Catholica: Can we learn from Paul's descriptions of his "Damascus Road conversion" insights as to how God reveals himself in our lives? by Ian Elmer

Can we learn from Paul's descriptions of his "Damascus Road conversion" insights as to how God reveals himself in our lives?

In this article Ian Elmer brings into focus some scriptural-based observations on a number of questions that we've been discussing as a community over recent months. One on-going question a number of people have been addressing is the one of how God speaks to us? Following on from his own essay on Thursday on the present wisdom as to how we understand God revealed himself to the writers of Sacred Scripture, Ian here picks apart Scripture itself with the aid of a number of other scholars to see what we might learn from the ways in which Paul claims the Gospel or Divine insights were revealed to him. Was Paul being "economical with the truth" in suggesting the revelation all came in some flash of light on the road to Damascus or was it a slower, evolutionary process that was also tempered by other events that Paul had to deal with and surmount in his own life?

Recently I caused a storm when I suggested on another Catholic discussion board that Paul was a 'liar' as evidenced by his 'economical use of the truth' in Galatians vis-à-vis his claims concerning his revelation on the road to Damascus. While I admit my choice of terminology may have been ill-advised, I stand by the claim that Paul may not have been telling the whole truth about his revelatory experience.

Recognising that Paul has been highly selective in his Galatian letter allows us an excellent window onto the process of inspiration, a subject that we broached on Thursday in this column. In particular, we can see clearly the manner in which a numinous experience or revelation of God may be only the start of an ongoing process of revelation for one of the biblical writers whose subsequent experiences help to clarify and shape his or her understanding of the initial revelation.

Paul's letter to the 'churches in Galatia' (1:2) is a short and passionate document, which is perhaps the most polemical of all the Pauline correspondence. In this letter we find Paul vehemently defending his gospel and his right as an apostle to preach this gospel among the Gentiles (1:16; 2:8) against accusations to the contrary advanced by missionaries who he accuses of having 'bewitched' (3:1) and 'unsettled' (1:7; 5:12) his Gentile converts at Galatia. Paul calls these interlopers 'agitators' and 'troublemakers' (1:7; 5:10, 12), and he charges them with preaching a 'different gospel' (1:6), which he characterises as a perversion of the gospel of Christ (1:7).

As to the basis of the missionaries' warrant they appear to have appealed to the authority of the Apostles at Jerusalem. Indeed, a significant aspect of their message must have been the record of the events surrounding Paul's early association with the Jerusalem apostles, Peter, James and John, including the Council at Jerusalem. Why else would Paul need to provide his version of these events (1:18-19; 2:1-14)? There would seem to be here a clear allusion to possible claims by Paul's opponents at Galatia that Paul, like they, had similarly received the gospel by way of Jerusalem (Dunn 1993:72-78; Bruce 1982:26; Betz 188:64-66; Longenecker 1990:44-45; Martyn 1997:117). There may also be here, as F. F. Bruce (1982: 101-102) points out, a further implied charge that Paul had failed to preach that gospel correctly, abridging and adulterating the import of the message that he had received at Jerusalem.

Against such claims, Paul asserts that he first went to Jerusalem in order to get 'acquainted' with Peter (1:18), not to be 'taught' or 'receive' the content of the gospel he preached (1:12) or the 'call' to preach it (1:15-16) (Matera 1992:68-69; Martyn 1997:171-172). Both his gospel and his apostolic commission (1:15) are the products of the revelation (1:12) he received three years prior to his initial meeting with Cephas and James (1:15-17) and fourteen years before the Council meeting that recognised the legitimacy of his apostleship among the Gentiles (2:1-10). But is this really true? Or is Paul leaving out certain salient facts?

Paul tells us that his commerce with Jerusalem was limited to only two visits, and that the time lapse between the two was a considerable one — some fourteen years. Where was he during this time? Acts of the Apostles (11:25-26, 30; 13:1; 15:2) suggests that he was at Antioch, which had, years before his arrival there, already initiated a large-scale Law-free mission to the Gentiles (Elmer 2006). However in Galatians, Paul is notably circumspect about his association with the Antiochene community; and probably with good reason.

We do not have the space in this week's column to explore the incidents described in Galatians 2:1-14 — the Jerusalem Council and the so-called Incident at Antioch. For the moment we can only note that it is generally accepted that this series of conflicts between Antioch and Jerusalem marked not only a watershed in the history of the early Church, but also in the career of Paul (Dunn 1990: 160-161; Matera 1992:91).

Nothing seems clearer than the fact that Paul lost the battle to James and Peter at Antioch. While he resolutely champions his defiance of James' people and affirms the legitimacy of his position, Paul admits that his actions left him in the minority, as Peter, Barnabas and the whole Jewish constituency at Antioch defected to the pro-circumcision putsch out of Jerusalem. His account of the conflict ends abruptly with no explicit report of its conclusion. This implies that he was unable to win any of his erstwhile collaborators back to the cause of the Law-free gospel. As a result of this calamity, it appears that Paul immediately departed Antioch and embarked on a mission to Asia Minor and Greece.

This is confirmed by Acts (15:36-41), which presents Paul as undertaking this second missionary journey without his former companion Barnabas. Luke says nothing of Paul's clash with Peter and the James' people at Antioch. The split between Barnabas and Paul is occasioned by a dispute over the inclusion of John Mark in the missionary team. But the finality of the split is apparent in the fact that from this point onwards in Acts Barnabas fades from the story of Paul. It is likely that Paul never again returned to Antioch or Jerusalem — until his final fateful journey a decade later.

With the subsequent challenge to his apostolate at Galatia, Paul was hard-pressed to defend his gospel and his apostolic status. He could not appeal to his long years of labour at Antioch; his former colleagues there, including Barnabas, had defected to the Christian-Jewish camp.

