Study I of How those Christians fight!

The Inclusion Controversy

Introduction

I wrote this study in the mid-1990’s as one of a series of studies on how we Christians have made our decisions over the centuries. In secular terms the studies could be called the group dynamics of Christian decision-making. More accurately, they study how the Holy Spirit has guided us in major decisions throughout our history.

After I wrote the present study I discovered that much of its territory had already been covered by Luke Timothy Johnson in his book Scripture and Discernment: Decision-Making in the Church. When I look at his work and mine I see that we agree on practically everything that matters, but that from time to time I make a point that is not to be found in his work. So I offer this study as a supplement to his.

…………

The first great controversy of the church concerned the gentiles. Were they to be included in the church? Were they to keep the law of Moses? Were the males to be circumcised? Were Jews and gentiles to associate freely? If so, under what conditions? In such association were the Mosaic food laws to be observed strictly or could the laws be relaxed? And so on. The controversy involved a tangle of subordinate questions.

In this chapter we shall look first at the first-century context of the controversy. Then we shall explore factors in the ministry of Jesus which tended to lead toward the controversy. Next we shall study the controversy from two points of view — as recounted years later in the Book of Acts, and as found in a participant’s angry letter during the controversy, Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Throughout we shall apply the sorts of principles we have seen in Chapter One and look for still others that may emerge.

First-century Judaism and gentiles

Since the conquests of Alexander the Great in the fourth century b.c., the people of Israel had been surrounded by a Greek culture that threatened to overwhelm them, and they had successfully fought the Maccabean wars to thwart attempts to acculturate them to Hellenism (i.e., the Greek culture that had spread throughout the Mediterranean world). Resistance to the Greek world was a condition of Jewish identity.

But also during this period Jews were spreading throughout the Mediterranean world. Contact between Jew and gentile was becoming an everyday occurrence. Some gentiles found Judaism appealing and Judaism seems to have been actively seeking proselytes. The Book of Acts depicts a situation in which synagogues had around them groups of “God-fearers,” gentiles who were attracted to Judaism, who listened in on synagogue worship and teaching and practiced a devout life, but did not become Jews. ⁱ

In this context two schools of thought evolved among Jews concerning the status of gentiles. One opinion was that gentiles could only be saved by becoming Jews and keeping the Mosaic law. The other opinion was that gentiles need not become Jews in order to be saved and need not keep the Mosaic law, but did need to keep the law that had been given to Noah (the “Noahide law”) at the time of the covenant signified by the rainbow.

The God-fearers were regarded [by some first-century Jews] as having their own Patriarch, Noah, and their own covenant with God, which God made with Noah after the Flood. Noah, it should be remembered, was not a Jew. He lived long before the Israelite nation came into being. Yet he was regarded as a holy and good man, who worshipped the One God, and who received a revelation and covenant from him long before the covenants of Abraham and Sinai, a covenant not rendered obsolete by those later covenants with Israel. Any Gentile who subscribed to the covenant of Noah was thereby saved. … The covenant with Noah involved …“the Seven Laws of the Sons of Noah.” … This code is found in various forms in the rabbinic writings. One form is found in the New Testament, in the rules laid down by Jamesⁱⁱ … for the guidance of God-fearers attached to the Jesus movement.ⁱⁱⁱ

 

Jesus’ ministry: movement, apostolicity, and inclusivity

Movement

Jesus started a movement. He did not establish an institution. He did not act alone as the prophets had done. He gathered people together, attracted people to himself, energized them, and started them moving. Where he was, people were coming and going, to him and from him. Where he sent people, there occurred healings, exorcisms, miracles. And after his death his followers spread into the entire Mediterranean world taking his message and the message about him to all peoples.

A movement is a succession of changes, one after another, one change leading to another, until finally the movement loses energy and dies out. Jesus started a succession of changes. Eventually that succession of changes died out and the group became the institutional church from which our present day churches descend.

That the primitive church was more movement than institution — unlike today’s churches — is an important factor in understanding this controversy, for it is one of the factors explaining how such a radical change as the inclusion of gentiles within a Jewish movement took place. In a movement change is the predominant norm; whereas in an institution staying the same — stasis — is the predominant norm.

A movement also has other important characteristics. A movement has an inspiring vision by which it is energized. “In-spiring” — that is, filled with spirit. Spirit and vision go together. Vision in-spires. If you and I are filled with a glorious vision of, say, educating the illiterate or healing the sick or reconciling warring peoples — if we are possessed by some great ideal — we are enthusiastic, energized, filled with spirit by this vision. The literal meaning of “enthusiastic” is important here. It means “possessed by a god.” One who is enthusiastic is one who is possessed by a god. So vision and spirit go together. When we begin our examination of Acts we shall see vision and Holy Spirit and rapid movement.

Apostolicity

Another important characteristic of a movement is its energizing and empowering of many people. Movements have leaders, but the vision which possesses the movement is of such power it tends to provide guidance for many of the common folk of the movement. Many Civil Rights demonstrations were planned and organized by designated leaders, but many others occurred spontaneously because ordinary people saw the vision vividly and responded to it. Movements tend to multiply and coordinate the actions of many people through the power of the vision and the enabling spirit.

Christianity has a special name for this characteristic — apostolicity. The church is apostolic, sent to carry out the vision given by her Lord.

This sending by Jesus involves entrusting and empowering by Jesus. He does not draw up a detailed list of changes to be made; instead he gives the apostles a short list of objectives, tells them he will empower them with his Spirit and to trust in the Spirit, and sends them out.

“Go … and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19–20)

“You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

That Jesus trusts and empowers his followers sets the conditions of our Christian decision-making today. We have not been given a detailed list of do’s and don’ts by Jesus. Instead we — the apostolic church — have been entrusted and empowered to make decisions in his Name and in his Spirit.

Inclusivity

The gospels tell us of a Jesus who creates a movement toward inclusion of gentiles by his radical inclusion of outsiders. He is remarkably free and open with the diseased, the poor, sinners, women, tax collectors, prostitutes, Samaritans, gentiles. He incurs ritual uncleanness by touching (or welcoming the touch of) ritually unclean persons such as lepers and the hemorrhaging woman.

His openness toward non-Jews is of particular interest to us. The crowds that follow him include gentiles and Samaritans. He travels through Samaritan and gentile country. He speaks favorably of a Samaritan in the parable of the Good Samaritan. He enrages the people of Nazareth by pointing out that at a time of famine Elijah was sent to no one but a gentile widow, and that Elisha did not heal Jewish lepers but rather the gentile Naaman.

There are a few counter-indications, but the preponderance of the evidence points to a Jesus who starts a movement toward outsiders.

The inclusion controversy in Acts: The Spirit guides the movement

The Acts of the Apostles describes a movement guided by the Holy Spirit. Not only has the Spirit spoken through the prophets and the scriptures, not only is the Spirit poured out on the disciples on the day of Pentecost, not only is the movement a Holy Spirit-filled movement, but the Spirit speaks to and through believers. The Spirit speaks through Peter and others as they proclaim the word of God. The Spirit tells Philip to join the Ethiopian eunuch in his chariot. The Spirit tells Peter to go with the messengers from Cornelius and not to make any distinction between Jews and the gentiles gathered in Cornelius’ house. The Spirit tells the church at Antioch to set Barnabas and Saul apart for work to which the Spirit has called them. The Spirit sends Paul and Barnabas to Seleucia and Cyprus but forbids them to go to Asia. And so on. Throughout Acts we hear of the Spirit (or sometimes an angel) telling believers what they should do.

Wonderful! That’s just what we Christians are looking for in our controversies! — guidance from the Holy Spirit. And to have a whole book of holy scripture dedicated to that topic is surely a great boon.

But Acts does not tell us explicitly how Peter or Paul or other believers know it is the Holy Spirit and not some other spirit who is speaking to them. Acts just says, “The Spirit said …” or “through the Holy Spirit they …,” etc. So we shall have to look carefully at circumstances to see what we can discover about how believers distinguish between the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the misleadings of other spirits.

The succession of changes in the beginning days of the movement: momentum toward radical change

Vision and Spirit fill the beginnings of the movement. The resurrected Jesus confers with his disciples and gives them a missionary mandate, they witness his ascension, and soon are baptized with his Holy Spirit. They perceive both a gap and likenesses between the vision they have been given and the world in which they find themselves. They see the general shape of the task confronting them, the problem to be solved, and set out to work it through.

They quickly take care of some house-keeping matters. They select leaders. They establish a pattern of meeting and worshiping together. They begin looking out for each other, sharing goods and money. They establish group discipline.

Enthusiasm is high. Their leaders work signs and wonders. Living in expectation of the last day, they begin their mission. Their program of radical change is underway.

They claim that a higher authority than the law of Moses has arrived.

Peter … addressed the people. … “Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you from your own people a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. And it will be that everyone who does not listen to that prophet will be utterly rooted out of the people.’” (Acts 3:11, 22–23)^iv

 

They proclaim a new key to scripture — Jesus Messiah — whose coming reveals new meanings of scripture. They declare that scripture foretells and pre-figures what they have experienced. They proclaim a new way of salvation. They encounter many persons hungry to hear the word which they proclaim and they grow rapidly in numbers. The changes they begin create powerful enemies who begin to persecute the movement, creating a climate of “us” versus “them.” The movement’s tight-knit character and its sense of the gap between its vision and the world is reinforced.

And little by little they begin to move toward gentiles.

First actions in the spread of the movement

First spread of the movement to non-Jews (Samaritans): Action and policy

The first explicit indication of diversity of membership as characterizing the Christian movement occurs on the day of Pentecost when disciples are endowed with divers languages, and onlookers are from all over the Mediterranean world. Soon thereafter we hear of “Hellenists” as well as “Hebrews” within the movement. This diversity within the early movement is a stepping-stone toward the wider diversity to come.

The movement is not long confined to Jerusalem. It soon begins a step by step journey to the whole Mediterranean world. With the stoning of Stephen a persecution begins and “all except the apostles [are] scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria.” (Acts 8:8)^v Now believers must decide whether to proclaim the word to Samaritans.

In the encounter of believers with Samaritans we can trace a relatively simple process of decision-making and development of tradition. The encounter forces the movement to choose between the Jewish tradition of non-association with Samaritans, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the vision of openness set by Jesus’ ministry and by Jesus’ mandate to go out into all the world. Now that we are face to face with Samaritans, are we to welcome them or are we to keep ourselves separate in accordance with the Mosaic laws of purity?

Philip decides for openness. Does he consult with others in making his decision? Or does he do it on his own? We are not told.

Crowds of Samaritans respond to Philip’s message with eagerness, joy, and healings. The apostles send Peter and John to Samaria. We are not told why. Perhaps the Jerusalem authorities immediately recognize Philip’s action as a natural extension of Jesus’ ministry and send Peter and John in support. Perhaps they are not sure about his decision and want Peter and John to investigate. Perhaps they simply want to keep in touch with this new development. Or perhaps they are alarmed at the decision and want Peter and John to intervene.

Peter and John concur in the mission and lay hands on the baptized Samaritans for the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Then, as the two return to Jerusalem, they proclaim the word to many Samaritan villages.

