Book Extract: The Pauline Watermark: Paul's Catastrophic Failure.
- From: "Tim" <timp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:11:42 +0200
The book "The Pauline Watermark: Paul's Catastrophic Failure", by Tom
Scaugh, was recently published in the USA under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 license. This means that copying
and distribution is permitted for non-commercial purposes -- as is the case
here. The book is available direct from the publisher through
http://books.lulu.com/content/709526 at US$19.95. It is expected that
significant discounts will be available through amazon.com and Barnes &
Noble from May 2007. The book's description follows, and the first of
fourteen chapters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DESCRIPTION
watermark . n.
a faint design made in some paper during
manufacture that is visible when held against
the light and typically identifies the maker
- Oxford English
Dictionary
This book proposes to reveal something which, to many, might at first seem
unthinkable -- yet, on looking back, would surely seem to be the only,
inescapable conclusion.
The basic supposition is that St. Paul suffered catastrophic moral failure.
This runs like a watermark through his writings. With this in mind, this
book synthesizes some 400 references to ancient sources, as well as drawing
on the intuitions of well established commentators and scholars -- among
them Matthew Henry and William Barclay. Rather than adopting the dualism of
Saul under law vs. Paul under grace, it proposes that there once was a third
Paul -- saved, yet "zealous for the law", as so many early Christians were.
The law, however, was "powerless to do" what it should have done. It is
suggested that it was Paul's failure which ultimately resulted in a theology
which became the joy and strength of the Gentile Church. This is further
applied pastorally to our (post) modern world.
Tom Scaugh is engaged in postgraduate studies at one of the "Big Three"
theological seminaries in the USA. He heads a large inner city church.
"This is very interesting!
Why could it not be so?"
- Professor of NT Theology.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. PAUL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN. CIRCA 60 A.D.
It is a familiar scene. Paul is on his last visit to the temple in
Jerusalem. Paul -- the man chiefly responsible for having "turned the world
upside down".[i]
All over Asia, Paul has taught that Jesus Christ is the decisive factor in a
believer's relationship with God -- rather than the Law. All over Asia,
Paul has taught that God is now rescuing both Gentiles and Jews from this
present evil age.[ii] Unavoidably, therefore, he has introduced,
everywhere, a separation of Christianity from mainstream Judaism.[iii]
Paul's calling was to take the gospel "to the Jew first, and also to the
Greek".[iv] Therefore, in keeping with this, on his missionary travels he
routinely entered the local synagogues first. Many thousands of Jews
received and welcomed his message[v]-- yet there was often determined
opposition. Paul and his companions were vigorously, sometimes violently,
rejected across Asia.[vi]
Paul himself writes that he found himself in danger in the city, in danger
in the country. Frequently he was imprisoned, frequently flogged. Five
times he received, from the Jews, the forty lashes less one. Three times he
was beaten with rods. Once he was stoned and left for dead.[vii] His
enemies claimed that he was "a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the
Jews all over the world."[viii]
Now, finally, after an absence of several years -- despised, notorious among
Jews across Asia -- Paul returned on his last visit to Jerusalem.
We read in the Scriptures that he was warmly received by the "the brethren",[ix]
and shared with them "the things that God had done among the Gentiles" --
the news of which was greeted with praise to God.[x]
THE CAPTURE OF PAUL
The book of Acts describes some of the events of the following days. There
is no need to detail them here.
The critical hinge occurs about seven days into Paul's visit to the city.
It seems like any other day in the temple -- when suddenly, some Jews from
Asia recognize Paul in the temple courts.[xi]
Holy One of Israel! It is Paul! In the temple!
They shout: "Men of Israel, help! Help!"[xii]
The whole city is electrified. Paul! In the temple!
Paul is seized and dragged across the temple court, and the great wooden
doors grind to a close behind him. The Roman commander, with officers and
soldiers, runs down to the crowd. Paul is beaten, pummeled by the crowd.
The officers arrest him and bind him with two chains, then remove him to the
Roman army barracks nearby.[xiii]
After a brief exchange with the Roman commander, Paul is permitted to
address the Jews -- we shall pass over this tumultuous episode for now --
then he is held overnight at the Roman army barracks.[xiv]
The next morning, on the orders of the Roman commander, the chief priests
and the Sanhedrin gather together -- the great assembly of the Jews which
may well, at that time, have wielded power over life and death.[xv] The
commander himself escorts Paul to the assembly, and delivers him to stand
before them.
Paul looks openly into the faces of the Sanhedrin, and he says: "Brethren,
I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day."[xvi]
TACTICAL APPROACH
Paul knew, of course, that he was to stand trial before the Sanhedrin. He
knew that he would be called upon to testify in his defense. There would
seem no doubt that he devoted careful thought and fervent prayer to what he
was to say.
