[Dialogue] 12/03/09, Spong: The Origins of the New Testament, Part VII: Paul's Early Epistles, I Thessalonians and Galatians

[elliestock at aol.com]

Print this Article 

 
Not a member?Subscribe now! 






Thursday December 03, 2009 

The Origins of the New Testament 
Part VII: Paul's Early Epistles, I Thessalonians and Galatians

In our Origins of the New Testament series, I now turn to the epistles of Paul since he was the first author to write any part of the New Testament. My plan is to divide the authentic writings of Paul into three broad categories. There is what I call "the early Paul," best seen through his first two epistles, I Thessalonians and Galatians; then there is what I call "the middle Paul," best illustrated through his most familiar works, I and II Corinthians and Romans; and, finally there is "the late Paul," best observed through the epistles known as Philemon and Philippians. Please note that these seven epistles constitute what scholars all but universally agree are the authentic letters of Paul. I will examine Paul in his various roles as pastor and as theologian. This Pauline segment of our larger task of examining the origins and makeup of the New Testament will then conclude with a brief analysis of the disputed epistles, the dispute being whether or not they are the authentic works of Paul. That list includes Colossians and II Thessalonians, which very few scholars still contend are Pauline. Then we move on to those about which there is almost no dispute at all, since these letters appear to have been written well after Paul's death. In this category we locate Ephesians, I and II Timothy and Titus.
Most Christians are unable to discern any differences in voice, tone or content in the entire body of work that we now call the epistles, whether written by Paul or not. That is probably because we never read them as a whole and thus never get a sense of Paul's specific thinking. We tend to hear them instead only in small snatches being read as lessons in church and with no context. My hope is that through these columns I will be able to provide my readers with sufficient knowledge of the distinctiveness of each epistle that the differences between them become obvious. It might even be exciting to enable people to become biblically literate, which would place them among the minority of Christians who are conversant with Paul's thinking.
The first epistle that Paul wrote, most scholars agree, was I Thessalonians. It is, however, placed sixth in the epistle section of the Bible because these letters were put into the canon of scripture according to their length. Romans, Paul's longest letter, is first, and Philemon, Paul's shortest letter, is last. If they had been listed chronologically I Thessalonians would be first, Galatians second, I and II Corinthians third and fourth, Romans fifth, Philemon sixth and Philippians seventh. So we begin our study of Paul's content with his first two works.
Thessalonica was the capital of Macedonia and Galatia was in central Asia Minor. The book of Acts tells us that Paul visited both of these towns on his early missionary journeys. He wrote these two epistles in the first few years of the sixth decade, probably between the years 51 and 53. At this time the followers of Jesus were still members of the synagogue. Paul came to each town as a traveling evangelist who also happened to be a rabbi. The venue for his words was thus the Sabbath service in the synagogue, though we need to recognize that in those two towns the synagogues were far removed in both miles and strictness from Judea.
Members of these synagogues were Greek-speaking Hellenized Jews, who lived as members of the Jewish Diaspora. The synagogue was thus not only a worship center for them, it was also their cultic and cultural center. Diaspora synagogues had by this time begun to attract Gentile worshipers. It was a time of great religious ferment in the Greek-speaking Roman Empire. The gods of Olympus had lost most of their appeal. The mystery cults seemed too bizarre and had not yet become established. This meant that the synagogue was more and more a place to which serious worshipers of many varieties turned. In the synagogue there was a firm conviction that God was one. The Torah of the Jews portrayed this one God as concerned about life and ethics, as well as about patterns of worship. As the Jews moved further away from their homeland many of them began to shed the more rigid aspects of their religion, and Judaism for them became more abstract, more spiritual, and less definably Jewish. Gentile worshipers were not drawn to the cultic aspects of Judaism, like kosher dietary rules, circumcision and Sabbath day observance, so these changes made it even more attractive to them.
Paul, as a Greek-thinking Hellenized Jew, was thus frequently more appealing to these modernizing Jews and the Gentile visitors than he was to the stricter Jewish members of the audience, who viewed the synagogue as their last attachment to their ancestry. In Thessalonica Paul had clearly emphasized in his preaching the messianic claim for Jesus. That role had many connotations for the Jews, but among the most compelling was that the messiah, when he came, would establish God's eternal kingdom and inaugurate God's earthly rule. In the service of this idea the early disciples of Jesus had been consumed with the task of connecting the life of Jesus to the messianic promises found in their scriptures. They thus searched their sacred writings for hints and clues to prove that Jesus was the expected messiah. Sometimes they stretched these texts beyond the breaking point. At the heart of the Jesus message was the claim that death had been conquered and that his followers would be transported into eternal life very soon. The Gentile visitors to the synagogue had bought this message and had formed themselves into a separate community of believers within the synagogue. They still attended Sabbath day services, but they also gathered on the first day of the week for the Christian liturgy they called "the breaking of the bread," at which time they prayed "thy kingdom come."
The obvious desire by Gentiles to be in the synagogue, but not of the synagogue, was more than some traditional Orthodox Jews could tolerate, so Paul and his teaching became a source of divisiveness in the various synagogues of the empire. The Orthodox Jewish believers began to attack Paul's credentials and his reputation. The Gentile worshipers had turned from idols to the one God of the Jews, but Paul had located this God in the life of Jesus and so deeply convinced them of this that they had begun to wait for Jesus' promised return from heaven. Clearly this was the message they had heard from Paul.
As time passed, however, the Kingdom did not arrive and they began to waver. When Thessalonian family members began to die, their despair increased. Something was clearly wrong if they died before the kingdom arrived. The bulk of Paul's message in his first epistle was designed to assure these troubled worshippers that the dead would rejoin the living when that second coming arrived. No one knows, he assured them, either the time or the season when that second coming will occur. Paul, the pastor, thus urged them to be vigilant, to keep awake, to be sober and to put on "the armor of God," an image that he would expand in later works.
In Galatia, the pastoral issue was a little different. The content of Paul's message in this second epistle was that in Christ alone their salvation was assured. This had caused those who responded to that message to move dramatically away from the law of the Jews. Keeping the cultic rules of Judaism lost its urgency in Paul's proclamation of the infinite love of God that he believed had been revealed in the life of Jesus. This seemed to Orthodox Jews to be nothing less than a prescription for moral anarchy and the obliteration of the Torah itself. So they struck back at Paul and were supported by the heavy guns of the more traditional Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, including Peter and James, the Lord's brother. This tension erupted into the first major division in Christian history. Was the Christ figure merely a new chapter in Judaism? Was he another prophet in a long line of Jewish prophets waiting to be incorporated into the ongoing Jewish story? Did believers in Jesus have to come through the rituals and rites of Judaism in order to be Christians? This was the position that Peter and James took and defended.
For Paul that stance was a violation of everything his Christian experience had taught him. Paul had found in Jesus a love sufficient to embrace him just as he was. Paul had tried the other way. By his own confession he had sought to obey every commandment of the law in order to win salvation. That had not proved to be a path that led him toward wholeness. Religious observance never is. It was and is just another form of human slavery, another attempt to win divine favor, to manipulate the deity with good behavior. At best that approach produced religious self-centeredness, not the glorious liberty of the children of God. For Paul the battle he was fighting in this epistle was for the heart of what he believed was the Christ experience. In defense of his understanding of Christ he mounted a strong counterattack, dismissing Peter's behavior as unworthy of the gospel and expressing a strong dislike for James, the Lord's brother. He berated those in the congregation in Galatia who had so quickly abandoned his gospel for this new religious bondage. Galatians reveals Paul not only at his most passionate, but also at his angriest and his most human. Defending his claim to be an apostle, Paul tells us more in this epistle than anywhere else about his conversion experience, and the meaning he found in Jesus that had been the source of his conversion. When the smoke of battle cleared, Paul stood victorious and the book of Acts would later relate the story of Peter's conversion (see Acts 10).
It is also in Galatians that Paul first articulates the unity that he finds in Christ, who obliterates the human security boundaries between Jews and Gentiles, males and females, bond and free. All are one in Christ, he asserts. Paul, as we noted earlier in this series, felt himself loved beyond anything he had imagined possible and he refused to allow that single message to be compromised. He won this battle, but it would be one that Christians would fight again and again throughout history. Perhaps it was that this message of unqualified love was simply too good to be true. Imagine a God who knows the secrets of our hearts, but who loves us anyway. That is, however, the meaning of the Christ story for Paul and, as such, it would represent a major step into what it means to be human. 