We hear no more about the mission to the Samaritans, but it seems safe to assume that others continue it. The decision is certainly accepted and the movement proceeds toward the next wave of change. A policy has been set through this series of actions and now becomes part of the tradition.

The alternation of action and policy in movements

The mission to the Samaritans offers a simple, relatively non-controversial example of the alternation of action and policy in a decentralized movement. Had the Christian movement of the first century possessed the centralized organization of the later church, the apostles in Jerusalem might have looked about them for a ripe mission field, selected Samaria, and sent a mission team with a full set of instructions about what to do. In that case policy would have preceded action. But it did not work that way. Instead Jewish Christians went to Samaria, not as a result of planning, but in order to flee persecution, and there they were presented with questions of practice. They made action decisions; that is, practical decisions about what to do about a problem they were facing. Some of them probably decided not to associate with Samaritans, but others decided to welcome the Samaritans into the movement. Thus, in this case policy followed action.

How experience is acquired and tradition is developed by the mission to the Samaritans

In these incidents experience is being acquired by believers.

• Jewish believers learn what it is like to associate with and even include non-Jews.

• By extending Jesus’ ministry of healing and exorcism to the Samaritans the movement has an experience of responsibility, authority and power.

• Jewish believers see Samaritans receive the Holy Spirit, the same experience, unique to the movement, that they have had. In all likelihood this is taken as a sign of divine inclusion: to receive the Holy Spirit is a mark of incorporation into the movement.^vi

There are many other kinds of experience involved in this sequence of actions, but we don’t need to go into them all. The point is that these experiences constitute the beginnings of tradition in the sense of learning from experience.

A second way of seeing the mission to the Samaritans is under the heading of precedent for future actions.

• The movement will proclaim the word to non-Jews (at least Samaritans, and possibly others).

• The movement will baptize them.

• The movement will accept them as fellow believers.

• And each of these precedents involves precedents concerning conditions — the conditions of baptism, the conditions of inclusion in the movement. When do we baptize? When do we include someone?

A third way of looking at the mission concerns process precedent, the way in which the movement makes decisions.

• Individuals are able to make action decisions on their own but their decisions are subject to review by apostolic authority.^vii

• Action may precede policy in some instances.

• Policy may reverse the precedent set by action. This does not occur in these events, but the power of review carries this implication.

• The receiving of the Holy Spirit, eager and joyous reception of the word, and healings and exorcisms are signs confirming an action decision.

We must emphasize that in speaking of “precedent” and “tradition” we do not mean “unbreakable precedent” or “unalterable tradition.” Not at all. These are the beginning years. Much is tentative. We mean precedent and tradition in the minimal sense of patterns of behavior and thought that have been used without being overturned and are therefore more likely than other patterns to be followed in the future.

Other learnings about process: generation of problems, testing of change, reinforcement of a movement

Notice that in this example the problem (“What shall we do about Samaritans?”) does not arise because someone meditates on the bible or on Jesus’ words and says, “We must go to the Samaritans.” No. The problem arises because believers perceive a gap between vision and reality. The vision is a Jesus open toward outsiders who commands us to proclaim the gospel to the ends of the earth. The reality is that Jews and Samaritans do not associate. The tension between vision and reality generates a problem.

Note also the constructive role of conservative reaction. Asking questions about an action and investigating it (as the apostles in Jerusalem may have done) are often constructive. Indeed, without such reactions to force examination of change, the latter is liable to be ill-founded. Examined change is likely to be sounder than unexamined.

There is a further aspect to these events — the reinforcing and re-energizing of the movement. Nothing succeeds like success. Imagine what a difference it would have made if Philip’s ministry had met with hostility from the Samaritans. Would he have continued? It would certainly not be surprising if he had not. So the enthusiasm of the Samaritans, the growth in numbers, the signs and wonders and healings, and, above all, the baptism of the Samaritans by the Holy Spirit all in-spire, all energize, all keep the movement in movement. These changes, having met with evident approval of both human beings and the Spirit, will now lead to further changes, and are expected to do so.

Further actions in the spread of the movement

Baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch

The next action in the church’s movement toward gentiles is Philip’s baptism of an Ethiopian eunuch. We do not know whether the eunuch is Jew or gentile. However, Acts singles out this baptism to tell in some detail. If it is not the first baptism of a gentile, it is at least in preparation for it and Acts takes pain to show that it occurs by divine intervention through two divine inspirations and two coincidences.

The two divine inspirations are that

an angel tells Philip to go to the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, where he encounters the eunuch; and that

the Spirit tells Philip to join the eunuch in his chariot.

The two coincidences are that

as soon as Philip approaches the chariot, he finds the eunuch reading a passage of scripture used by believers to proclaim the word, and the eunuch welcomes Philip’s offer to interpret the passage; and that

as soon as the eunuch accepts Philip’s interpretation and wishes to be baptized, they encounter water (an infrequent occurrence in that part of the world!).

Acts clearly sees the coincidence of inspiration and immediate opportunity to fulfill the inspiration to be a sign of divine origin. God commands and then provides. We shall find this point of Lucan spirituality even more vividly illustrated in the story of Cornelius and his household.

We can say that divine inspiration and timeliness of opportunity tend to go together, and that, conversely, wrong or misleading ideas prove untimely. As a rule of thumb we can say, Divinely inspired action is timely.

Baptism of Cornelius and his household: Action and policy

The first century was timely for the spread of the new movement because, as we have seen, it was a time of encounter between Jew and gentile all over the Mediterranean world. And now that some Jews had become Christians and were being scattered by persecution, many believers were encountering gentiles open to the new faith.

Acts paints a picture of believers filled with the Spirit of Jesus, hungry to proclaim the word and encountering gentiles hungry to receive it. Yet they are unable to feed that hunger by baptism so long as they observe the traditional Jewish prohibition proclaiming gentiles unclean. How often must Peter and other believers have gone to bed frustrated and burdened by the prohibition! How often must they have felt the inconsistency between Jesus’ openness and the prohibition! How often must they have prayed! How often must they have asked themselves, “We have taken the message to the Samaritans. Why not also to the gentiles? Jesus was open to gentiles. Why shouldn’t we include them?” — to which, very likely, a voice responded, “Yes, Jesus showed openness and love toward gentiles, but he did not reach out to include them among his followers. He included only Jews.” Finally, the situation reaches a crisis. Something must give, and Peter is granted divine guidance.

In the baptism of the gentile Cornelius and his household Acts carefully shows us how the Spirit of the movement guides participants by a surprising number of means. (These means are italicized in the following description.)

Providential convergence of events in preparation for the baptism of Cornelius and his household occurs as soon as the Ethiopian eunuch is baptized. Philip is snatched away by the Holy Spirit, finds himself on the south of the Mediterranean coast and travels north proclaiming the word in the towns of Azotus, Lydda, Joppa and Caesarea, taking up residence in the last. Cornelius lives in Caesarea and thus is in all likelihood influenced to some degree by Philip’s preaching. Lydda and Joppa are soon visited by Peter.

The central part of the story might be called, “The Four Days of Cornelius.” On the first day, at three in the afternoon (a significant time, we learn later) Cornelius is praying and has a vision. In it an angel of God tells him to send to Joppa for Peter. On the second day at noon, as Cornelius’ messengers are approaching Joppa, Peter prays and his prayer turns out to prepare for the arrival of the messengers (convergence of events). He becomes hungry and while food is being prepared he has a vision which uses biblical imagery (unclean foods) sparked by his current state (hunger) and depicting a current problem (the relation of Jew and gentile). To use our modern vocabulary, we can say that Peter does a biblical meditation on a current problem. A voice declares the foods (i.e., gentiles and table-fellowship of Jews with gentiles) clean — “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” (Acts 10:15) And at that very moment (convergence of events) the messengers arrive asking Peter to go to the gentile household — Peter’s vision is confirmed by the timeliness of this event — and the Spirit tells him to go with the men (inspiration). He invites them to stay with him as his guests overnight, which involves a momentous step (risk) — associating with gentiles — a violation of the law. On the third day Peter and the men travel to Caesarea. And on the fourth day Cornelius gathers his relatives and close friends. When Peter enters the house and finds many assembled, he says that although it is unlawful for Jews to associate with or visit gentiles, God has shown him that he should not call anyone profane or unclean. Cornelius tells how at exactly this same hour four days earlier an angel directed him to send for Peter (a coincidence in time or omen which brackets the first and fourth days). Thus all who are present see how divine guidance has converged in these two lives to bring about this meeting. The two lines of guidance confirm one another. In addition, Peter no doubt perceives the marks of God’s presence in Cornelius’ life. We are told that Cornelius is not only a God-fearer, but devout, that he gives alms generously, that he prays constantly, and that he is upright and well-spoken of by the whole Jewish nation. Peter announces that he now truly understands that God shows no partiality for Jew over gentile; that is, Peter puts his experience into words, he reasons — draws conclusions — concerning it. He then proclaims the word, and as he is speaking, Cornelius and his household show clear marks of receiving the Holy Spirit — they begin to speak in tongues and praise God. Peter’s companions are “astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit [has] been poured out even on the Gentiles.” (Acts 10:45) Peter confers with his companions — “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these persons who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47) The companions assent to the baptism confirming Peter’s understanding and proposed risk.

Thus in this story Acts tells of the following different means of divine guidance — the posing of a problem, which consists of a gap perceived between an ideal or guiding vision and the present reality; biblical meditation; visions; inspirations in which the Holy Spirit (or an angel) directs action to be taken; convergence of events (timeliness); an omen; reasoning; marks of divine presence; assent of other believers; and risk or test in action followed by confirmation or disconfirmation through the presence or absence of resulting signs such as the above.

We will discuss these and other means of divine guidance in detail in a later section of this chapter.

Reaction to the baptisms comes swiftly. “Why,” ask circumcised believers in Jerusalem, “did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” (Acts 11:3)

It is important here to notice that the critics have asked a question about the behavior of Jews. The question concerns the association of Jew with gentile, table-fellowship of Jew and gentile. They could also have asked several other important questions — “Why did you baptize gentiles?” “Why didn’t you circumcise them?” “Did you instruct them in the law of Moses?” And they could have asked about gentiles behavior — “Have they agreed to keep the law?” Perhaps they had these questions in mind. But it was the opening volley in the battle over the inclusion of gentiles, and chances are these questions had not yet been sorted out. One of the tasks in the early stages of controversy is to clarify and sort out the issues — and that takes a while.

Peter responds by telling the story of the Four Days, ending with the gift of the Holy Spirit. He adds an argument in support of the baptisms, “I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” (Acts 11:16–17) Thus Peter answers an unasked question — “Why did you baptize gentiles?” — and in so doing tells why he entered a gentile house and ate with them. God has shown his approval by giving them the Holy Spirit.

Notice also that Peter here appeals to the teaching of Jesus. This is another means of guidance by the Holy Spirit — conformity to the teaching of Jesus.

In this reply we also see another stage in the development of the controversy. When Peter first decided to associate with the gentiles, he had not yet seen them receive the Spirit; the gift of the Spirit was not one of the reasons for this initial step. But now that he has taken the risk of action and has seen the results, he can point to those results as a reason for the action. Risk-taking followed by favorable results is confirmed by those results. Favorable results confirm actions.

