6. - Galatians 2:8
". . . [the Jerusalem apostles] acknowledged that I had been entrusted with the gospel for gentiles as surely as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for Jews. 8For God ["he"] whose actions made Peter an apostle to the Jews, also made me an apostle to the gentiles." [NEB]
1. Silences in passage/challenge to a historical Jesus:
Jesus appointed apostles.
2. Relevancy within context:
I think Doherty makes a good point. The context however is that of Paul's defense of his gospel to the Gentiles. Paul's gospel put him in a difficult position with some Jewish Christians. He spends much of 2 Corinthians defending his ministry and right to be called an apostle. And in Galations he again is defending his view regarding the law and faith. In the verses just following the passage he relates the conflict he had with Peter about that subject. It may be that as Doherty suggests that Paul's opponents used his late conversion and his lack of personal connection to an earthly Jesus, against him in comparison to the pillars. While Paul obviously had learned something about Christ prior to his own conversion (since he had been violently persecuting them (Gal 1:12)), he stresses his personal connection to God, as opposed to men: 1:12 "12For I neither received it (his gospel to the Gentiles) from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. "
Paul appears to be stressing his direct call from God to assert his authority with the Galations to whom he is writing. He stresses that he did not confer with flesh and blood directly after his conversion, and how he didn't go to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before him, apparently for 3 years (1:16-18). He does say he spent 15 days with Peter in Jerusalem, but doesn't say why or what they talked about or did during that time. He states of those who were "of high reputation" that what they were makes no difference to him (2:6). He says he opposed Cephas (Peter) to his face for hypocritical behavior (2:11).
Paul is almost desperately trying to reconnect with the Galations by appealing to powerful imagery of the family and freedom. He calls the Galations his brothers 9 times (1:11, 3:15, 4:12, 4:28, 4:31, 5:11, 5:13, 6:1, 6:18) and how they together with Paul were adopted as sons of God (4:5) so that "we might receive the adoption as sons." He reminds them of how he labored over them to set them free (4:8-11), calling them "my children" (4:19), as though he is their mother in Christ "4:19 My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you--" He says that sons of the free woman (the true Jerusalem) were born of faith (4:23-26), further implying that he is their mother in the faith since his gospel is one faith and freedom from the law.
It may well be that Paul's emphasis on his direct revelation from God and on his close relationship with the Galations as both a brother and a mother was in response to this unexplained authority of the pillars and others. Why else does Paul clearly acknowledge their authority? Why did he visit Peter for 15 days and say nothing about their visit? Why did he privately lay out his gospel before the pillars "lest I had been running in vain", without saying why their position mattered to him? Could it now be because their authority came from having known the Christ on earth--something Paul could never claim?
Had Paul written "8For as Jesus appointed Peter to be an apostle to the Jews, so too God the Father through his son Jesus Christ appointed me an apostle to the gentiles", he may have drawn further attention to his inferior status in opponents eyes. It is curious that Paul writes "For he WHOSE ACTIONS made Peter an apostle as opposed to "For he who made Peter an apostle to the Jews." Since Paul doesn't include the words "whose actions" for his own appointment it may be that Paul was using language which very indirectly refers to Jesus' appointment for Peter without drawing much attention to it.
In Galations we see that Paul downplays the authority of the pillars--an authority he still subjects himself to--, and holds up his own calling by revelation as valid and from God. Downplaying a direct appointment by Jesus for Peter would have been consistent with Paul's actions elsewhere in the letter. Given the context, it would not be surprising if Paul had decided to phrase Peter's appointment similarly to that of his own, in order to bring his own authority up to the level of Peter's.