– John Shelby Spong
 



Question and Answer 
With John Shelby Spong


Donna Fettig from Omaha, Nebraska, writes: 
Do you sometimes relate your evaluation of the Bible as a living, progressing document to the Constitution of the United States?
Donna Fettig from Omaha, Nebraska, writes: 
Do you sometimes relate your evaluation of the Bible as a living, progressing document to the Constitution of the United States?



Dear Donna, 
Fundamentalists come in many forms. There are in fact biblical fundamentalists and constitutional fundamentalists. When I hear someone say that potential judges for the Supreme Court are only to be the interpreters of the Constitution rather than "legislating from the bench," it sounds to me very much like a fundamentalist Christian saying that every word of the Bible is the inerrant word of God and therefore must be followed literally. 
Both the Constitution and the Bible were written by human beings. None of the authors of either work were all-wise, all-knowing or able to see beyond the limits of their own time and place in history. Did the original Constitution guarantee equal rights of all people? Of course not! It defined black people, for example, as three-fifths of a human being for counting the population to determine the number of seats awarded to each state in the House of Representatives. It had to be amended in 1920 to allow women to vote in presidential elections. 
Judges have reversed themselves in such cases as Dred Scott and in effect reinterpreted the Constitution in the process. I support intellectually and emotionally the decisions made by the Supreme Court in both Brown versus the Board of Education in 1954 and in Roe versus Wade in 1973. Yet both decisions were greeted with great animosity and with cries that the justices were making law, not interpreting it. I believe they were simply interpreting it, but in a far more enlightened direction than even its writers could ever have fully understood. 
The same thing is true of the Bible. Christians in the 2000-plus year history of the church have time after time set aside the words of a literally understood Bible to overcome the slavery that the Bible was quoted as supporting and to set aside the biblical definition of a woman that suggested that women are the property of men. We are as a society at this very moment setting aside the ignorance and fear found in the Bible about homosexual people. 
I treasure both the Bible and the Constitution, but both will always be subject to interpretation in the light of new learning, new realities an new levels of consciousness. 
Thank you for your question. 

– John Shelby Spong






Send your questions to support at johnshelbyspong.com 






 
Print this Article 

 
Not a member? Subscribe now! 












 

Thanks for joining our mailing list, elliestock at aol.com, for A New Christianity For A New World on 11/09/2008 
REMOVE me from this list | Add me to this list | Manage my e-mail settings | Contact Customer Service 
Copyright 2009 Waterfront Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
4 Marshall Street, North Adams, MA 01247
Subject to our terms of service and privacy policy 





 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20091203/2ff44072/attachment-0001.html>