Further, to put the matter another way, Peter uses results of the action as grounds for having taken the action. Some grounds follow rather than precede action.

This is, again, a case of action preceding policy.

Reinforcement of movement, the building of chains of action

Favorable results are grounds, moreover, not only for action already taken, but for further action. That the Spirit gives favorable results to association with and baptism of gentiles provides grounds for extending the action.

Suppose, on the contrary, the gentiles had asked a lot of skeptical questions or had ridiculed Peter’s message. The movement toward the gentiles might have stopped right there. Favorable results further en-Spirit the movement.

Peter offers similar grounds years later, when the apostles and elders convene in Jerusalem to resolve the inclusion controversy. “In cleansing [the gentiles’] hearts by faith,” says Peter, “[God] has made no distinction between them and us.” (Acts 15:9) He and other Jewish Christians have seen the inclusion of gentiles result over and over again in the cleansing of their hearts by faith. Consistent favorable results become powerful grounds for continuing an action.

Thus we can see how favorable results help to build chains of action. Innovation often begins with tentative action, a small risk. If the action has favorable results, a further risk is taken. Peter’s initial step, association, results in marks of divine approval. As a consequence, and because of the Lord’s teaching about baptism with the Holy Spirit and the movement’s personal experience of that baptism, Peter turns to his companions and suggests these gentiles should be baptized. Thus because a tentative step has favorable results and those results conform to authoritative teaching and to believers’ experience, participants consult and decide to take a further step.

Another aspect of this is that the chain of action often consists of small incremental risks. First you put your toe in the water, and if it isn’t too cold, then your leg, and then the other leg, and so on. Opponents of change are certainly correct that the first small change is often but a stepping stone toward the big change. (If you let girls be acolytes they may soon demand to be priests.) But first steps do not always lead to final steps. Many a heresy has failed to win the day.

Spread of the movement to gentiles throughout the Mediterranean

After the baptism of Cornelius and his household, sporadic persecution continues to spread believers throughout the empire, increasing encounter of believers and God-fearers. Paul and Barnabas begin spreading the word to gentiles in Asia Minor. A recurring cycle of controversy erupts between proponents of law-free inclusion and those who would require circumcision and the law.

Analysis of the action phase of the movement toward the gentiles

Means used by the Holy Spirit to guide Philip, Peter and others

In this story we have noted many means of divine guidance — guiding vision; the posing of a problem; biblical meditation, visions; inspirations; convergence of events (timeliness); an omen; reasoning; marks of divine presence; assent of other believers; risk or test in action followed by confirmation or disconfirmation through the presence or absence of resulting signs such as the foregoing; and conformity to authoritative teaching.

Holy Spirit and guiding vision. The list above is a list of means-in-detail. They are like the particular utensils and ingredients a chef uses in cooking. But over all is the en-Spirited guiding vision. Where there is the Holy Spirit, there is the sacred vision. Where there is the sacred vision, there is the Holy Spirit. Peter and other believers are filled with the guiding vision of the movement and this vision is what the Spirit uses to move them to action. It is also the overall standard by which they test proposed actions. The leadings and the tests are expressed in the various ways listed above.

The posing of a problem. The group dynamics of the ’60s and ’70s analyzed change by reference to problems — people feel a need to change when they perceive a problem. More current theories emphasize vision — people are motivated toward change when they are caught up in a vision of what might be. I see the two as intimately connected. It seems to me that the catalyst leading to change is the stress created by conflict between the present situation and the guiding vision. For example, if I believe that parish churches should be pastorally sensitive to the needs of parishioners and newcomers (my guiding vision) and perceive my parish to be insensitive and unfriendly (see a gap between the present situation and the ideal), I feel stress to close the gap (I am posed with a problem). So I am motivated toward change.

Peter believes the Spirit of Jesus is calling him to reach out with the good news to all the world (the guiding vision of the movement). The tradition of Judaism places obstacles in his path. Therefore he has a problem and is motivated toward change.

Biblical meditation. We have seen how Peter does a biblical meditation on the food laws and gentiles. We also see throughout Acts the reinterpretation of scripture in the light of Jesus Messiah as key. Meditation on the scriptures in the face of some current problem or event is one of the means by which the Spirit guides not only Peter and Cornelius, but us today.

Visions. Visions and voices of the kind Acts describes are a stumbling block for modern culture. For us those who see visions or hear voices are crazy. Is there any way we can accept the events of the Four Days and still keep our credentials as modern men and women?

Acts’ three descriptions of Saul’s experience on the road to Damascus offer us a clue.

Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice. … The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one. (Acts 9:3–4, 7)

“I fell to the ground and heard a voice. … Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice.” (Acts 22:7, 9)

“I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and my companions. When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice.” (Acts 26:13–14)

In all three descriptions Saul sees a light and hears a voice. But the experience of his companions is described differently from one account to another. In the first account his companions hear the voice but see no one. (It is left open whether they see a light.) In the second account they see a light but do not hear the voice. In the third account they apparently see the light and we are not told whether they hear or do not hear the voice.

Clearly Acts wants to say that the experience is reliable, that it isn’t just a figment of Saul’s imagination, because his companions also see it (in the second and third accounts) or hear it (in the first account). But just as clearly Acts also wants to say that the experience is not one of ordinary sense perception, because Saul’s companions either do not hear what he hears or do not see what he sees. And, further, Acts is inconsistent about whether the companions’ experience is one of hearing or seeing. Acts apparently has conceptual problems with the event just as we do, yet in an unworried way. It is seeking to tell us that this is an experience as real and as reliable as ordinary seeing or hearing, even though it is different from ordinary seeing and hearing.

I suggest we moderns take our clue from Acts — take the visions of Peter and Cornelius as trustworthy but not as matters of ordinary sense perception. In our way of looking at things, we can say Peter and Cornelius were in “altered states of consciousness” or they had a “vivid imaginative perception” of the solution to the problem they were facing.

Inspirations. The word “inspiration” has been secularized in our time. It is ordinarily used to mean something like “enthusiasm” or “a good idea.” In our present context we mean it literally — the entrances of spirit into the human soul, in-spirations. Various spirits, including the Holy Spirit, enter the human soul and affect it in various ways. So we are faced with the task of discerning the spirits, telling the difference between leadings of the Holy Spirit and of other spirits. The marks given in Acts serve this purpose.

Convergence of events. We have already discussed convergence of events or timeliness. I would only point here to the dramatic convergence of many events in a timely way to bring about these baptisms — the readiness of the Roman world to hear the gospel, the encounters of Jew and gentile that sensitized believers to the readiness of gentiles and raised the problem of how to relate to them, the mission to the Samaritans, Philip’s preaching of the word along the coast and in Caesarea, Peter’s travel from Jerusalem to cities near Caesarea, the devout God-fearer Cornelius’ living in Caesarea, and the converging prayers and inspirations of Peter and Cornelius.

An omen. The coincidence in time, that this event begins at three o’clock one day and its closing incident begins at three o’clock the final day, is significant enough to Cornelius that he mentions it in his greeting to Peter. But it does not consist of timeliness in the sense we have just been considering. It is a not a timeliness of fit or readiness. It is an omen or portent. Cornelius looks at this symmetrical pattern in time and seems to be thinking it is just too neat to be pure chance. Surely it is a sign. However, as omens go, it is weak, and Cornelius mentions it only in passing.

This type of sign offends the modern soul. Carl Jung offers it to us under a cleaned up, modernized name — synchronicity — and with a long description and set of illustrations. ^viii But I have, for myself, not found a way to make it acceptable, even when I assume a determined post-modern stance in which mythological imagination plays a large part. Perhaps we should simply look at it as a thorn in our side intended to remind us of the wide distance between our rationalist world and the spiritual world of the first century.

Reasoning. When Peter says to Cornelius and his household, “God has shown me I should not call anyone profane or unclean. … I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:28, 34–35), he is stating publicly a conclusion drawn from many elements. That is, he has reasoned.

Peter has had to choose ideas to articulate his experience and observations, and by which to draw conclusions. According to Luke-Acts when Peter looks at gentiles (or anyone, for that matter), fear of God is an important consideration.^ix

I have done such reasoning in the writing of this book. I have had to make many choices of words and ideas by which to do my thinking — for example, “convergence of events,” “omen,” “movement,” etc. And these choices are fundamental to the usefulness of this book. If I have chosen well, the ideas will suggest further lines of enquiry and will fit the experiences of others well enough to be helpful. If I have chosen poorly the ideas will not lead further and others will not find them a good fit.

Similarly, in the Arian controversy we will see how at first some key concepts act as barriers to the reconciliation of the controversy and how, later, their clarification acts as a help. We will also see how reasoning over a period of decades clarifies the issues and makes both the problem and its solution easier to see.

Here we see the result of Peter’s reasoning. He has chosen ideas to express his experiences and he has put them together to form conclusions.

Marks. Marks of God’s presence are stated throughout Acts. Where we see virtues — e.g., Cornelius’ righteousness, his devotion, his generous alms-giving — we know God is present. And there are marks of the Holy Spirit — tongues and praise of God.

Assent of other believers. As we have seen with Quakers and Jesuits, we see here that one way to check out the soundness of a proposal is to confer with other Christians and ask their approval or disapproval.

Test. Another method for discerning the will of God is to risk action and then look at the results. Does the action lead to good or evil? Is the action confirmed by others? In this instance when Peter takes action he is probably not thinking in terms of test, but that, nevertheless, is the effect. He takes a risk and its results verify his decision.

Conformity to authoritative teaching. In this instance this means conformity to the teaching of Jesus. Later, once the New Testament has been written and the books canonized, this means conformity to scripture.

Figure 1

How the Holy Spirit guides Philip, Peter and others

• by an ideal or guiding vision

• by the posing of a problem

• by biblical meditation

• by visions

• by inspirations

• by convergence of events (timeliness)

• by an omen

• by reasoning

• by marks of divine presence

• by the assent of other believers

• by risk or test in action followed by confirmation or disconfirmation

• by conformity to the teaching of Jesus

 

Constructive results of interaction between movement and opposition: Preparation for policy-making

The mission of Paul and Barnabas to the gentiles of Asia Minor generates such high conflict that it is hard to see how anything constructive can occur. Paul and Barnabas are driven out of Antioch of Pisidia. In Iconium they are stoned. In Lystra Paul is stoned to the extent that he appears dead. In Antioch of Syria Acts paints a picture of uncompromising conflict. If Paul or any of his opponents have any desire to seek a compromise solution we are not told of it.

Constructive processes are at work, nevertheless.

Awareness of the problem. Many people become acutely aware that although association of Jew with gentile is forbidden by Jewish law, some believing Jews are doing it anyhow. There’s a problem.

Various evidences bearing on the problem build up — growth in numbers, signs and wonders, healings, growth in charity, prophecy and teaching, confutation of opponents, eagerness to hear the word, joy in the Holy Spirit, as well as opposition and misunderstanding of the message.

Examined experience. In such a situation not only is much experience with the problem accumulated, but participants think and talk about what is happening. Raw experience becomes examined experience.

Precedents. Little by little what was an innovation comes to seem usual. At first it seems daring for Jews to associate with gentiles, but as more believing Jews do so, it becomes (for them) a norm. And other practices become normal as well. Gentiles are baptized. Churches consisting of both Jews and gentiles are established. Elders are appointed. And, most importantly of all, circumcision is not required. Precedents are being set.