What might have run through his mind?
Fortunately, we have some clues from the situation itself -- most
importantly, the advice which Paul received from the local Church, and the
defense which he actually embarked upon before the Sanhedrin.
We know that Paul was in no mind for confrontation with the Jews. On his
arrival in Jerusalem, he had immediately acceded to the suggestion of James
and the elders that he undergo purification rites at the temple, to prove
his submission to the Law.[xvii]
Jerusalem was now foreign territory to Paul[xviii] -- dangerous territory.
Unlike his mission field in Asia, this city was under the rigorous control
of the Sanhedrin. This was the heart of the beast, and he needed to submit
to the advice of the local brethren.
It might well have crossed his mind to turn this into an opportunity for
witness. Yet the Sanhedrin would surely have been hostile from the start.
Besides, Paul had the interests of the local Church on his shoulders. He
dared not place the Jerusalem Christians in jeopardy by engaging in
aggressive witness, and infuriating a body at whose mercy they lay.
Not only this, but it is clear that Paul considered that the Sanhedrin was
beyond redemption. In his own words, their eyes did not see, their ears
did not hear.[xix] "Their minds were blinded."[xx] They were unlikely to
listen under any circumstances. Paul surely recognized that, in wisdom,
another line of approach was required.
Surely, when all had been taken into account, his most sensible approach
would be based on claims of character -- of conduct.
Character and conduct were, in principle, something over which any and every
member of the Sanhedrin would be able to agree. If Paul were to declare
unwavering commitment to the Law, this should place him beyond controversy
at the start.
In fact, in a sense, this was the defense he had been preparing for in
advance, although he surely hoped that he would never need to use it.
On the advice of James and the elders, Paul had made a public display of
legalistic righteousness. He took pre-emptive action through purification
rites at the temple. This, said James and the elders, would ensure that
"all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you"
[xxi] -- namely, that Paul despised the Law of Moses.
Paul's best approach seemed confirmed. His defense should rest on his
commitment to the Law.
ABOVE REPROACH
Let us pause for a moment. What did Paul mean when he said that he had
lived before God in all good conscience?
The Jewish Torah -- the "five books of Moses" -- contained (and contains)
the moral Law, comprising codes of conduct which governed every aspect of
life -- both general principles and specific application. Its most
famous embodiment lay in the Ten Commandments.
Running parallel with this, the Torah comprised the ritual Law, which set
out the terms of Israel's covenant with God, including the detailed
prescriptions of the sacrificial system. The ritual Law, in the New
Testament, is considered to have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
In Paul's own words, the conscience is that part of a person which either
"accuses or excuses". Specifically, it convicts one of "the
requirements of the Law".[xxii] Since this is a law which he says even
the Gentiles may know "by nature",[xxiii] there would seem little doubt
that he is referring to the moral Law.
Therefore when Paul speaks of having lived in all good conscience, he means
in the first instance that he has obeyed the moral Law. He has claims to
good character and conduct.
However, we know that Paul further emphasized that, "for conscience sake",
one should not offend those for whom the ritual Law was still binding.[xxiv]
While it is clear that he considered himself to be free from the ritual
Law in principle[xxv] -- stating that Christ had "abolished in His flesh
the law of commandments and ordinances"[xxvi] -- yet he continued to
honor it, so as to "please all men in all things ... that they may be
saved."[xxvii]
Through the above, we receive a good sense of what Paul meant by his claim
to "all good conscience".
It is clear that he intended, in the first place, to convey his obedience
to the moral Law. His conscience, according to the famous commentator
Matthew Henry, "put a difference between good and evil".[xxviii]
At the same time, however, Paul sought not to offend the conscience of
others through disregard for the ritual Law. Presumably it was partly with
this in mind that he underwent ritual purification at the temple.
EVASIVE MANEUVER
Thus Paul looks across the assembled Sanhedrin, and he begins: "Brethren, I
have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day."
The reaction, however, is startling -- chilling! The High Priest is
outraged. Paul? A man who has lived in all good conscience?
"Strike him!" he shouts, "Strike him on the mouth!"[xxix]
Paul recognizes instantly, in the High Priest's reaction, the direction that
this hearing is taking. The Sanhedrin is primed to issues of conscience --
of behavior! This will not be about faith at all! His best defense has
become their first line of attack!
