Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
Good point. Okay, how about this: what if he had the assurance of the validity of his vision but wanted to wait to test its robustness in the heart of the Judaizers' territory? Maybe what worried him was that he wouldn't be able to prevail. "But not even so-and-so, who was a Jew, was compelled to be circumcised"
That was his victory, not so much that they affirmed him, but that they could not overturn him. And like you said, YP, ultimately it was his model which the Constantine-era church pressed forward. Perhaps it was better for us all that it was not the 'James' model.
14 years seems like a long time to wait to test his model. But it has stood for 2,000 years, so maybe that 14-year wait was wise on his part. "Wait on the Lord", etc. He knew what was in Jerusalem. He had not been back there since his conversion, but he had already had to deal with those "from James", right?
But then, why was he led like a meek lamb to the slaughter in Acts 21?
It still doesn't square.
|
OK, you made me think about this in another fashion now.
For the record, I'm not 100% confident to say it was definitely Paul's model which prevailed in post-persecution Rome to become ensconced in all of Christendom today. I've only said that it sure seems that way to me. And I'm also not sure we should attribute the other to James, as it seems to imply that he was the inventor and principal champion of that. Paul and Luke can be read to lay the Judaizing problem at the feet of James, but it's well said that James was being as faithful to the Lord as he had light, which is all any of us can ever do. Paul in fact only stated "some came from James;" he does not say that the shrinking back was on account of James. He never seems to have opposed James to his face, right?
That said, and perhaps only for the moment, let me propose this: the one model, James' as you have suggested, was based upon a Christianized Temple and synagogue religious practice. The end result of that was the destruction of Jerusalem. The other, Paul's, was developed from a Greco-Roman civic practice of the
ekklesia, which I have suggested Paul felt perfectly comfortable bringing certain customary synagogue practices into for reasons he most likely perceived as purely practical. And indeed, this latter does appear to be the one that has prevailed.
Consider that while "elders" of the synagogue and "elders" of the assembly aren't necessarily clearly delineated in Acts, synagogues and assemblies are. James in his epistle identifies "elders of the assembly" at 5:15. Look at Acts 21:18 and following again. Was it actually James who instigated Paul's participation in the ritual or did he merely stand with those who did? Are we certain that these were the "elders" of the "assembly" in Jerusalem? Consider that they seem concerned with a temple practice.
A few miscellaneous notes:
If you read Acts 6-9 carefully, it seems that the direction of Acts is generally less and less about The Twelve and Jerusalem but an additional point is that Paul seems to have a good foundation in Jerusalem's practices, whatever they actually were.
The Jerusalem decree about the dietary matters is actually repeated in this section in Acts 21. Jerusalem was serious about Gentiles not eating strangled meat but Paul doesn't tell them, "Hey, I stopped passing that letter out a long time ago, folks, because it's just off the mark."
Also, observe that it was "the Jews from Asia" who raised all the ruckus in Acts 21. Paul's teaching in Asia at some point must have been radically at odds with Jewish practice, although admittedly these Asian Jews may have borne false witness at this time. In any event, there's an Asian nexus here to consider once again.