Justifying scriptural texts are identified. In Antioch of Pisidia when unbelieving Jews reject the message of Paul and Barnabas, Acts for the first time tells of the apostles’ using scriptural texts to justify the mission to the gentiles. Since by this time the mission has been going on for a number of years, the role of scriptural text is being painted as ex post facto justification for the mission rather than grounds. Does this mean that Acts does not see scripture as an initiating cause of the mission to the gentiles? that for Acts scripture comes only ex post facto?

Not at all. Scriptural text may come ex post facto, but scriptural vision is surely fundamental to what occurs.

Scripture and tradition are carriers of sacred vision. They are means by which generation after generation of the People of God come to see life in a distinctive way. In turn, the guiding vision of the early Christian movement is developed from the guiding vision of first-century Judaism as transformed by Jesus. This means that the vision guiding Paul and Barnabas and other early Christians is profoundly scriptural. The mission to the gentiles derives from scripture in this fundamental sense.

As Acts paints the scene, Paul and Barnabas are guided by a vision in which the movement is called to reach out to all the world. In the incident at Antioch of Pisidia they quote Jesus as teaching such a vision as proclaimed by the prophet Isaiah. This may well be the first time they advance such a scriptural text, but from the beginning their eyes have seen the world with this scriptural vision.

It is dangerous, therefore, in considering any Christian controversy to conclude that a particular view is not biblical on the grounds that scripture is not quoted. Instead we must look to see whether the underlying vision expressed in the viewpoint flows from the vision carried by scripture and tradition. As we see here, and as we shall see in other cases, scripture itself testifies that scriptural vision often can precede scriptural text in guiding the People of God. Biblical people have, in other words, a particular view on life and are likely to see things from that point of view before they think of specific passages of scripture that express the way they are seeing things.

That Acts does not tell us earlier of the use of scriptural texts in this controversy does not mean that from Acts’ point of view such use did not occur. It may be that Acts takes such use for granted. Nevertheless, it seems safe to say that Acts does not emphasize scriptural texts as a source of change but instead emphasizes the leadings of the Holy Spirit through scriptural vision and various other means. What Acts does do is tell of the gradual ex post facto accumulation of texts in support of the changes.

Argument from common sense. Besides pointing to signs of divine approval and appealing to scriptural texts, Paul and Barnabas use argument from common sense. In Antioch of Pisidia, when Jews reject the good news, Paul and Barnabas respond, “Since you reject it … we are now turning to the Gentiles.” (Acts 13:46) They will leave where they are failing and go where they are meeting with success.

Discovery of political realities. Politics involves the interests and concerns of power groups. To know political realities is to know who wants what, who has how much power, and who is willing to do what. Participants in controversy discover these realities, and discover them more and more as the controversy progresses. As we shall see, at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem James’ resolution of the controversy shows a fine sense of the political realities. It is probable that he had been thinking through the problem for some time before the actual convening of the council.

Possible resolutions. There are several possible resolutions to this controversy. The infant church could have decided not to associate with gentiles. Or it could have decided to associate but to require circumcision as well as baptism. Or it could have decided, as it did, to associate and not to require circumcision in addition to baptism. Or perhaps degrees of association or membership could have been devised. Of the possibilities we know that two, at least, were tried. Paul and Barnabas practiced one. The circumcised believers who came from Judea to Antioch in Syria attempted another. Others pondered the problem, no doubt trying various solutions in their minds. On-going controversy generates possible resolutions.

Development of argument-sets. A controversy consists of opposing views. As the controversy proceeds the various views advance various arguments and counter-arguments so that in time each side generates a familiar set of arguments — an argument-set — with which to support its view and to counter others. Long controversies generate standard argument-sets for the various sides. We will discuss this at some length later.

F

Constructive processes at work during controversy

• Awareness of the problem is generated.

• Evidences bearing on the problem are built up.

• Examined experience is accumulated.

• Precedents are set.

• Relevant scriptural texts are identified.

• Arguments from common sense occur.

• Political realities are discovered.

• Possible resolutions are discovered.

• Argument-sets are developed.

igure 2

The Apostolic Council: Policy-making

Finally the controversy provokes an attempt at authoritative resolution. (Acts 15:1–6) “Certain individuals … from Judea” come to Antioch of Syria and begin teaching the necessity of circumcision.^x This leads to “no small dissension and debate.” Then the church in Antioch appoints Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem “to discuss this question with the apostles and elders.” When Paul and Barnabas arrive in Jerusalem and report “all that God [has] done with them,” Pharisaic believers respond, “It is necessary for [gentiles] to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.” This leads to the convening of the council.

The council is composed of apostles and elders meeting, in all likelihood, in the presence of various others — Judaizers, members of the church in Jerusalem, persons from Antioch (including gentiles?) and still others. The central authority lies with the apostles and elders of Jerusalem, who are persons at one remove from the problem. They have personal experience of mission to their fellow Jews, but most of them do not have personal experience of mission to the gentiles — Peter being a notable exception. They hear about the problem. So, for the most part, the apostles and elders are making a decision about the actions of others. Furthermore, they have had a passive relation to the problem in that they have chosen over many years not to intervene in the mission to the gentiles. By their inactivity they have given tacit approval to what has been going on.

We have already considered the distinction between action decisions and policy decisions. Peter and his companions of the Four Days, for example, are faced with action decisions. They have to decide as agents in the events, what to do now. The grounds for their decision-making are those we have examined above — convergence of events, visions, inspirations, etc. The apostles and elders, on the other hand, have to decide policy. They are not faced with immediate questions concerning their own behavior. They do not have to decide now for themselves whether to eat with gentiles, and, if so, how, or whether to ask them to be circumcised, etc. Instead they have to decide a policy for the whole church, for the foreseeable future, not just in the present situation but in all situations of a particular kind.

On the other hand, there is a problem embedded within the problem of the inclusion of the gentiles, a problem in which the apostles and elders do have to make an action decision, a problem in which they are having present, first-hand experience and in which they are agents — the political problem of two parties in conflict. There is a Judaizing party and an open-inclusion party that are putting pressure on them. They are being lobbied by both the Judaizers and by Paul and his party. The council’s decision will be expressed in terms of the inclusion problem, but it will also be a political decision deciding matters between two parties and between the church and the parties.

By this time the policy decision has been considerably narrowed down. Action decisions gradually become policy decisions by default if they are not challenged. The various action decisions over the years, and the acceptance of those action decisions by the apostles and elders of Jerusalem without intervention, have firmly established some precedents. The word is to be proclaimed to gentiles. Jews will associate with gentiles for this purpose. Gentiles will be baptized. Only one policy decision is before the council — shall circumcision (and hence the Mosaic law) be required of the gentiles?

Council deliberations are given by Acts in four stages (Acts 15:7–21):

“Much debate” (given by title in ½ verse)
A speech by Peter (quoted in 4 ½ verses)
A speech by Barnabas and Paul (given by title in 1 verse)
A speech by James in two parts
An argument supporting his decision (quoted in 5 verses)
His decision (quoted in 3 verses).

It is unfortunate for this study that Acts chooses not to tell us anything about the “much debate” except that it occurred. It does not give us the arguments pro and con — just standard arguments in support of the final decision.

Consider what we know about assemblies debating long-standing issues. What sorts of arguments do we hear? Contestants give and take views, but seldom does anyone say anything new. We hear the same arguments we have been hearing for years. And in the end it is the weighty leaders on each side who sum up those standardized positions. Except that the losing arguments are omitted, this is the what we see in the description of the Apostolic Council.

Peter presents four arguments.

1. The gentiles have received the Holy Spirit. (15:8)

2. God has cleansed their hearts by faith. (15:9)

3. We Jews have been unable to bear the yoke of the law. (15:10)

4. We Christians instead believe we will be saved through grace. (15:11)

The first argument is by now not only standard and compelling for Peter’s side of the question but for the movement as a whole. The gift of the Holy Spirit is a well-established mark of inclusion and, specifically, of God’s approval of that inclusion. Peter begins, thus, by reminding the council that inclusion of gentiles is not in question, for God has shown his approval. Only the conditions of inclusion can be in question.

The second argument is a variation on the first. The final two arguments are correlatives. And all four arguments appeal to experience.

Analysis of Peter’s arguments

At first sight it would seem that Peter is ignoring scripture and tradition, that he is appealing to experience alone. But the appearance is misleading.

The first of these experiences — the pouring out of the Holy Spirit — has been foretold by the prophet Joel:

I will pour out my spirit on all flesh;
your sons and daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions. (Joel 2:28)

It is also the first promise of the gospel —

He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33)

In Jesus’ lifetime the promise is not fulfilled, but now in these last days it is being fulfilled. The gift of the Spirit, therefore, has great force not only because it is powerful in itself, but also because it is the fulfillment of scripture and of a dominical promise.

This gift, thus, is an experience in fulfillment of scripture and of promise.

It is important to note that experience does not cry out its meaning of itself. Experience gains meaning from the vision by which it is understood. Acts makes this point explicitly in its account of the day of Pentecost. On that day the disciples speak in tongues. Peter experiences this as the gift of the Spirit, but hostile observers experience it differently. For them it is not the fulfillment of prophesy and promise. These observers have a more worldly point of view — “They are filled with new wine.” (Acts 2:13)

The cleansing of hearts can be understood similarly.

The final two arguments concern experience of law and grace. They appeal to Jewish experience of the law and to both Jewish and gentile experience of grace, asserting that the grace of the Lord Jesus replaces the law as the means of salvation.

Here we see two oft-cited sources of Christian doctrine — tradition and experience — in direct confrontation. Experience of law and grace is being cited as grounds for overturning tradition as received by first-century Judaism.

Perhaps then the woman mentioned in the Introduction who sees scripture as used to oppress and who trusts her personal experience more than scripture is right and, paradoxically, scripture itself supports her view that experience is of higher authority than scripture and tradition. But not so. It is not Peter’s experience with Cornelius alone that leads to his changed view, but that experience as newly interpreted through his biblical meditation. And Paul clearly does not think experience by itself enough to settle the matter, for he spends extensive time and energy in Galatians and Romans to show that salvation by grace has deep biblical roots. Scripture is not overthrown by experience, but new insights into the meaning of scripture are wrought under the pressure of new experiences. As we shall see in Galatians, for example, Paul views the new understanding to be a change from seeing life in terms of one scriptural view to another — from seeing life in terms of the Mosaic covenant of law to seeing life in terms of the Abrahamic covenant of promise. Both views are scriptural, but the transformation wrought by Jesus leads from the first to the second.

It is important to note that Peter’s final two arguments establish more than is at stake before the council. The council is concerned with the conditions of inclusion and focuses just on gentiles, but this argument establishes a conclusion concerning both Jew and gentile. Neither Jew nor gentile will be saved through the law, but through faith. This conclusion is revolutionary for Jewish Christians. It is significant that Peter states the argument but does not point out its application to Jewish Christians. That would be to provoke an uproar and further controversy that would drown out the issue at hand.

