Home > Something Funny > Something Funny: Paul’s Conciliatory Ways With Jerusalem Powers

Something Funny: Paul’s Conciliatory Ways With Jerusalem Powers

I don’t think this is meant to be funny. Although, perhaps if Luke, the author of Luke and Acts (and probably not a physician, but maybe), anticipated that a good portion of his audience would have prior knowledge of Galatians and other letters of Paul, then maybe some intended irony exists. Indeed, I do strongly suspect that the author of Luke-Acts has a deep understanding of Post-Messianic theology; Which, if that is true, then much of Acts 15 is intended to create a hyperbolic disparity between what the reader understands and what is said by the church leaders.* I have just changed my mind. I am pretty well convinced that parts of this are meant to be humorous, including parts in Acts. Some are just me finding something funny in something that was never meant to be funny. Such is my life.

In Acts 15 there is an interesting problem in the church. It’s a long passage, so I’ll try to condense it:

Some men came from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabus into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabus were appointed… to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question… they came to Jerusalem…

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.”

Obviously, this is a major question. Most grown men don’t really want to get a chunk cut off their penis if they don’t have to. Peter addresses it tremendously well (with a little bit of his own ignorance thrown in… can you find it?).

“Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yolk that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that we are saved, just as they are.”

Peter speaks very powerfully about this in a way that theologically lines up almost perfectly with Jesus and Paul. He shows that it is not the Law that saves nor is it necessary for either salvation or the gift of the Holy Spirit. Essentially, completely without the Law, the gentiles were saved. The Messiah, by fulfilling the law, provided a way to God that transcended the Law. And its not as if the Gentiles were merely saved from hell or 2nd class followers of God, the evidence of the Holy Spirit revealed them to be full participants in the kingdom, proving the Law of Moses unnecessary.

So… the great solution proposed by James (the leader of the church in Jerusalem)? “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

You know what he just did? He paraphrased a few commands found in Leviticus 17 and 18 about how the aliens that were amongst the Jews were to live. It’s funny because Leviticus is one of the books of the Law. We just saw that the Gentiles don’t need the law to be full participants in the kingdom, so why are you saying that they have to follow the law as if they were aliens living amongst God’s chosen people? They have become God’s chosen people by the power of the Spirit as Peter pointed out, so James’ ideas about having them follow the law are quite absurd. And his reasoning for having these restrictions on the Gentile believers is equally absurd: “well, uh, even though God planned on the Gentiles being part of the kingdom for a long time and we’ve seen that they are God’s people even without being under the Law, they have to follow these rules that we find in the Law, because, um, the Law of Moses has been taught for a long time in multiple locations.” Good point James, good point.

Paul thought it was an excellent point too (in the same way I do). The things that he teaches in his letters related to Acts 15 make me laugh because he so casually dismisses those who think themselves to be authorities. Here are some funny things Paul says:

What does Paul think about the Judaizers who want Gentiles to get circumcized? As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves. (to which all the Eunuchs responded, “low blow Paul, low blow” *pun*) – Galatians 5:12 Of course that would make great sense. If cutting off a portion of the penis is so important in honoring God through holiness, then how much more righteous is one who doesn’t stop at the tip, but glorifies God with all his manhood.

What does he think about the leaders in Jerusalem? As for those that seemed to be important — whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance — those men added nothing to my message… James, Peter, and John, those reputed to be pillars… Galatians 2:6, 9a He doesn’t really think they are that important. He doesn’t make a direct statement about their importance, but he implicitly states that they have no special authority whatsoever. So, while these authorities make authoritative statements in the book of Acts that seem like they are supposed to be normative for all Gentile believers, Paul doesn’t really care what they think Gentiles should do. And he shows this.

What does Paul say about how the Gentiles should live? In Acts he is quiet and by his silence appears to consent to decisions made by the elders in Jerusalem, but when Paul speaks for himself he is much less conciliatory. Eat anything sold in the meat market, without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it. 1 Cor 10:25-26 Paul here says that it is okay to eat meat sold in the local markets which almost all have been sacrificed to idols before being sold. He says that it’s okay to eat the same food that James commanded Gentiles not eat. Paul does give 2 situations in which it would be inappropriate to not eat food sacrificed to idols: if the meal is eaten in the context of a religious ceremony in which one would be participating in the ceremony through consumption and if by eating the food another’s conscience will be compromised. But whether or not the food has been sacrificed to idols. In Romans Paul says, Accept him whose faith is weak… As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if ayone regards something as unclean, the for him it is unclean… All food is clean… We who are strong(those that realize nothing is sinful about any food) ought to bear with the failings of the weak (those that think certain food is unclean). Paul considers people to be weak who think like the leaders in Jerusalem! He basically calls James weak.

This whole thing is funny to me because it calls into question the authority of James or any of the other figureheads of the faith. While they send out a letter that Paul in Acts seems to consent to, Paul contradicts what they say in his writings and is explicit that he doesn’t think the words of these people need to be listened to. It feels like the Peter and James crew assumes that they are powerful people whose decisions others must follow, but other parts of Scripture make their power grab seem absurd. Know what happens to James and Peter in the book of Acts after they give this command to the Gentiles using the Law that has died in Jesus? They are basically done. James is mentioned 1 more time, and only because Paul came to see them. It is as if their final silly power grab resulted in their departure from the story. Acts makes a joke out of those who assume that they are in authority and exercise their supposed authority to micromanage behavior.

*I understand this statement needs explaining, but I feel that this statement needs a book (or a proper conversation) to adequately explain if you’re not familiar with basic concepts of a realized eschatology and the death of the Law through the embodiment of it in Jesus. It’s not super complicated, but I’m not a super good explainer-man-person.

  1. January 16, 2011 at 5:43 am

    The material is undeniablably nicely laid out. I sent a website link to my brother, he has a comparable blog page, he could use several of the information found here to tighten up his conclusions. Thanks.

  1. April 12, 2010 at 9:34 pm
  2. March 6, 2012 at 6:08 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: