living together in the Church, and their juxtaposition presented
a serious problem. The Gentile Christians, it will be remembered,
had been released from the obligation of being circumcised and of
undertaking to keep the Mosaic Law. The Jewish Christians, on the
other hand, had not been required to give up their ancestral mode
of life. But how could the Jewish Christians continue to live under
the Law if they held companionship with Gentiles in a way which
would render the strict observance of the Law impossible? Should the
precedence be given to the observance of the Law on the part of the
Jewish Christians or to the new principle of Christian unity? This
question had not been settled by the Apostolic Council, for even
if the Gentile Christians observed the provisions of the Apostolic
Decree, table companionship with them would still have seemed to
involve a transgression of the Law. Peter, however, took a step
beyond what had already been settled; he relaxed the strictness
of his Jewish manner of life by eating with the Gentiles. He was
convinced of the revolutionary change wrought by the coming of
Christ, and gave practical expression to his conviction by holding
full companionship with all his brethren. After a time, however, and
perhaps during an absence of Paul from the city, certain men came
from James, and their coming occasioned difficulty. It is not said
that these men were commissioned by James, and some readers have
thought that "from James" means merely "from Jerusalem," James being
named merely as representative of the church over which he presided.
But even if the newcomers stood in some closer relationship to
James, or even had been sent by him, it is an unwarranted assumption
that James was responsible for the trouble that they caused, or
had sent them to Antioch with the purpose of limiting the freedom
of Peter's conduct. They may have abused whatever commission they
had received. Moreover, it must be remembered that they are not
expressly blamed by Paul. If they clung conscientiously to the
keeping of the Law, as they had been accustomed to do at Jerusalem,
Paul would perhaps not necessarily condemn them; for he did not
on principle or in all circumstances require Jewish Christians to
give up the keeping of the Law. But Peter had really transcended
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account