Proceedings of the council continued

After Peter’s speech the council’s focus returns once more to the conditions of inclusion. Paul and Barnabas present an argument from experience, telling of “all the signs and wonders God has done through them among the Gentiles.” (Acts 15:12)

Then James presents explicit scriptural argument. He does not use the Hebrew text for his argument but the Greek translation current at the time (the Septuagint), which in this case mistranslates the Hebrew — and the Hebrew does not support his argument. Does this mean James’ argument is invalid? No. James’ argument is invalid only if the vision underlying his argument is not scriptural. That he uses a mistranslation is an accident. Whether his view is correct depends upon its consonance or dissonance with the vision taken by scripture. In most cases where scriptural text is cited to establish that a given view is orthodox and scriptural, the issue will be whether or not the text is properly interpreted; that is, whether or not the text is interpreted in consonance with the vision carried by scripture by and for the People of God. In this case the text itself is incorrect and the question becomes not whether the text is properly interpreted, but whether the interpretation in and of itself is in consonance with scriptural vision.

James now renders a decision that seems to be a political compromise.

I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood. (Acts 15:20–21)

Each party gets something. Neither party gets everything. The Judaizers do not get Mosaic law, but in the rules laid down by James they do get Noahide law. ^xi The supporters of open inclusion do not get law-free inclusion, but they do get inclusion free of Mosaic law. The decision, thus, is as much a balance between the two parties as James can achieve.

Development of the standardized argument-sets used in policy-making

We have already considered the fact that long-term controversies tend to develop standardized argument-sets. Now that we have seen the arguments presented at the Apostolic Council we are in a position to look more closely at such standardized argument-sets.

The key factor in the development of good argument-sets for use in policy-making is that the opposing parties keep in fairly good touch with each other, in continuing discourse over a period of years. When this occurs the opponents both advance arguments and hear each other’s arguments. When, in contrast, controversies are so bitter that the opponents cease to talk or listen to one another, arguments that seem convincing to one side are simply dismissed without a hearing by the other. In our own day the abortion controversy seems to be of this sort, and in it, as a consequence, only very slow progress, if any, is being made in development of argument-sets helpful to policy-making. But in healthy controversy such as the inclusion controversy a process of distillation takes place through the repetition of arguments in the face of opposition that tests them, probes them, and requires them to be refined.

The oft-repeated argument from the gift of the Holy Spirit gives us one example of standardization in Acts. There is a second consisting of Peter’s final two arguments at the council which we find used many years earlier by Paul.

Peter at the Apostolic Council: “Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” (Acts 15:10)

Paul in Antioch of Pisidia: “By this Jesus everyone who believes is set free from all those sins from which you could not be set free by the law of Moses.” (Acts 13:39)

Acts thus presents this argument as common to Peter and Paul.

The distillation of argument-sets has the following sorts of results —

• Clarification and separation of issues. As healthy controversies progress, issues become clearer and the differences between positions become more sharply delineated. When Peter baptizes Cornelius the first question is, “Why did you associate with gentiles?” Later it becomes evident that the central issue is that of law and the questions become, “Should gentiles be required to keep the law of Moses? and even more sharply, “What is the relation of law to salvation?” The last question is extensively explored by Paul in the later stages of the controversy.

• Focus and relevance. Issues become more focused; the arguments become more clearly relevant to the issues.

• Effectiveness. Arguments become more refined, more effective toward their ends. Ineffective arguments are dropped.

• Complementarity. The arguments on each side progressively take their opposites into account and become shaped to respond to one another.

• Comprehensiveness. As the controversy progresses disputants seek out a wider range of argument until a complete stance, a complete point of view consisting of all relevant perspectives, evolves.

• Cogency. The result of the above process is ever-increasing cogency for each argument-set. Often when persons not adhering to a particular party are presented with one party’s argument-set, they find themselves swung that way, and when they hear the opposing party’s argument-set, they are swung that way, because each argument-set consists of a complete, cogent argument.

• Standardization. As contestants repeatedly voice and hear the argument-sets, the arguments gradually take standard form.

Figure 3

Distillation of argument-sets by long-term controversy

• issues focused, made more clearly relevant

• arguments more effective, refined

• arguments complementary

• argument-sets comprehensive

• argument-sets cogent

• arguments standardized

 

Incorporation of the council’s decision: Final phase of policy-making

The final stage in any controversy is incorporation of its results by the constituency in some way —full or partial acceptance or rejection or modification. Officials may decide on a policy, but only if those who must carry it out and live with it decide to accept it can the policy be considered to have won the day. The decision becomes in fact what is carried out.

In this instance we can see both an acceptance and a transformation of policy. The basic stance of the policy rapidly becomes the norm — gentiles are included in the church without requiring Mosaic law. But the requirement of Noahide law dies out and is replaced by Christian law. ^xii

Thus it appears that the political decision of the Apostolic Council in essence accomplished two things. First, it maintained the unity of the church and, second, by so doing made it possible for the particulars of the decision to evolve in practice over a period of centuries.

This observation leads to a curious conclusion. On the one hand we see a scriptural provision — a New Testament provision — that is ignored by the church. Christians do not keep the Noahide law nor do we feel obligated to keep it. On the other hand, the value of a political decision is made manifest. This runs counter to our tendency to think that church councils should aim purely at truth, that political considerations are somehow of lesser value.

A further observation is in order. What appears to have happened is that the council set the basic stance of the church on two matters — inclusion conditions and law. Inclusion conditions will be those suitable to a catholic church (a church freely open to all peoples rather than a separatist church) and there will be some law. But the status of the law is not spelled out; the decision does not say, for example, that the law is necessary to salvation or that it and grace are both needed. The Noahide law is simply required, without explanation. The relation of grace and law is left open, and, as we know, becomes a hotly disputed issue in Christian history.

So what happens is that in the incorporation the basic stance of the policy remains, but particulars change and some important matters are left to later dispute.

Analysis of the policy-making phase of the movement toward the gentiles

Stance and particulars of the decision

Hard-fought controversies are like tugs-of-war. The sides pull against each other and the issue is settled by one side overpowering the other. The attention of the undecided tends to be focused on the back-and-forth struggle. Which side shall we choose? Which side will win?

Since long-standing controversies generate cogent standardized argument-sets, the choice becomes not so much a choice of conclusions as it is a choice of whole argument-sets and of sides.

It is also true that parties endure longer than issues. Issues come and go, but parties endure and take similar stances against one another on various issues as they arise.

It will be helpful to make a distinction between stance and particulars. A party stance is a distinctive vision of the world characteristic of the party. Particulars are the details in which a stance is expressed.

For example, in this controversy the choice of stance is between separatism and catholicity, between a party that wishes the movement to keep a distinctive identity separate from the world and bound to the People of Israel, and a party that wishes to move out into the world and freely include all peoples of the world. These stances are expressed in the particulars of circumcision or non-circumcision, keeping the law of Moses or not keeping it, observing the laws of purity or not observing them.

The choice in hard-fought debates is principally a choice of stance, since, as we have seen, the particulars may change. In this case the particulars conceded to the Judaizers soon drop by the wayside.

We should also note that the decision in such controversies tends to mean the adoption also of the argument-set in its support. The arguments in support of the council’s decision become authoritative for Christians. In the Arian controversy we will see that the adoption of the resolution involves also the choice of an argument-set that becomes orthodox for Christianity.

The politics of stance

The notion of stance brings the politics of controversy into the foreground. In our synods and other assemblies we often find ourselves caught up in contention between parties. We can’t just vote for a particular decision. When we make a decision we choose a stance. And since stances belong to parties, when we choose a stance we find ourselves forced into taking sides whether we like it or not. And that often gets in our way. “A plague on both houses!” is often our feeling. And so we want to avoid the decision, or find some way to make one without taking sides. Politics is getting in our way. We become very grateful under such conditions for a leader as astute as James who can craft a decision that somehow avoids a split between sides.

Hence also the appeal of the methods of the Quakers and Jesuits. They use methods explicitly crafted to avoid politics. Can we find some way to make this possible in our synods? That will be an important question for us in this study.

Divine intervention in the Apostolic Council

There is a remarkable contrast between the way Acts presents the action decisions of the mission to the gentiles and the way it presents the proceedings of the council. Throughout the action decisions we are told of specific divine interventions — visions, convergence of events, marks of the Spirit, and the like. But in the description of the council no such intervention is mentioned — no visions, no tongues, no inspirations — nothing of this sort. Instead the council sounds very much like one of our contemporary synods — debates, parties, arguments. Yet Acts says the council is guided by the Spirit. In the council’s decision we read, “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us … .” (Acts 15:28)

An important conclusion follows. The council itself — with its ordinary processes — is a means of divine intervention! This is not to say that the council is infallible. In fact, as we have seen, the council’s decision is altered in particulars over the course of time. The council’s basic stance — catholicity and some law — endures, but the particulars — the Noahide law — do not.

Another conclusion may be a possibility. Perhaps a primary purpose of an ecclesiastical council is to preserve the unity of the church, to arrive at a political decision that keeps the parties together, so that the church as a whole has time over a period of years to discern the spirits. Perhaps we should conclude that one of the virtues of James’ decision, with its balance of concessions to the contending parties, was to keep enough unity to make it possible for the church as a whole to discern the spirits over the next few centuries.

The Holy Spirit’s use of adversarial controversy

We should add here that Acts depicts the inclusion controversy as adversarial rather than collaborative. That is, opposing sides form, each fights for victory, and in the end the sides win or lose, in part or in whole. This means that from Acts’ point of view collaborative methods cannot make an exclusive claim to guidance by the Spirit. In Acts we see the Holy Spirit very much at work within adversarial controversy.

We need, however, to make one qualification to this observation. We have already observed that the parties to this controversy kept in touch with each other, continued in debate throughout. They did not withdraw from each other. The controversy was a dialogical adversarial controversy rather than a belligerent adversarial controversy. Where the parties are at war, where they wish to destroy each other, where they do not listen to each other, where discussion is absent, there can be little clarification of issues, little development of standardized complementary argument-sets, few constructive results.

So Acts depicts dialogical adversarial controversy, pursued in ordinary human ways and settled in a council of apostles and elders as a means of guidance by the Holy Spirit.

What then are the decisive factors in these ordinary processes by which the Spirit guides the council?

Decisive factors in the council: Personal ties, status quo, momentum

The decision at the council is rendered by James. We are not told how council members other than Peter, Barnabas, and Paul see the issue. But for purposes of analysis we are going to assume that James’ decision is reasonably representative of a large majority of the council.

We must also be clear about the ways in which the decisive factors in a council making a policy decision are different from those of agents making an action decision. There are processes within a council that are not present among agents and vice versa. There are several obvious outward signs of difference. Agents make their decisions on the run, in the midst of their problem. Policy councils deliberate at relative leisure, taking the time necessary to make a considered decision. Agents get their evidence first hand or close to first hand. Policy councils tend to get much of their evidence at second hand, by testimony of others. Agents make their decisions for themselves, for their own actions. Policy councils make decisions for others. Agents are likely to be members of just one party. Policy councils usually have multiple parties to contend with.

We can infer factors Acts sees as decisive for the council’s choice.

Personal ties. Personal ties determine many choices. In this controversy the majority has long consented to including the gentiles without requiring circumcision or the law. This means that for most of the council members, to change requires making a break, at least to some extent, in established personal ties, and making new ties with the Judaizing party.

