We left off wondering what the result of Paul’s continued ministry would be. After receiving a call from God, a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” and three years of training in Arabia and Damascus, Paul went and spent time with the key leaders of the early church (Peter and James). After receiving their blessing, Paul was sent out by the church with Barnabas to be about the work of spreading this gospel he received from Jesus. So, what could go wrong? It must have been smooth sailing, right?
Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
Apparently, their world has some similarities to ours; not surprisingly, there was still a significant amount of opposition to the work Jesus was asking Paul (along with Barnabas and others) to do. Again, Paul emphasizes that letting their loud voices win the day would be a loss for the gospel; so instead of being defeated or giving in, they persevered in their insistence that the good news of what God is doing in the world through Jesus invites all people to the table.
To be sure this was, in fact, how the apostles felt about the ministry of Jesus, Paul and Barnabas — fourteen years later — brought Titus along with them to Jerusalem as a sort of “test case.” They stood him in front of the church, told his story, and asked if he needed to be circumcised (which, means far more than just circumcision itself; the sign of the covenant means you carry the entirety of the Law). The church said no.
As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.
Paul continues to say the leaders of the church didn’t even want to make adjustments to his message. They agreed the gospel he was sharing is in fact the announcement of God’s work and kingdom on earth. They reaffirmed and commissioned Paul to do the work of taking this gospel to the Gentiles in the same way Peter led the charge in taking it to the world of the Jews.
Paul says Peter, James, and John gave him the right hand of fellowship, which is another way of saying they accepted him and his message as a part of their covenantal community; he was one of them. This is important above all else because Peter, James, and John are called “pillars” of the church. This is a clear nod to the Jewish midrash which spoke of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the pillars of the Jewish people. They were the leaders on which the family of God is built on. Paul indicated in the preceding paragraph that their right hand of fellowship was paramount to him, because if he did not receive it, he would have “run his race in vain.” If Paul did not have the blessing of the “Pillars,” he would have stopped his ministry right there.
This triumvirate was functioning as the head of the early church; these three men were the closest to Jesus in his ministry. They walked closer to Jesus than any others, were invited to places nobody else went (e.g., the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus praying in the garden, etc.), and were privy to rabbinical explanations that they were ultimately responsible to teach to the other disciples. In a Jewish world, they were set to lead the charge. Peter, of course, was head over the entire movement as Jesus’s right-hand man. James, as we know from church history and references in the book of Acts, was the leader of the church in Jerusalem (the Judeans from the south), while John would ultimately become the “Pastor to Asia” and be stationed in Asia to minister to the church there.
I find it fascinating to study how the early church functioned in the midst of disagreement. I believe the New Testament gives us ample evidence to suggest there was even a slight disagreement among the “Pillars.” James, as the leader of the church of Jerusalem, appears to have a belief that all people should be carrying the Law. It was at the Jerusalem Council where James leads the charge in figuring out which laws can be required of the Gentiles. And, of course, we are all familiar with the book of James and his pushback against where this gospel openness could lead. While I see absolutely no contradictions in their teachings, I can certainly feel the presence of James and his desire to make sure the church stays the course throughout the New Testament. It will be “men from James” who are sent to check in on the church. And it will be “false brothers” from Judea (the church in the south) who find it impossible to accept this gospel Paul is preaching.
** NOTE: Some will find it hard to accept that James “the brother of Jesus,” who writes the letter of James, is the same character who is a member of the three disciples who followed Jesus. While many assume the disciples James and John of “the three” are brothers, the sons of Zebedee, this is highly unlikely. It is far more likely that Jesus called Peter, James son of Alphaeus (who would be Jesus’s cousin; his “brother” in the original culture), and John son of Zebedee to be a part of the three. Rabbinically, you would expect nothing else in the leadership of the church other than the three disciples who walked closest to Jesus. The Peter, James, and John who followed Jesus have to be the Peter, James, and John who lead the church. While this is debated rigorously, I believe it is the only position that holds to the inspiration of the Text and an honest rendering of church history.
I find this study fascinating in that it illuminates the very human struggle in the midst of this new movement, the hard process of binding and loosing, and the commitment to value the voice and authority of the community as a voice God uses to guide and direct the steps of the individual. Whether it is James who is having to come to grips with the voice of the Jerusalem Council and trying to lead an entire church of Judeans who disagree with the stance, or Paul who would consider his entire ministry a vain, empty race unless he receives the right hand of fellowship, their commitment to each other should stand as an example to all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment