From a modern "Christian" perspective, we tend to assume that Paul encouraged a faith apart from Judaism. Proof texts for this assumption would be as follows:
"But now a righteousness from God apart from law has been made known" Rom 3:21
"There is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all." Rom 10:12
Let's look carefully to be sure our interpretation matches the Gospel record. At the end of Paul's third missionary journey around 57A.D, (some 37 years after the resurrection) we find Paul on his way back to Jerusalem. He has established congregations all over Asia Minor. Many of his letters are already in circulation (1&2 Corinthians, 1&2 Thessalonians, Galatians). Luke tells us in Acts 20:6,
"But we sailed to Phillipi after the Feast of Unleavened Bread" and "Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus...(Paul) was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost (Acts 20:16).
Why does Paul care about the Feast of Unleavened Bread or Pentecost? Why is he in a hurry? Didn't he condemn the Galatians for celebrating special "seasons, days, and years"? (Gal 4:10). Didn't Paul say:
"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a New Moon celebration or Sabbath day. There are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality however, is found in Christ." Colossians 2:16
Why do Paul's plans reflect a Jewish perspective of time even at this late date? Why wait until after the Feast? What difference did it make whether Paul reached Jerusalem by Pentecost?
These are valid questions because if we choose a Jewish point of view or bias, it changes our understanding of the Paul's teachings. Take the following example:
For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 1 Cor 9:10-11
From the context here and in Acts 20, we know that Paul is collecting money to take to Jerusalem. He is in a hurry to arrive before Pentecost (the Feast of the Harvest). The question is "Why?".
Adding a Jewish bias, the answer is obvious. Paul is collecting an annual financial Feast of Harvest "offering". He is acting in accordance with the spirit of God's feast day called "Pentecost" or the Feast of Harvest. How do we know this? With this "bias" in mind, read 2 Cor 9:5-15 and notice the imagry Paul uses to describe this gift and the expected blessing it will produce in the Corinthian Church.
Another example of how a Jewish bias enlightens our understanding is a reexamination of Acts 20:7. This verse, at least among my own bretheren, is commonly assumed to be the first and best example of Sunday morning worship and a weekly communion pattern among the believers.
First, a Jewish bias suggests that this "first day of the week", refers not to Sunday morning but Saturday night after the Sabbath at sunset. It is more difficult to suggest that Paul spoke all Sunday through Sunday night until daylight Monday morning. It is perfectly reasonable to see the assembly gathering after the Sabbath, breaking bread (traditional among Jews even today), and then speaking until midnight "because he intended to leave the next day" (Acts 20:7). A "Sunday morning assumption" comes from post-Biblical bias and is foreign to any previous Biblical example.
Second, the "breaking of bread" here, is not a conclusive indication of the Lord's Passover. Jews were "breaking bread" at the beginning and end of the Sabbath years before Jesus arrived on the scene. In Acts 2:42 "breaking bread" seems more an indication of fellowship (a very Jewish idea) and in Acts 27:35, "breaking bread" refers to a bunch of half starved sailors eating a meal. The term "breaking bread" is at best inconclusive for the sake of agrument.
Third, In 1 Corinthians 11:20 it really does appear that the Corinthians were celebrating the Lord's supper at every meeting. This practice is used as an authoritative example for the Church today. 1 Corinthians is written toward the end of Paul's two-year stay in Ephesus, less than a year before Paul is at Phillipi in Acts 20:6. Paul is not at all pleased with the Corinthian practices surrounding these "feasts". Their attitudes were worldly and they were misguided in their approach. In light of this clear context, it is absurd to assume the Corinthian worship practices be authoritative for all the Churches. The fact is,there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that they were confused about many things.
Paul addresses the Corinthian "attitudes" but says nothing for or against their "Lord's Supper" format. However, in 1 Cor 5:7-8, Paul's imagery remains in terms of the "Passover Lamb" and keeping the "Feast" of Unleavened Bread and refers to sin as "yeast" demonstrating that his Passover symbolism is very much alive and well.
Just prior to Acts 20:6 Paul appears to stay with the Corinthians for 3 months (Acts 20:3). Based upon Acts 20:6 & 1 Cor 5:7, it is completely possible that he deliberately stays with Macedonian churches through the Feast of Unleavened Bread in order to teach them a more excellent way. Paul is in agreement with the Gospel portrayal of Jesus as the Passover Lamb. Our original example from the Gospels is to celebrate the Lord's Super as Passover fulfilled. This Jewish point of view ties the OT and NT together in a beautiful way.
From a Jewish point of view, a chronology of Acts 20-21 seems to suggest that Paul had a regular habit of traveling from Sabbath to Sabbath as much as possible. If Paul kept the Sabbath, did he preach against it?
Paul's actions when he arrives in Jerusalem strongly suggest that a Jewish assumption is in line with the Gospel narritive, the original mindset of the original Church leadership and Paul himself (Acts 21:24).
When Paul reaches Jerusalem, we find that the church of Jerusalem was composed of
"many thousands of Jews... all of them zealous for the law." (Acts 21:2)
Not everyone had the right perspective on the law and its relationship to faith (Acts 15:5) and even some who knew better made mistakes (Gal 2:11) but there is no indication that the law itself has been scrapped by the apostles or elders in Jerusalem. In fact, in Acts 21:1-26, we read that Paul agrees to take a Nazarite vow for the express purpose of disavowing certain false testimony about his teachings.
"Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law" Acts 21:24. This list of false rumors in Acts 21:21 is as follows:
1. Paul taught the Jews living among the gentiles to turn from Moses (the Mosaic Law)
2. Paul taught the Jews living among the gentiles not to circumcise their children.
3. Paul taught the Jews living among the gentiles to turn from Jewish customs (the Oral traditions).
It is ironic that this false testimony is uncomfortably similar to our modern doctrinal understanding of Paul's Gospel message. The record of Acts clearly demonstrates that, for the Jewish "Christian," the Gospel message of faith in Yashua in no way "abolished" the believer's zeal to uphold the law. Is it possible to be obedient to the Old Testament Law of the Jews and be faithful to the teachings of Yashua? Apparently the earliest church considered this entirely possible, reasonable and even preferable.
Conclusion
If we seek a true restoration of the early church, we cannot ignore the theological conclusions of a Jewish perspective on events. The Jerusalem congregation believed in Jesus as Messiah and was zealous for the law. Paul took a vow and it was recorded in scripture to assure us he was not teaching the very things we often "read back into" his writings. We commonly understand that the old law was abolished or done away with or nailed to the cross.
Stop a minute and consider your opposition. Was the apostle Peter uninformed almost 40 years after the death of his Lord or is it we who have overreacted in some way? Was Paul hypocritical by taking a vow after he had, according to the traditional view, "taught the entire Gentile world freedom in Christ and the end of the law"? Or is it we, who are reading into the text our own traditions, thus nullifying part of the truth of the original Gospel? Perhaps it is time to retrace our steps.
|