Further, Acts portrays the weighty leaders — Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James — as joining in support of one side. The ties of the majority to these leaders, and especially to Peter and James, are very strong. Rare is the assembly that fails to follow an alliance of its principal leaders.

Acts carefully emphasizes this point in the way it narrates the council. The movement’s leaders are given pre-eminence, and especially Peter, the chief of the twelve, and James, the Lord’s brother. Both are quoted explicitly, at some length and with placement that emphasizes their importance. Peter is quoted first. James is quoted last. And James renders the decision.

In contrast, the speech by Paul and Barnabas is given only by title. Their role is prominent in comparison to the anonymous debaters of the first part of the council, but subordinate in comparison to that of Peter and James. Acts thus pays careful attention to the weight borne by these leaders. We today may view Paul as carrying great weight, we may couple him with Peter in our thinking, but in the primitive church he is a controversial figure with many opponents. Acts gives greater weight to Peter and James.

Thus Acts pictures the power of personal ties — of members to their party and to the leadership — as strongly in favor of the supporters of catholicity.

Status quo: The status quo of the movement is greatly in favor of catholicity. By the time of the council inclusion of gentiles has been taking place for many years without requiring circumcision or the law. The Judaizers’ stance constitutes a radical reversal of precedent within the movement. Further, the Judaizers cannot even claim uncontested Jewish precedent. As we have seen, their view is only one of the first-century Jewish views — many Jews believe the law of Noah sufficient for gentiles. So because the Judaizers are asking for a change, the status quo of the group is against them. Unless the Judaizers can show compelling reason to change, the movement will continue to do what it has been doing.

Momentum: The momentum of the movement is greatly in favor of continued catholicity. There has been a progression of change in the movement toward gentiles. First there was the inclusion of “Hellenists” as well as “Hebrews.” Then the inclusion of Samaritans. Then the baptism of a gentile household. Then “some men of Cyprus and Cyrene … on coming to Antioch [speak] to the Hellenists also.” (Acts 11:20) Then the mission expands to Asia Minor, Greece, and the whole Mediterranean. And throughout all of this Jewish believers are having to decide upon degrees of association with gentiles, degrees of table-fellowship, degrees of keeping or not keeping the food and purity laws in that association, etc. There is a momentum leading from one change to another, from inclusion of one group of gentiles to another. And now at the council the question is not whether gentiles shall be included — that issue is settled — but whether conditions running counter to the momentum shall be imposed. Only in the most extraordinary circumstances, or only if a movement is dying out, could such a reversal of momentum succeed.

So personal ties, status quo, and momentum are portrayed by Acts as decisive factors in the council’s decision.

But what about argument? Doesn’t all the argument play some role in the decision? And what about scripture?

The functions of argument and scripture

To see how argument functions in this controversy it will be helpful to reconstruct, so far as we can, the Judaizers’ arguments. We are not explicitly told the Judaizers’ position, but we can confidently assume two major appeals. One concerns the relation of Israel and the world. The other concerns the Mosaic law and salvation.

We have already seen that since the fourth century b.c. the people of Israel have had to struggle against Hellenism to keep their identity. Separation from gentiles has been essential for their survival. But by the time of the Christian movement many Jews have compromised with the Greek world and many other Jews see this compromise as betrayal, as selling out to the world. For Judaizers the choice between catholicity and separatism is a choice between the world and the People of God.

If we were to put this debate into contemporary language it might sound something like this:

Judaizers. If we admit gentiles to the church without requiring the law, we will be overwhelmed by Hellenism; we will lose our Jewish identity.

Catholic party. God is not confined to Judaism. He works through Hellenism too.

Judaizers. You know what those gentiles are like. Unless they are required to keep the law of Moses the church will be infected with idolatry and sexual immorality.

Catholic party. We can accept Hellenistic culture without accepting that kind of misconduct.

And some of the catholic party — not Paul or his followers! — might add:

Some of c. p. We can take care of this problem by requiring the Noahide law. That will be sufficient to prevent infection from Hellenistic immorality.

(It should be noted that the Judaizers were right in one very important respect. The church did lose its Jewish identity and did become Hellenistic.)

This argument, then, is a discernment of spirits. The Judaizers argue that catholicity capitulates to the spirit of the world. The catholic party argues that the Hellenism is not to be identified with the spirit of the world.

The Judaizers’ second appeal is to those for whom the gift of the Spirit is not enough to provide assurance of salvation. They need the familiar assurance of keeping the Mosaic law. These are people uncomfortable with movement, people who want the security of familiar status quo.

Arguments from scripture are predominantly arguments of status quo. They appeal to the foundation upon which the People of God stand. They seek to show that the position being argued is grounded in that foundation.

The Judaizers can certainly show such grounding. Indeed their arguments from scripture must have been so familiar as to seem trite — in effect, “We are to keep the law because Moses says so, here and here and here.”

James’ argument does not reinterpret scripture; rather it maintains the commonly understood interpretation but applies it in a new way. The passages he uses have been read as belonging to the last days — in the last days the gentiles will come to the Lord. James reads these passages as applicable, not at some indeterminate future time, but now. We are living in the last days now, and so now the gentiles are to come to the Lord.

Thus the arguments in the Apostolic Council function to make clear the stances of the parties, and scriptural argument functions to show how the stances are grounded in scripture, to provide sacred grounding to those stances. Members of the council are to choose between two stances:

to include gentiles without requiring the law is —
of the Holy Spirit or
accommodation to the world;

for salvation —
life in the Spirit is sufficient or
both life in the Spirit and keeping the Mosaic law are required;

the movement finds a major grounding —
in the scriptural prophecies of the last days or
both in those prophecies and in the Mosaic law.

Each stance is cogent. There are sound reasons on both sides. The choice before the council is: to which of these stances are we being called?

As I sought (above) to recreate the Judaizers’ arguments I found myself feeling their power. The threat of the Hellenistic world must have been every bit as strong for Jews and Christians of the first century as the threat of the secular world today. I can feel the power of a stance which says, “We must keep separate from the world if we are to be true to our faith.” Therefore, I do not believe the arguments are the decisive factors. Arguments make clear the choices of stance, but arguments do not decide the issue. At least that is not how I sense that I choose my stances, or my sense of how I see others doing so. I do it by feel, by what feels right to me; that is, I choose the stance that feels most consonant with where I already stand. This means, in the case of the Apostolic Council, that the majority of members choose the stance most in accord with the stance they already take — a stance of movement into the world rather than separation from it, a stance of movement of the Holy Spirit grounded mainly in the prophecies of the last days in contrast to a stance grounded mainly in the Mosaic law. In the end it is the character of the primitive church as an en‑Spirited movement that decides the issue.

The inclusion controversy in Galatians: The Spirit guides a participant

The character of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians

In moving from Acts to Galatians we move from an overall view of the controversy to a participant’s action within it. We are shown, not the pattern by which the Holy Spirit guides the movement, but the response of one deeply sensitive soul to an event of the controversy. Turning from Acts to Galatians is like travelling from a wartime newsroom to a battle in progress. In the newsroom we stand at a distance from the war, hearing reports, tracing the course of events, following the movements of contending forces, receiving descriptions of the outcomes. In Galatians we are suddenly caught up in the midst of a particular battle, from the point of view of one of the combatants.

The situation is this. In Paul’s absence Judaizers have invaded the churches of Galatia and insisted that gentiles must be circumcised and follow the law of Moses, and some of the Galatians have apparently complied. The Letter to the Galatians is Paul’s counter-attack.

The letter is a very angry one. At its beginning, in the place in a first-century letter where it is customary to give thanks, Paul instead confronts the Galatians with an accusation—

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel. (Galatians 1:6)

He curses his opponents —

If we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! (Galatians 1:8 and a similar curse in 1:9)

I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves! (Galatians 5:12)

He calls them names —

The other Jews joined [Peter] in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. (Galatians 2:13)

And, as we shall see, he advances extravagant claims of personal authority and harshly challenges and criticizes Peter and James and other apostles. I shall even go so far as to call Paul’s claims to personal authority “offensive” and a contradiction of his own views concerning the nature of the church. (But more of that later.)

What is going on? Why such an uproar? Why does Paul so misspeak himself?

The background of the letter

A fundamental ingredient of Paul’s anger in Galatians is that this cause — law-free inclusion of gentiles — is his “baby.” He is a man possessed. He and the cause are merged.

It is a common phenomenon, someone who is so caught up in a cause that he or she cannot separate self from the cause. If you attack the cause, you attack the person. So Paul feels deeply and personally attacked.

Further, at the time of the letter Paul is surrounded by enemies. Not only in Galatia is his gospel of grace being attacked. Not only in Galatia have his converts deserted him. He has raw wounds from a similar betrayal in Antioch.

At a “private meeting with the acknowledged leaders” (Galatians 2:2) Paul had laid before them the gospel he had been proclaiming among the gentiles. Whether that “meeting” was the Apostolic Council or some other meeting, it resulted in what Paul was looking for — support for his views about mission to the gentiles. And then Peter came to Antioch and actually joined Paul and Barnabas in table-fellowship with the gentiles. What more can Paul have hoped for! He must have been filled with great joy! He has received full apostolic sanction for his work! — sanction from the “acknowledged leaders” — sanction on the spot, in practice, from Peter.

Then suddenly everything goes wrong.

“Certain people [come] from James” and Peter draws back “for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews [join] him in his hypocrisy, so that even [Barnabas] is led astray.” (Galatians 2:12–13)

What a blow!

Suddenly Paul loses not only all the apostolic support he thought he had achieved, he also loses Barnabas and the other Jewish Christians of Antioch who have stood with him! He finds himself alone in Antioch in defense of the gospel of grace.

And now, once again, in dealing with the Galatians he finds himself standing alone. He strikes back.

The argument-set in Galatians

One of the most important facts about Galatians is that it presents an argument-set. We shall select a few of the arguments for examination, but the first point to note is that the arguments are of a variety of types and together present a full stance. It would be tedious and unnecessary for our purposes to present and analyze all of the arguments, but to understand the nature of the argument-set we must look at some of the types.

The offensive argument: An argument for the authority of personal experience

In the opening chapter and a half of Galatians Paul seeks to establish his authority independently of any other authority. The others have betrayed him; he cannot depend on them. He argues from his personal experience. His authority, he insists, derives only from “Jesus Christ and God the Father.” (Galatians 1:1) He emphasizes that he is not “sent by human commission nor from human authorities” and his gospel “is not of human origin.” (Galatians 1:1, 11) Instead he has been commissioned “through Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:1)and has received his gospel “through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:12) Nor when he received his gospel, did he “confer [about it] with any human being, nor … go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles.” (Galatians 1:16–17) He waits fourteen years before he finally checks out his gospel with the apostles! And, furthermore, in speaking of that he makes a point of his autonomy. And, in addition, “those leaders” — he means Peter! James! and other apostles! — “those leaders contributed nothing to me.” (Galatians 2:6)

This is an argument for the authority of personal experience. Because I have had a personal experience of Jesus, says Paul, my gospel is of authority, even when it is in conflict with the authority of “those leaders.”