Accordingly, in Galatians (1:11-17), Paul attributes both the content of the Law-free gospel he preached among the nations and the commission to preach it to a 'revelation from Jesus Christ', which he did not receive via any human agency (1:11-12). One might be forgiven for imagining that Paul is here claiming sole responsibility for the advent of the Gentile mission. However, it is not entirely clear that from the very outset Paul understood the nature of his revelation as a specific vocation to be the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Nowhere in his letters does Paul explicitly describe the exact nature of the revelation he received. We know only that it was an experience of the Son accorded to him by the Father (Gal 1:16), in which he 'saw Jesus the Lord' (1 Cor 9:1). Paul equates this experience with that of the post-resurrection Christophanies granted to the official witnesses, suggesting that the only difference between his vision and theirs was that his vision took place much later (1 Cor 15:5-8).

Luke claims (Acts 9:3; 22:6; 26:12) and Paul implies (Gal 1:17c; cf. 2 Cor 11:32-33) that the incident occurred near Damascus. Both situate the episode within the context of Paul's pursuit and persecution of the infant Church (Gal 1:13-16; Acts 9:1-2; 22:4-5; 26:11-12). Therefore we must assume that it was in Damascus that he became acquainted with the Christian gospel, and more specifically with the Law-free version of the Gospel propagated by the Hellenists who had fled there following Stephen's martyrdom. Only that form of the Christian message would have incited a Law-abiding Jew like Paul to persecute the Christian community and thus, his revelation diverted him from the path of persecution of the Law-free mission onto the path of propagation (Dunn 1990:251-256; 1998:352).

It is quite clear from Galatians that Paul's association with any other form of the Christian movement was extremely limited. Even by his own admission it was not until three years after his call that he made his way to Jerusalem to consult with those who were apostles before him (Gal 1:18). Following this, he went to Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21), and it was probably at this time that he joined the community in Antioch. He did not return to Jerusalem until fourteen years later (Gal 2:1).

During the intervening years he seems to have exercised his ministry in Antioch, where he quickly became a leading member of that community. But the evidence in Acts suggests that Paul's initial role was inferior to that of Barnabas and others, such as Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen (Acts 13:1), who were already involved in a vigorous and successful Law-free mission to the Jewish and Gentile citizens of Antioch (Haenchen 1991: 370).

In the traditional list of the prophets and teachers who constituted the leadership at Antioch in Acts 13:1, Paul's name appears last. When Acts (13:1-14:26) has the church in Antioch embark on a mission to expand the scope of the Law-free Gentile mission into Cyprus and Asia Minor, Barnabas is named before Paul as the head of the embassage (13:2; cf 13:7). Thus, as H. Räisänen (1987; 1992:288-295) rightly contends, both Acts and the letters of Paul indicate that it was during and probably as a result of Paul's affiliation with the Hellenists' mission in Antioch that Paul worked out the full implication of his 'call' to preach the gospel among the Gentiles. But does this mean that Paul has lied in Galatians?

There is no doubt that using the term "liar" to describe Paul would be unwise. But the fact is, Paul is not telling the whole truth; he is leaving out some very important aspects of his former life that have clearly shaped his understanding of his initial experience on the road to Damascus. Still, this does highlight the whole process of revelation and inspiration. Whatever the nature of Paul's revelatory experience, he took a considerably long time for him to fully comprehend the import of the message for his new-found Christian faith, as well as its impact on his life.

To pursue this thought further, Paul's later understanding of his Damascus Road experience came only as a result of a series of conflicts at Jerusalem, Antioch and then in Galatia. By the time of writing Galatians Paul had been both marginalised from the mainstream "church" and forced to embark on an independent mission — for which he was being criticised by the Galatian opponents.

Paul's only recourse was to attribute both his gospel and his commission to his initial revelatory experience on the road to Damascus. This was not strictly a "lie", but there is certainly a degree of expedient selectivity in the telling. Was it justified? Or is this simply an excellent example of God's inspiration at work in the everyday experiences of one's workaday life? How often do we find God amidst conflict and debate? Is it not in the midst of such debates that our understanding of God's "call" can be clarified? Certainly, this reflection could be food for a lively discussion in this week's forum.

References:
Betz, H. D. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text TNIGTC. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982.
Dunn, J. D. G. Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster Press, 1990.
________. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Elmer, I. J. "Between Jerusalem and Antioch: The Advent of the Gentile Mission" AEJT 6(2006).
URL: http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_6/elmer.htm
Haenchen, E. Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Translated by B. Noble and G. Shin. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971.
Longenecker, R. N. Galatians. Vol. 41 WBC. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.
Martyn, J. L. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1997.
Matera, F. J. Galatians. Vol. 9 SPS. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1992.
Räisänen, H. "Paul's Conversion and the Development of His View of the Law." NTS 37 (1987): 404-19.
________. Paul and the Law. 2nd ed. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1987.
________. Jesus, Paul and the Torah: Collected Essays JSNTSS 43. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.

Ian Elmer is a lecturer in New Testament at ACU National (formally Australian Catholic University). He is also a member of the Centre for Early Christian Studies, and was recently admitted into ACBA (Australian Catholic Biblical Association). His research specialities are Paul and First-Century Christianity. He is the author of published articles in the Australian Ejournal of Theology and in Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church (a publication of the Centre for Early Christian Studies). He is currently completing a doctoral thesis, entitled Paul, Jerusalem and the Judaisers: The Galatian Crisis in its Broader Historical Context.

What are your thoughts on this essay?
You can contribute your thoughts in our forum.

Ian Elmer can be contacted at: Ian Elmer <ianelmer@catholica.com.au> Please Note: You need to remove the "NOSPAM" words at the beginning of the email address before sending the email"