Paul and Theology
Haryadi S. Gunawi

Introduction

Paul's letters are very influential to Christians' day to day life. Paul himself has been known as one of the greatest example since the first century Christianity. His letters are influential mainly because of two reasons. First, among many other great Christian canons, Paul's letters were the major canons selected by the councils responsible in canonization of the New Testament in early century. Surely, many people believe that the process of canonization was both human and divine and by implication God's message is depicted in Paul's life and his letters. Second, Paul's letters are significantly dominant as they cover 14 out of 27 books in the New Testament. Hence, it is not peculiar that the majority of Christian teachings can be found in Pauline epistles.

As Paul's letters are highly regarded, the interpretation Christian community made on Paul's life as a model for its aspiration is very important. What do we usually interpret from Paul's letters? Two commonly perceived stories are simply Paul evangelizes and Paul has opponents. First and foremost, we believe Paul in his missions initiated the spread of Christianity. The common belief of Paul as the greatest model for evangelizing to the Gentiles has been shaped throughout centuries. With this real life example and Jesus' command to disciple the world, Paul's story has been our truly inspiration in evangelizing the nations.

Second, from Paul's evangelization journey we also learn that whenever we testify we will face obstacles and prosecution just like Paul did. Major themes of Paul's letters show how Paul must face the philosophers who are taunting many kinds of Greco-Roman philosophies and confusing the faith of the church congregation. For example in 2 Corinthians 11 where the Corinthians is easily deceived, Paul calls what his missionary opponents bring as “another Jesus, a different spirit, a different gospel.” These missionaries are painting themselves as true apostles over against Paul, boasting of their abilities and accomplishments. Also, we have read many times how Paul is being chased to be executed by the Roman authorities.

Those are the two common lessons we keep on top of our head. It could be said that those two lessons reflect how Paul deals with individuals or groups outside the church such as the false missionaries, the unbelievers, and the Roman autocracy. Unfortunately, we rarely discuss “the third lesson.” That is, how Paul defends his theology against the church itself. Hardly ever we speak of the lengthy arguments Paul made against these people from the inside of the Christian community such as the Jerusalem council and his fellow Jews. In nowadays, we often think Paul's opponent is from the outside most of the time. We assume that Paul rarely has resistance from inside when he propounds his theology. This third lesson might be the missing piece of the lessons we should learn from Paul. The body of this article recounts some of the events where Paul deals with the church. At the end, we discuss briefly the implication of this third lesson to our life.

Jewish Theology

Through short discussions on some sections from the book of Romans and Galatians, we will notice how Paul is consistently arguing and confronting his fellow Christian Jews. Paul has to go a hundred mile in rejecting the traditional conservative Jewish who keeps the work of the Law (such as circumcision and maintaining dietary code) as the way to salvation. Paul must fight against this theology and his fellow Jews in showing that this theology is no longer relevant as Christ has died for all and hence faith is the ultimate way to salvation instead of the work of the Law 1) 2) 3).

Galatians

Galatians 2 depicts a story where Paul faces issues with his fellow Jews. In Galatians 2, Jerusalem conference has acknowledged Gentiles as full-fledged members of the community of believers without being circumcised or the need to follow dietary code. Because of this outcome from Jerusalem, Peter who is a Jew shares meals with Gentiles no matter what food they are serving. However, as the men from James (another Jewish group) find Peter not following his dietary code, the group from James finds fault in Peter. The question now is, if Jerusalem council already allows believers not to be circumcised and not to follow dietary code, why then the group from James finds fault in Peter when Peter does not follow his dietary code?

What significantly has happened is that the conference in Jerusalem addresses only what is required of Gentile converts, not what is appropriate for Jews. The men from James, on the other hand, apparently considered Jewish scruples unchanged by the Jerusalem decision about Gentiles. In other words, it is okay for Gentiles Christians not to follow dietary code, but it is not okay for Peter not to do that. According to group from James, Peter as a Jewish Christian must still follow what the Law says to attain right standing in front of God. Peter, along with other Jews, is evidently shamed and then redraws from Gentiles and eats only allowed foods.