This is a type of argument used not only by Paul but by Martin Luther, the women mentioned in the Introduction, and others who are radically unhappy with established authority or tradition. It is a distinct type of counter-traditional or rebellious argument. When I am unhappy with my tradition or my bishop (or pope or superintendent, etc.) it is often because they don’t accommodate my personal experience very well, and if I am bold enough, I will say so vigorously. So this type of argument appears in argument-sets when the position being urged is in radical conflict with tradition or other established authority.

Such argument is often offensive — and deliberately so.

Whenever I have read the opening chapter and a half of Galatians I have squirmed. Paul’s insistence on his own independent authority has seemed inconsistent with my view of Christian authority — and even with Paul’s own! I have sometimes paused and tried to find a way to reconcile what Paul is saying with the authority and dignity of the Christian community, with the Holy Spirit’s indwelling guidance of the church. I have tried to find a way to fit these harsh words into Paul’s view of the church in such places as 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12. But I have failed. So I have hurried on.

My present study has convinced me that these words are simply irreconcilable with any corporate view of church authority and with Paul’s own teaching. In this passage Paul is so angry that he misspeaks himself, going farther than his own views sanction. In 1 Corinthians 12:21, for example, where he is speaking of the church as made up of many members in one body, he teaches that “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’” Yet here he insists that he possesses an authority which owes nothing to any other member of the body.

These words are simply offensive. There seems to be no other way to put it.

How Christians can call a passage of holy scripture offensive I will discuss in a moment. Here I plead for us to face up to the character of what Paul is saying, and not avoid as I have done for many years the fact that it is offensive. We must take holy scripture as it is and not censor it according to our own notions of what it ought to be.

Take — in its plain character — what Paul does. He says that Peter and James and the other apostles contributed nothing to him. He says that at the time of his call he did not consult with any human being. He speaks with contempt of “acknowledged leaders.” (Galatians 2:6) He calls Peter and Barnabas hypocrites. He says his authority comes only from Jesus Christ.

Thus he shows no respect for other Christians, for the corporate authority of the church, for the Holy Spirit’s presence and guidance within the church, for Peter or Barnabas. We know that Paul is isolated and has been backed into a corner. We understand that he must fight for the gospel entirely on his own. But could he not speak in sorrow? Could he not weep that Peter caved in to pressure? that Barnabas, his companion and friend and fellow-worker of many years, deserted him? And could he not show a particle of modesty?

A perfect human being would have behaved and spoken differently. But Paul is not perfect; so, in this case, under great pressure, he misspeaks himself — offensively. So Paul does one great good — he speaks truth — and one great, but lesser wrong, his lack of respect for other members of the Body.

It is a common situation — a radical spokesperson who inflicts deep wounds in the Body of Christ. The behavior is reprehensible. But are we to ignore such persons? Are we to cast them out?

No. The Letter to the Galatians is holy scripture. The message to us of the first chapter and a half is that even a spokesperson for God can speak in harshly unacceptable ways. A person can be offensive and still speak for God! When we are justly offended by someone we cannot just ignore them. The offense of the first chapter and a half of Galatians is one of its important messages.

We are still left, however, with the question of the authority of personal experience. Paul claims to have authority directly from the Lord.

Such a claim is unwelcome in almost any group. It is a challenge to the authority of the group. But there it is, in holy scripture. So apparently scripture sees a place not only for corporate authority but also for personal authority directly given by God.

Paul’s claim to authoritative personal experience reminds us of the claim of the woman pastor — “the most trustworthy knowledge comes from personal experience rather than from the pronouncements of authorities.”^xiii She claims that her personal experience has greater authority than “pronouncements.” Paul claims that his personal experience of Jesus Christ has the authority of revelation. The woman pastor, then, can argue that even scripture supports her claim to personal authority. But Paul understands that however valid his claim, for others to accept it he must find support in addition to his own word. So Paul advances many other arguments. The woman pastor’s experience has great authority — for anyone their own personal experience has great authority — but if she wishes to persuade others, she must find further grounds. Argument from personal experience alone will not do; an argument-set is needed.

Other argument from personal experience

A more usual type of argument from personal experience is to tell how the issue affects oneself personally. I want my daughter to be an acolyte; so I tell of her longing and what it means to me. Such argument appeals to a sympathetic chord in others. The hope is that others will either find a similar experience or feeling in themselves and will sympathize with that feeling in the speaker.

Paul often speaks of his spiritual experience. In Galatians he advances such an argument —

Through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:19–20)

Argument from examined experience

The above argument not only has the appeal of personal experience, the plucking of a sympathetic chord in the hearer’s breast; it also constitutes a reasoned or examined experience. Notice how Paul connects his personal experience of the law with crucifixion and union with Christ. His death to the law he describes as crucifixion with Christ. He is using imagery from Jesus’ life as a pattern by which to understand his own life.

He does the same when he describes his experience of the law as a dying to the law. He has tried to live as a law-keeper and the result was a failure, a death. But that death led to life in God, a life he experiences as Christ living in him.

He lives in union with Christ, and the pattern of Christ’s life is the pattern of his life. Christ’s crucifixion is Paul’s death to law. Christ’s resurrection is Paul’s life in God.

Paul uses other arguments from examined experience, for example —

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. (Galatians 2:15–16)

In our discussion of Peter’s use of reason^xiv we have already seen how reason functions to articulate Peter’s experience. Here we see Paul engaged in the same process. He makes key choices of terms for understanding his experience and drawing conclusions from it. We are so accustomed to the Pauline ideas and images they seem “natural” to us, but other choices were open to Paul and the fact that he made the choices he did accounts for their familiarity. His task was to articulate and examine his experience of two ways of life, the Pharisaic and the Christian.

He has had a kind of failure in law-keeping and a kind of success in life with Jesus. How was he to put these two experiences into words? How was he to understand them? The key terms he chooses are justified, works of the law, and faith. He could have made other choices; for example, saved and virtue and baptism, or made good and obedience to and following. He could have said, “A person is saved not by the person’s virtue but through baptism into Jesus Christ,” or “A person is made good not by obedience to the law but through following Jesus Christ.” Had he made different choices, Christian doctrine would be different.

These terms come from Paul’s Jewish heritage, but not only does Paul do a new thing by choosing these particular terms out of all the possibilities, he also connects them in a new way. The idea of Messiah or Christ he attaches to the name Jesus, a revolutionary claim. Of this, of course, he is not the originator. But to connect justification and faith in Jesus Christ — that is new. And to combine works and law in a pejorative sense — that too is new. And together these innovations constitute the Pauline revolution, for they create a whole new model of life.

Argument from the hearers’ experience

Paul makes a powerful appeal to the Galatians’ own experience —

Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? … Did you experience so much for nothing? … Well, then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? (Galatians 3:2, 4, 5)

As we have already seen, this argument is a principal standardized argument of the movement. God shows his approval of the inclusion of gentiles — in this case, law-free inclusion — by giving them the Holy Spirit and by working miracles among them. The argument has already a canonical or semi-canonical status. And since it is to the hearers’ own experience that the argument appeals, it is even more powerful toward them.

Argument from corporate authority

Paradoxically one of the grounds Paul advances in support of his personal authority is the corporate authority he has attacked in the beginning of the letter. He appeals to the approval of the churches of Judea and the meeting of “acknowledged pillars” —

The churches of Judea that are in Christ … said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me. (Galatians 1:22–24)

When they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised … and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (Galatians 2:7, 9)

Paul may view his own authority as equal to that of other authorities, but he recognizes, nevertheless, the need of his argument-set to show grounding in corporate authority. To stand by yourself, however nobly or truthfully, is not sufficient for persuading others. An argument-set needs authoritative grounding in the community to which it is appealing.

Argument from guiding vision

Besides his appeal to his vision of life in Christ, Paul advances other important ideals of the Christian life —

As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:27–28)

Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. … Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. … By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. (Galatians 5:16, 19–21, 22–23)

Paul appeals to the Galatians on the basis of a vision which can have been in their lives only partially fulfilled — a church in which there is “no longer Jew or Greek … slave or free … male and female,” and in which there is “the fruit of the Spirit … love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” But this vision must have been for the Galatians — and still is for us today — a powerful motivating force.

A guiding vision is a model or picture of an ideal held dear by a group, an ideal toward which the group strives. It is experiential in that it is felt in the life of the group, but it is not experience in the sense of the actual but of the longed-for.

It is important to observe here that the first of these visions is of an all-inclusive, fully catholic church, a church which knows no barriers because of race or gender or servile status. This guiding vision is still working itself out today; it powerfully motivates many Christians. The inclusion controversy was settled in the first-century so far as gentiles were concerned, but the other types of inclusivity remained to be worked out. The controversy in that sense has continued right up to our own time — especially if we think of Paul’s list not as exhaustive but as a list of examples. Does not the Christian ideal of inclusivity include rich and poor, upper class and lower class, learned and illiterate, and the like? And is not the contemporary debate about gays and lesbians a debate about whether they should be included in the list?

No Christian argument-set will be complete without reference to such aspects of the Christian guiding vision.

The fruit of the Spirit is a similar guiding vision. It shows us the ideal character of the Christian community. It motivates us in our churches to a life in the Spirit that will result in such fruit.

Guiding vision is of the essence of a group’s stance. And because that is true, such guiding vision becomes a test of whether or not a proposal or experience is acceptable to the group. The characteristics listed by Paul have become in Christian practice tests for discernment of spirits. If, for example, someone claims to have had a vision of the Blessed Virgin, one of the tests for authenticity is to examine the person’s life for the fruit of the Spirit and the works of the flesh.

Appeal to guiding vision, therefore, is a powerful method of argument for or against a particular stance. I am more likely to adopt a proposed stance if I find it consonant with my already-held guiding vision. But if I have to change my guiding vision to adopt a proposal, I am likely to reject it.

Guiding vision, thus, is a very important element in an argument-set.

Argument from scripture

Paul is faced with showing that his gospel has strong scriptural roots, that his theology is not simply a radical innovation. Somehow he must show that the Mosaic covenant is being superseded, that scripture provides for this supersession, and that justification by faith has been present in scripture all along. He finds his solution in the covenant of Abraham.

He argues that the Abrahamic covenant is a covenant of faith (by Abraham) and of promise (by God), that the gospel was foreseen by scripture in the covenant of Abraham, that this earlier covenant was not annulled by the later Mosaic covenant, and that the latter was temporary and the former is still in force.

The Abrahamic covenant is a covenant of justification by faith in which the gospel is declared beforehand to Abraham —

Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” so, you see, those who believe are the descendants of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.” For this reason, those who believe are blessed with Abraham who believed. (Galatians 3:6-9)

It is a covenant of promise and it has not been annulled by the Mosaic covenant —

Once a person’s will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. … The law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. (Galatians 3:15,–16, 17)

The Mosaic law was a temporary measure to prepare for Christ; now that Christ has come it is no longer in force —

Why then the law? … The law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. … And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:19, 24–26, 29)

Paul advances many other scriptural arguments, but these are enough to show that he is seeking to build a complete scriptural case for his gospel, showing that the gospel is not his invention but is fully scriptural.

