Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Summa Theologica wikipedia , lookup
Fate of the unlearned wikipedia , lookup
Christianity and violence wikipedia , lookup
Christian ethics wikipedia , lookup
Supersessionism wikipedia , lookup
New Testament household code wikipedia , lookup
Christianity and other religions wikipedia , lookup
Jewish Christian wikipedia , lookup
Antinomianism wikipedia , lookup
New Perspective on Paul wikipedia , lookup
A BIBLE ODYSSEY (b) Then there was the moderate JewishChristian party, led by the apostle Peter. Peter had, importantly, made the leap of understanding that Gentiles could be Christians, and had accepted, despite opposition, the hospitality of the Gentile believer Cornelius (according to some interpretations, the first Gentile Christian recorded in Acts). Reading the Bible Over Three Years (c) Paul’s party. Paul believed that there should be no requirement for the Gentile Christians to observe the Jewish Law. For Paul, it was the spirit of the Law that was more important than the letter: and faith in Christ was the supreme requirement for the Christian, not being observant to the Law, however venerable. Bible Notes: Week 27 With Fr Andrew Pearce, Rector of Bishopston June 2: Galatians 2 (d) The radical, Greek-speaking party, perhaps represented by Stephen, the first martyr. If we take Acts 7 at face value, Stephen held a view of Judaism that verged on the contemptuous, and it’s not surprising that he should have been stoned for it. The most radical Christians believed that the new religion represented a clean break with the old order. A careful reading of Galatians chapter 2 and Acts chapter 15 gives us insight into the first great controversy of Church history: were Gentile Christians to be treated as the same, in respect to the Law, as Jewish Christians? In considering this question, we can see that there were four parties that emerged within the early Church. As with most controversies, the compromise that is eventually found ends up as something of a fudge. It’s clear for Galatians 2 that Paul was somewhat unhappy with the compromise, and felt that Peter had been too strongly swayed by James’ ultraconservatives. But it was, fundamentally, something that he could live with. And so (as recorded in Acts 15), the Council of Jerusalem frees the Gentile Christians from the requirement to observe the Law in its fullness, but promulgating abstinence from four things: ‘You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.’ (a) There was the ultra-conservative, strict Judaic party, who seem to have regarded Christianity as, essential, a sect of Judaism. Members of this party were led by James, the brother of Jesus – who despite not being one of the Twelve, nevertheless came to assume a position of prominence within the Jerusalem Church (according to later Christian tradition, he was regarded as the first bishop of Jerusalem). The Judaic party believed the Law in all its fullness should be observed by Christians: and that in becoming Christians, Gentiles also needed to become Jews. 1 Paul clearly felt he had lost the argument for a more liberal approach to the Gentile Christians, and his hurt is clear, as we read Galatians 2 (far more obviously-so than if we read Luke’s more diplomatic, conciliatory account of the same events in Acts 15). subservient to the promise inherent in the Abrahamic covenant: and this covenant begins not with circumcision (as traditionally understood by Jews), but with Abraham’s faithful response to the call of God. The call give to the Gentiles, through the gospel of Jesus, Abraham’s seed, is essentially the same as the call issued to Abraham: and it relies on faith, not Law. Paul may have been smarting from a setback, but it was to be a temporary one: the tide of history was ultimately with Paul and his fellow liberals. In later centuries, three of the four prohibitions of the Council of Jerusalem were quietly dropped (even if the exact definition of the fourth, on ‘sexual immorality’, continues to be fiercely debated). And so I’m not alone in my guiltfree enjoyment of black pudding – in spite of what the Council of Jerusalem decreed nearly two thousand years ago. Some Jewish males in Paul’s time greeted each day with the following prayer: ‘Lord, I thank you that I am not a Gentile, a slave or a woman.’ Paul’s words in 3.28 are a complete rejection of such values. Paul affirms that in Christ ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.’ Two thousand years later, we’re still trying to put his words into practice. It’s taken a very long time (longer than Paul would ever have imagined): but perhaps (just perhaps) we’re finally starting to get it! June 3: Galatians 3 In chapter 3, Paul comes to the heart of the argument as to whether or not faith trumps observance of the Law. He sees the origin of Judaism (and indeed the origin of Christianity) as going right back to Abraham. We are all, says Paul, children of Abraham. June 4: Galatians 4 Paul continues to contrast faith and Law, by reference to the different destinies recorded in Genesis of Sarah and Hagar, respectively the wife and concubine of Abraham Paul cleverly contrasts those who are enslaved to the Law (represented by Hagar, the slave woman) with those who are free from the demands of Law (represented by Sarah, the freeborn wife). ‘The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.’ (vv.7-9) It’s an interesting parallelism: but does it really work? As a matter of historical fact, the descendants of Sarah are the Jews: the descendants of Hagar are the Arabs. I don’t imagine that many of Paul’s Jewish coreligionists would have been too impressed with his argument (and I don’t suppose James and the ultra-conservative Jewish Christians of Jerusalem would have thought much of it either!). Abraham was called by God before the Law existed: and his relationship with God was cemented first and foremost not by obedience to Law, but by his response in faith. Indeed, although certain aspects of the Law were established early on (e.g. the rite of circumcision), the fullness of the Law did not come until much later, i.e. with Moses and the Exodus from Egypt. The Law, argues Paul, is itself secondary and 2 Paul’s argument predates the rise of Islam by six hundred years or so: but, inevitably, we cannot read his words without thinking of the Islamic context. As