Paul on the other hand is totally against to what the group from James believes. To Paul, Peter is allowed to eat what the Gentiles eat. Even Paul is mad to Peter by saying that Peter is making distinction again between Jews and Gentiles. If Peter wants to start this distinction now, seeing himself as Jews and the others as Gentiles, Peter is really telling them that to continue this fellowship the Gentiles have to eat like Peter does. And again, Paul is totally against that.

What Paul sees at stake here is a fundamental principal of what he thinks has been misconstrued from the Jerusalem conference. For Paul, the point is the same. At the heart of Paul's gospel is the belief that in Christ “there is no longer Jew or Greek.” To give an inch here is to give a mile; to make this dinner fellowship an issue is to make the whole distinction between Jews and Gentiles again.

Romans

In Romans, Paul utilizes the rhetorical device of diatribe (having imaginary opponents) to reflect how Paul expounds his gospel with the help of imaginary opponents who dispute his main points. This series of questions and assertions provides signal markers to the central themes of Paul's articulation of his gospel, as well as the conservative theology that he is challenging.

The theme of status between Jews and non-Jews arises several times in this book; Eight questions Paul imagines his debater raising in Romans chapters 3 and 4 have to do with Jewish matters as they raise questions explicitly about Jews and the validity of the Law. Moreover, they use the designation of Jews as “the circumcised” over against the “uncircumcised” Gentiles in distinguishing the physical characteristics of Jews and Gentiles. In Romans 2:9-10, Paul argues that punishment and reward will be equally distributed among Jews and Gentiles (“There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek”) suggesting that Jewish thinking that by following the Jewish Law they are more righteous in front of God than the Gentiles.

Similarly, in Romans 3:9, Paul asserts that Jews and Gentiles are on equal footing as sinners (“What then? Are we [Jews] any better off? No, not at all; for we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin.”), implying that Paul keeps reminding the Jews and Gentiles that they have the same status, neither is more righteous nor more evil.

Moreover, in Romans 3:29-30, Paul claims that Gentiles have equal access to God's grace, arguing on monotheistic grounds: “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.”

Given that the issues raised by Paul's imaginary opponents revolve around the Law, Jews and Gentiles, and given that these topics persist throughout the book, it seems apparent that the intensity of this theology conflict between Paul and his fellow Jews is high. Paul persistently needs to clarify the implications of his gospel for the relationship between Jews and Gentiles and what it means for the Law again and again.

Reflection

When we read Paul's letters in the twentieth century, we obliviously always assume that the Christian Jews were totally wrong headed since day one. Were Jews really wrong for not understanding, yet, the message of Christ? Those Christian Jews in Paul's day did what they were supposed to do as God's elected people. They exhibit Covenantal Nominism in which keeping the Law, including circumcision and dietary code, is a response to God's grace offered in his covenant with Israel. That is the story of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, what they had not understood was faith as the essence of attaining right standing in front of God and keeping the Law did not give them superior status over the Gentiles.

Paul was the one who challenged the old theology. Paul as an ordinary man inferred from seeing the risen Christ that he had been given a mission to the Gentiles. Paul's description of his encounter with the risen Jesus is cast in words used in Isaiah 49 and words by the prophet Jeremiah which say that in the age to come Gentiles would be included under the umbrella of God's rule in God's new age. Saul of Tarsus was among those who saw a role for Gentiles in God's new age.

From there, Paul as a man (and of course driven by the Holy Spirit) developed a theology for the Gentiles and other believers He understood that Gentiles were not bound by Jewish custom in order to show their faith in Christ Jesus. For Paul to become convinced that Jesus had been raised from the dead and exalted was to become convinced that the new age had dawned, bringing with it an open door to the inclusion of the Gentiles under God's reign, as the prophets had foretold.

In conclusion, we have seen how Paul had to consistently challenge the Jewish theology as he saw such theology was no longer relevant for the inclusion of the Gentiles in God's new era. And for us, hopefully with Paul's third lesson, we are encouraged to be more critical to any theology that we either receive or inherit, especially when the theology is pre-mixed with tradition and present norms.

Haryadi S. Gunawi is currently a Ph.D. student in Computer Sciences at University of Wisconsin, Madison. He is also taking a Ph.D. minor in Religious Study.