Especially significant is his contention that the Mosaic covenant was temporary. He does not seek to reinterpret that covenant to show that it does not mean what it has generally been thought to mean, a tactic often used in later Christian controversies. Many contemporary arguments, for example, for recognizing homosexuality as an acceptable way of life seek to show that passages that have commonly been understood to condemn homosexuality do not actually do so. Nor does Paul argue that the Mosaic covenant has now been superseded by the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus. He surely believes the latter, or comes to believe it, for he speaks of it in the Corinthian letters —

In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:25)

[Christ] has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Corinthians 3:6)

But instead of taking this tack he seeks to keep his argument within the covenants of Israel, a far more conservative course than arguing from the New Covenant in Christ.

Now we see that the inclusion controversy can be understood as the “three covenant controversy.” The Judaizers contend that the Mosaic covenant must be applied to gentiles. The Apostolic Council decides for the Noahide covenant (or a limited portion of the Mosaic covenant, the laws for aliens given in Leviticus 17 and 18 — see endnote two). But Paul argues for the Abrahamic covenant of promise. Eventually, of course, for Christians these earlier covenants are seen as replaced by the New Covenant.

Thus Paul’s use of scripture suggests that for Christians a complete and persuasive argument-set includes as complete and conservative a scriptural case as one can make.

Further, we see in Paul what we may call experiential interpretation of scripture. He is not the objective, scientific scriptural scholar dear to the modern mind. He is not seeking to discover the writer’s intent. No. His method is the method of spiritual insight or discernment. He seeks in holy scripture an example of his own experience and the experience he observes in others, of faith in God and its results. He finds that example in Abraham and he applies his insight concerning such faith in God to what he finds in the story of Abraham. He applies his own spiritual experience to the interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant, and he uses the Abrahamic covenant to understand his own spiritual experience. His experience sheds light on the story and the story sheds light on his experience.

This stands in contrast to the “mere pronouncements of authorities” mentioned by the woman pastor. “Pronouncements” wound the woman pastor not only by their content, but also by their insensitivity to her situation. Experiential interpretation, on the other hand, not only speaks but listens; it connects the experiences of text and present situation. It seeks to illuminate a present experience in the light of scriptural experience, and in order to do so it must have a good feel for the present situation. In this instance Paul meditates upon present experience (his own and the Galatians’) in the light of scriptural experience (Abraham’s). You and I, he says to the Galatians, received the Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ and not by works of the law. Similarly, he continues, we see in holy scripture that 430 years before the institution of the Mosaic law Abraham trusted in God’s promise and as a consequence was reckoned righteous — so both Abraham and we have been set right with God by faith, not by works of the law.

Rebuttal

Two (at least) of Paul’s arguments are rebuttals. From them we infer two charges opponents leveled (or Paul anticipated they might level) —

You violate the law in the name of your supposed “Messiah” and therefore he is a servant of sin; and

Your supposed “Messiah” was cursed, for scripture teaches that one hanged on a tree is cursed. (Deuteronomy 21:23)

Paul responds to the first charge, as we have seen above, by arguing that he died to the law and that the purpose of the law was to prepare him for justification by faith in Jesus Christ.

He responds to the second charge by finding a connection not only between curse and hanging, but curse and law-keeping. A person is cursed not only by being hanged, but by failing to keep the law. (Deuteronomy 26:26) To this he adds the notion of redemption, identifying Jesus’ cross with the redemption out of Egypt and with redemption through animal sacrifice .

All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.” … Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us — for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” — in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:10, 13–14)

Thus, we are cursed by our failure to keep the law, but Christ becomes a curse for us by being hanged and in that way redeems us from the curse. This new image of Jesus as the sacrifice for redemption is captured for the Christian imagination in the Gospel of John a generation or two later by calling Jesus the “lamb of God.” (John 1:29, 36) This is one way in which deeper insight into both our experience and scripture occurs — doctrinal development. As we have new experiences or new controversies, we seek to make scriptural sense of them. We seek similarities between our present situation and the deposit of faith. And then we try various ways of making sense of the old and the new, and of capturing our insights in imagery and doctrine. Here the scandal of the cross is interpreted scripturally in terms of curse and redemption, and scripture is thus interpreted to foreshadow the cross.

Rebuttals are a frequent occurrence in argument-sets. As controversy continues and opponents hear one another’s arguments, the sides develop rebuttals.

The makeup of argument-sets: Acts and Galatians compared

In Acts 15 we find just two kinds of arguments — much argument from experience (reception of the Holy Spirit and cleansing of the heart by Jews and gentiles, Jewish experience of the burden of the Mosaic law, Jewish Christian expectation of salvation through the grace of the Lord Jesus, signs and wonders worked by Paul and Barnabas among the gentiles) and some argument from scripture (the Judaizers’ argument that the law of Moses requires circumcision and James’ arguments from the prophets).

In Galatians we find a much wider variety of argument — authority (personal and corporate), experience (personal and of the hearers), guiding vision, scripture, and rebuttal. We also find — and this is very important — a full stance depicted in Paul’s argument-set. From Paul’s argument we know where he stands in the tradition — he is rooted in the Abrahamic covenant — and where he stands in the movement — he looks to the inner Christ and the fruit-bearing Spirit for his guidance in what to do. We also know how he views the stance of his opponents — in clinging to the Mosaic law they are refusing to take on the responsibility of adulthood.

Figure 4

Some types of arguments in a full argument-set

• from authority (both personal and corporate)

• from examined experience (of both speaker and hearer)

• guiding vision

• scripture (traditional interpretation and reinterpretation)

• rebuttal
• reason
• tradition

 

Paul’s guidance by the Holy Spirit

In our examination of Acts we have seen the many ways in which Philip and Peter and others were guided by the Holy Spirit. From what we find in Galatians how is Paul guided?

First in importance, of course, is the “revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:12) which he received from God “so that [he] might proclaim him among the Gentiles.” (Galatians 1:16) This revelation comes, Paul explains, after a zealous life in Judaism in which he was “beyond … many among my people of the same age,” (Galatians 1:14) and after he had “violently [persecuted] the church of God and was trying to destroy it.” (Galatians 1:13)

The picture in this description and elsewhere in Paul’s letters is of an intense soul who never does anything by half, but always by extremes, who swings abruptly from violent persecution of Jewish Christians to avid Christian mission. God uses this intense, extremist soul to build his church.

The revelation provides Paul’s guiding vision. Paul refers to this revelation again and again as his foundational authority.

But embedded in this experience and providing Paul’s means of understanding this experience is his immersion in scripture. Scripture provides the means by which he sees the world and understands his experiences. So it is probably more accurate to speak of these three things — the revelation, guiding vision, and scripture — as a single whole or three aspects of one continuing event, than to speak of them as separate sources of divine guidance. Paul, steeped in scripture, is given a revelation of Jesus Christ by God, which becomes his guiding vision.

But this revelation does not cease. It is certainly true that it has one key event at its center, but Paul sees it expanded and carried out in his experiences as a missionary. He sees others baptized with the Holy Spirit. He finds himself and Barnabas working signs and wonders among the gentiles. He sees the fruit of the Spirit in himself and in others. He and others are given a catholic vision of the church — of a church in which there is neither Jew nor gentile, slave or free, male or female. All of this validates the original revelation and makes it ever more clear and explicit. And all of it is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Despite Paul’s confidence in his revelation and despite his extravagant claims to its authority in Galatians, Paul does, however begrudgingly, recognize the authority of the church and of the apostles and elders. He does submit his gospel to the latter for approval. He does see the approval of the churches of Judea as worth something. So the Holy Spirit uses the authority of the church as another means of guiding Paul.

And then the opposition. The opposition is of great value to this extremist soul. Paul thrives on opposition. Opposition goads him not only to action, but to insight and systematic thought. The more the Judaizers contend for circumcision and the law, the more Paul has to argue for his position, the more he develops his insight and thought. And the more years that pass, the more fruitful the results. In Galatians we mine those results. Opposition is a means of guidance by the Holy Spirit.

And, finally, reason — Paul uses a lively and sharp mind to understand and make coherent the insights he has been granted.

Figure 5

How the Holy Spirit guides Paul (as seen in Galatians)

• by a revelation

• by guiding vision

• by scriptural meditation

• by the experience of others

• the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

• signs and wonders

• the fruit of the Spirit

• the catholic (widely inclusive) vision of the church

• by the authority of the church, of the apostles and elders
• by opposition
• by reason

 

Paul’s position, the apostolic decree, and the church’s incorporation: the law-grace battle continues

Paul’s position on law-free inclusion has come over into modern Christian doctrine, not as a position concerning Mosaic law and the grace of Jesus Christ, but as concerning law in general — any kind of law — and grace. And it has come over not as concerning gentiles, but as concerning anybody, Jew or gentile or any other category of human being. Now that, for the most part, Protestant and Roman Catholic have stopped quarrelling about this issue, we can say that the doctrine of justification by faith is standard Christian doctrine. So it seems that Paul has won his battle.

But has he? Isn’t it true that in practice, at least, the battle still goes on? Don’t we hear teaching on justification by faith and yet many, if not most, Christians practice justification by works?

The fact is that the apostolic decree included law in its decision — Noahide law — and that the church developed its own law and code, and law and grace have continued in uneasy co-existence ever since the Apostolic Council. The law-grace battle continues in practice to this day. Paul’s position is orthodox tradition. Paul’s position is highly evident in holy scripture. Yet so are the apostolic decree, the Letter of James, and the common works-of-the-law practice of Christians.

So we cannot look to a single strand of scripture — say, the Pauline letters — as settling doctrine all on their own. They must be understood, if we would seek standard doctrine, not only in the context of the rest of scripture, but also in the tradition — i.e., the understanding — that has worked itself out in practice.

My personal feelings are like Luther’s. If I could cast the Letter of James into outer darkness, I would. I see Paul’s teaching as vastly superior to that of the Letter of James. But I am not the determiner of what is or is not holy scripture; so I must reconcile myself to the fact that scripture apparently sees it as all right for some Christians to practice works righteousness, and I have to try to fit that into my theological views and tolerate it in practice.

For our study the significance of this point is that we may have to be willing in our controversies to tolerate other positions we find distasteful. It may be that there is biblical support for that other position, even if there seems to be better and stronger support for our own.

The three-legged stool and others

Our current controversies have spawned much recent debate concerning the sources of doctrine. Anglicans have for centuries advanced the three-legged stool of scripture, tradition, and reason as the source of doctrine. Roman Catholics are more likely to assert scripture, tradition, and authority.^xv Others want a stool with four legs — scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. And still others, of course, assert scripture alone.

Our study indicates that none of these formulas fits very well what actually occurred in the inclusion controversy. And the apparent division between “reason” and “experience” in the current debate is spurious, as we have seen.

Some may respond that the inclusion controversy is a special case since it is itself a matter of divine revelation, and now that the period of revelation has ceased we may look to scripture alone or scripture and one or more of the other sources cited. For the present we can leave this question open and see what occurs in the other controversies to be studied, but the inclusion controversy alone, even granting its status as revelation, suggests that what is needed as the source of doctrine is a full argument-set and what we have already seen suggests that a full argument-set will contain all of the sources named above — scripture, tradition, reasoned (or examined) experience, and authority — and will also contain guided vision, but most of all will be characterized by the completeness with which it expresses a stance. In short, there will be many sources but, above all, as many as are needed to express a full stance.