we associate Judaism with Abraham and Sarah, so we associate Arabs (and Islam) with Abraham and Hagar. It’s tempting, if wrong-headed, for us to read back our attitudes towards Islam (often thought of by Christians as a religion of Law as opposed to grace, rather like Judaism), and to say that Paul’s words here apply just as well (perhaps even better) to Islam than to Judaism. The word Islam, after all, means ‘submission,’ and submission conjures up the image of servitude: and Hagar, the slave woman, is the ancestor both of the Arab people and the Islamic prophet. a moral guide every action. If only we could turn to the Bible and find the answer to every moral conundrum! But we can’t. We could spend many hours searching fruitlessly for advice on internet safety; or protocols on correct behaviour whilst attending a pop concert; or the pros and cons of different types of energy capture; or whether fox hunting should be banned; or the merits (or otherwise) of ecigarettes. The commandments of the Old Testament are extensive, with more than 600 specific commands or prohibitions; and over several centuries of rabbinical interpretation, the Talmud and the Mishnah provided further ethical guidance for the pious Jew. But they could not cover every eventuality, even two thousand years ago: and they certainly cannot today. Well, perhaps if he were writing six centuries later, Paul would have couched his argument in a different way, or with a different polemic target. And maybe Paul’s argument doesn’t really work that well today (even if it did work better in his own time – which, frankly, I rather doubt). Let’s not get too distracted by unhelpful speculation as to who are the children of Sarah, and who are the children of Hagar: Jew or Gentile, Christian or Muslim, believer or unbeliever. The Law can be reduced to general principles, of course: the Ten Commandments, for example; or the Summary of the Law quoted by Jesus; or the Golden Rule here quoted by Paul – ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’. But, of course, reduction can so easily become reductio ad absurdum: a reduction to a lowest common denominator that becomes so vague as to be meaningless. Instead, let’s simply rejoice with Paul in the fact that we are children of God: and if we are sons and daughters of God, then we cannot possibly be slaves. And if we are children of God, then we are heirs to a truly wonderful inheritance. So what guides us, if we are to avoid a Law that is over-complex (but still inadequate, because it cannot cover every eventuality), or a Law reduced to trite aphorisms? The answer, Paul explains, is the Spirit. Living by the Spirit is the only answer for the ethically-minded Christian. June 5: Galatians 5 Being free from the Law does not mean that we are free from moral constraint: indeed, it could be argued that we are actually under a greater, not lesser, constraint. The Spirit is the supreme gift of God to all Christians. As Paul said in Galatians 4.6, it is the Spirit, living in our hearts, that enables us to cry out Abba (Aramaic for Father – or more particularly, ‘Daddy’, implying as In some ways, it would be so much easier if we could rely upon a law-code that acted as 3 We don’t know: but the statement in Galatians has led some to speculate whether or not Paul experienced the socalled stigmata. Stigmata (the bodily marks of Christ’s crucifixion) have been attested on a number of times in the history of the Church, most famously as something experienced by St Francis of Assisi during the last two years of his life. Is this what St Paul is referring to? tender, intimate relationship with a loving parent). And it this relationship, lived in the Spirit, that enables us to make the right ethical choices, even when faced with a moral dilemma of which we have had no previous experience. Life in the Spirit may be harder than life according to the Law. Yes, there are times when we get it wrong; occasions when we misunderstand the promptings of the Spirit. And the fruits of the Spirit that Paul describes in verse 22 – love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control – are not going to appear spontaneous within us just because we wish it to be so. Again, we simply don’t know: and though it’s an intriguing possibility, I think it’s more likely that Paul is speaking more generally. Paul, after all, is a man who has experienced stoning, beating, and flogging during his ministry as an ambassador for Christ: he has suffered physical (and, indeed, emotional) anguish, not dissimilar to that faced by the Lord in his Passion. Paul may simply be identifying his sufferings with those experienced by Jesus. Living in the Spirit, as opposed to living according to Law, is rather like learning to drive. We’re not going to become good drivers simply by memorising the Highway Code. That’s not to say that the Highway isn’t important: but it can’t cover every eventuality. And the very first edition of the Highway Code (with instructions about how to use your whip to signal as you direct your horse-drawn carriage) is a lot less useful than more recent editions! No, if we want to become good drivers, we have to get behind the wheel of the car: the rulebook will only take us so far by itself. There’s no substitute for experience: and, for Christians, that experience is found by living in the Spirit. But it’s a fitting conclusion to Paul’s discourse on circumcision that he should speak of ‘bearing the marks of Jesus’. The outward mark of circumcision has come to mean little to the one-time devout Pharisee Saul of Tarsus. Now as Paul, he wants to boast of the way his life has been transformed by Jesus, the Messiah he once persecuted. How do we bear the marks of Jesus in our body, mind and soul? What are the outward signs that accompany the inward certainties of our faith? We are not under the Law, so there is no need for physical circumcision: but how, by the grace of the Spirit, have we circumcised our hearts? And, in short, how do others know we are Christians: by the dogmas we declare, or by the love we practice? June 6: Galatians 6 What did Paul mean by declaring ‘I bear on my body the marks of Jesus’ (verse 17)? Some have related this statement to the ‘thorn in my flesh’ (2 Corinthians 12.7) about which I speculated last week. But are two statements referring to same affliction or ailment? Fr. Andrew Pearce 4