So this is where they are going! Whitewashed tombs![xxx] Legalists![xxxi]
All these years, Paul has resisted this wretched, calculating mindset of the
Pharisees. He is dead to that! Dead![xxxii] He has lived not by the
letter, but by the life-giving Holy Spirit![xxxiii]
They dare to think that they will accuse him of lapses of behavior -- he who
is washed, who is sanctified, who is justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus, and by the Spirit of his God![xxxiv] In Christ Jesus he has
redemption through His blood -- the forgiveness of sins, according to the
riches of His grace![xxxv]
Paul recognizes -- cleverly, deftly -- desperately -- that he needs to
"swing" the Sanhedrin. No, they dare not get at his character. They dare
not access his past sin!
There seems an obvious way to turn the Council aside.
Deep religious tensions simmer among the Pharisees and the Sadducees -- the
two major parties of the day. The Pharisees believe in the resurrection of
the dead, while the Sadducees strenuously reject this.[xxxvi] The situation
has been the talk of the nation -- a veritable tinderbox.
Paul cries out: "Brethren, I am a Pharisee! A son of a Pharisee! I am on
trial with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead!"[xxxvii]
There is an uproar.
It works! A ferocious dispute breaks out across the floor. Soon it turns
to violence. The Roman commander orders the troops to seize Paul and to
bring him back into the barracks.[xxxviii]
Too late, the Sanhedrin realizes Paul's ruse. They seek to summon him
again, to "determine his case more accurately", but they do not
succeed.[xxxix] The Romans transfer Paul, for his safety, from Jerusalem to
Caesarea.[xl]
THE SANHEDRIN'S PLAN
Let us pause once more -- this time to consider the options that lay before
the Sanhedrin as they contemplated the trial of Paul -- Paul, the Big
Fish.
The Romans had called a snap trial, and the members of the Sanhedrin had
little time to prepare.
Their core concern was that, all across Asia, Paul had been teaching the
Jews to turn aside from Moses. He had been advising them not to circumcise
their children, or to observe the customs of their fathers.[xli] Or so
they thought.
Of course, this was not true.[xlii] At least, it was a half-truth. Rather,
Paul had permitted the Jews to lay aside their customs, insofar as they were
now dead to the Law through the Body of Christ.[xliii]
Although Paul's teachings might naturally have led to the abandonment of the
ceremonial Law,[xliv] there was no reason to suppose that Paul had ever
advised this.
The Sanhedrin could by all means put Paul on trial for claims that he had
given Jesus Christ precedence over the Law. Yet close behind such an
accusation would lie his belief in the resurrection of Christ. By taking
this approach, they would surely find themselves a mere step away from
internal disputes over the resurrection of the dead.
The resurrection of the dead was the centerpiece of Paul's gospel, which in
turn was centered in his belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul
had said: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are
still in your sins[xlv] ... He was raised from the dead. He is at the right
hand of God, and intercedes for us."[xlvi]
Surely, the Sanhedrin was fully aware of Paul's belief in the resurrection.
The Christian gospel was a teaching most familiar to them by now.
It was just such issues which they needed to avoid. They were surely aware
that, if they should enter such territory, it could potentially tear the
Sanhedrin apart. The battle could be lost before it was engaged (as was in
fact later proved).
On the other hand, the Sanhedrin might have considered putting Paul on trial
for being a despiser of the Law of Moses.[xlvii] This is precisely what
gave the local Church such cause for concern on his arrival in Jerusalem.
Yet this, too, might not yield an open and shut case. For a week now, Paul
had been meticulously and publicly carrying out the requirements of the
Law. Besides, he had written proof of this, which he had lodged with the
temple authorities.[xlviii]
Surely, neither of these options looked too inviting to the Sanhedrin.
Either could fail.
Supposing, however, that a fault could be found with Paul which had neither
to do with his belief in the resurrection, nor with his claims to legalistic
righteousness?
UNCLEANNESS
For a Jew, there were essentially two reasons why one might be arrested and
accused of desecrating the holy temple. Both had to do with ritual
uncleanness, or impurity.
One such form of impurity was temporary -- assuming that one would undergo
purification rites.
The reasons for such impurity were diverse, and had to do with the ritual
Law. For instance, one might have touched a carcass, or an unclean animal.
A woman was impure after having given birth, and there were sexual
impurities of various kinds.[xlix]
In all such cases, one could be ritually cleansed -- if one would submit to
the ritual Law, of course.[l]
Frequently, there was a period of separation, whether short or long -- and
frequently an expiatory sacrifice was made at the temple.
There was, however, a second form of impurity that could not be cleansed.
There was no cleansing for a disease that would not heal.
While the Bible does not state the matter quite as directly and brutally as
this -- after all, healing is possible, since nothing is too hard for the
Lord[li] -- there is no doubt that this is dreadfully and tragically
implied. Some will forever be unclean.