3. Related information in other early writings:
In 1 Cor 12:28 Paul lists those called by God within the church, with apostles named first. Also, he says in 2 Cor 12:12 that "signs, and wonders, and miracles" mark an apostle. He says that although some think he is not an apostle (9:2), he was sent by Jesus Christ and God (Gal 1:1). 1 Cor 15:7 says that after his death Jesus appeared to all the apostles. This would seem to imply more than the twelve since those were listed separately. In the gospel of Luke (10:1) Jesus sent out 70 to spread the word. In Eph 4:11 apostleship is called Christ's gift. What is never stated is how, other than for Paul, people were called by God or Christ to be apostles. What a strange silence! Was it through personal revelation through scriptures or some other means, like an earthly appointment by Jesus himself?
We just don't know if the questioning by others of Paul's authority to apostleship (1 Cor 9:2) was because of 1. his former position of persecutor of the Church, 2. his message to the Gentiles, 3. his having seen a vision of Jesus later than all the others, or 4. his having never known the earthly Jesus in contrast to the others. Re 1, he says in Gal 1:24 that those who knew of his history of persecution "glorified God because of me". Re 2, he says in Gal 2:9 that pillars gave him and Barnabas their blessing, though clearly others did not. Re 3, he never says why his vision of Jesus was last of all. Re 4, he never explains the importance of the twelve mentioned in 1 Cor 15, nor why the pillars--Peter, James, and John, were important to him. Despite his saying they added nothing to him, it is clear he valued them--having privately laid before them.."the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain".(for possibly the last 14 years). This too is a great silence in Paul's works. When Paul writes in 1 Cor 9:1 "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" is he defending his vision of Jesus as being as important as those who actually had seen him personally, or is he comparing his vision to visions they had? Paul never says. It is interesting though that just 4 verses later Paul refers to the "brothers of the Lord" along with apostles and Cephas--early figures of importance. Being aware of other interpretations, let it suffice that if brothers of the Lord is referring to siblings of Jesus, as one would normally assume in the absence of contrary information, their mention would be a clear example of people who had seen and known an earthly Jesus, which would lower Paul's status in some people's minds.
There are some interesting correlations between some things in 1 Cor 9 and the gospel record of Jesus appointment of apostles.
In the gospel of Luke when Jesus sent apostles out to preach, we find the following (10:1-11)"1Now after this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them in pairs ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come. 2And He was saying to them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. 3"Go; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 4"Carry no money belt, no bag, no shoes; and greet no one on the way. 5"Whatever house you enter, first say, "Peace be to this house." 6"If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you. 7"Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house. 8"Whatever city you enter and they receive you, at what is set before you; 9and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, "The kingdom of God has come near to you." 10"But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11"Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near." "
In verse 5 Jesus tells apostles to greet people with peace. Paul greets his readers with peace in all of the authentic epistles:
Rom 1:7 "To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ."
1 Cor 1:3 "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ"
2 Cor 1:2 "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
Gal 1:3 "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,"
Phil 1:2 "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
Col 1:2 "To the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colosse: Grace and peace to you from God our Father. "
1 Thess 1:1 "Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you. "
Paul, in connection with apostleship writes
1 Cor9:1 "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?.3This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4Don"t we have the right to food and drink? "
1 Cor 10:27 "If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, EAT WHATEVER IS PUT BEFORE YOU" without raising questions of conscience."
1 Cor 9:13 "Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel
These similarities with Luke 10:7 provide some evidence that Paul may have been aware of a tradition that originated with the commandments of the gospel Jesus.
The author of 1 Clement, who says Jesus was in the flesh, wrote in 42:1-3:
"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having therefore RECEIVED A CHARGE, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come."
4. Conclusion
Doherty's example is good. We can only speculate as to why Paul might not have said that Jesus appointed Peter as apostle. The context of Galations supports the reasonable possibility that Paul and others honored the pillars because they knew Jesus personally, and others criticized the lack of direct knowledge by Paul, thus explaining why Paul seemed to go out of his way to stress his own direct revelation, which he says elsewhere came after theirs. However, other possibilities may be correct also. Paul's writings appear to show knowledge of the gospels Jesus' commands regarding apostleship, and he explicitly mentions a command from the Lord, but again it isn't spelled out definitively. It is not until we come to 1 Clement where we have a much more definitive reference.
|