Various diseases are listed in the Scriptures as rendering a person
unclean -- among them leprosy, bodily discharge,[lii] open sores, or
diseases "in the skin of the flesh".[liii] Some of these diseases would
ultimately heal, some would not.
It is important to note that, in most cases, such diseases were not viewed
as being self-inflicted. While the Scriptures sometimes attribute
disease to sin in the life of the diseased, this is by no means systematic.
Job is an example of a man who was diseased despite his being "blameless and
upright" in the sight of God.[liv]
Barring isolated exceptions,[lv] it would seem that only in one case do the
Scriptures routinely make a direct causal link between sickness and personal
behavior. This is in the case of fornication.
FORNICATION
Paul himself writes about the one sin which enters into the body itself:
"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his
body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body."[lvi]
This echoes an oft-repeated Old Testament theme. The temptress is a danger
to one's own body: "In the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a
two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death ..."[lvii]
The Scriptures warn the sexually permissive man: "A wound ... shall he get
.... a dart [shall] strike through his liver."[lviii]
Not all sins of fornication had fatal consequences, of course -- yet many
could leave a person unclean for life. Many such diseases will have left a
permanent mark "in the skin of the flesh".
We shall, for now, pass over the phrase "in ... the flesh". This will
become central to the argument of this book.
If such uncleanness were to be found on a person, they were ceremonially
unclean. There was no cleansing as long as the disease persisted.
Further, no one who was thus ceremonially unclean was permitted to enter
the temple courts. In fact, such a person was to be "cut off from Israel".[lix]
If he ever should enter the temple, he would defile it.[lx]
"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" asked Job. "Not one."[lxi]
One wonders whether Paul might have had such uncleanness in mind when he put
forward a radical new gospel: "There is nothing unclean of itself."[lxii]
The Christian was released from the unremitting burden of such
uncleanness.
[i] Acts 17:6 RSV.
[ii] Colossians 1:13 NIV.
[iii] Livingstone 2000:433.
[iv] Romans 1:16 AV.
[v] Acts 21:20.
[vi] 2 Timothy 3:11.
[vii] 2 Corinthians 11:23-25.
[viii] Acts 24:5 NIV.
[ix] Acts 21:17 RSV.
[x] Acts 21:20 RSV.
[xi] Acts 21:27.
[xii] Acts 21:28 RSV.
[xiii] Acts 21:32.
[xiv] Acts 22:24.
[xv] Encyclopædia Britannica 2007d.
[xvi] Acts 23:1 RSV.
[xvii] Acts 21:26.
[xviii] Acts 22:21.
[xix] Romans 11:8.
[xx] 2 Corinthians 3:14 AV.
[xxi] Acts 21:24 RSV.
[xxii] Romans 2:15 NIV.
[xxiii] Romans 2:14.
[xxiv] 1 Corinthians 10:28 AV.
[xxv] Colossians 2:20-21.
[xxvi] Ephesians 2:15 RSV.
[xxvii] 1 Corinthians 10:33 AV.
[xxviii] Henry 1961:1729.
[xxix] Acts 23:2 RSV.
[xxx] Matthew 23:27 RSV.
[xxxi] Romans 9:32.
[xxxii] Galatians 2:20.
[xxxiii] 2 Corinthians 3:6.
[xxxiv] 1 Corinthians 6:11 AV.
[xxxv] Ephesians 1:7 NIV.
[xxxvi] Acts 23:8.
[xxxvii] Acts 23:7.
[xxxviii] Acts 23:10.
[xxxix] Acts 23:14 RSV.
[xl] Acts 23:23.
[xli] Acts 21:21.
[xlii] Acts 21:24.
[xliii] Romans 7:4.
[xliv] Dummelow 1912:848.
[xlv] 1 Corinthians 15:17 RSV.
[xlvi] Romans 8:34 RSV.
[xlvii] Acts 21:21.
[xlviii] Acts 21:26.
[xlix] Rylaarsdam 2007.
[l] Numbers 19:20.
[li] Genesis 18:14.
[lii] Leviticus 15:2 RSV.
[liii] Leviticus 13:3 AV.
[liv] Job 1:1 RSV.
[lv] Proverbs 23:29-32.
[lvi] 1 Corinthians 6:18 NIV.
[lvii] Proverbs 5:4-5 RSV.
[lviii] Proverbs 6:33, 7:23 AV.
[lix] Numbers 19:13 RSV.
[lx] Numbers 19:20 RSV.
[lxi] Job 14:4 AV.
[lxii] Romans 14:4 AV.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Prison as warehousing is unchristian
- Next by Date: Re: What is Islam?
- Previous by thread: DN Responding to Christ's Invitation 3/21/2007
- Next by thread: help
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
