Email this page to a friend
Print friendly view
Post your feedback in our forum|
Dr IAN ELMER… |
|
|
CLICK HERE FOR INDEX TO THIS SERIES ON ST PAUL  Dr Ian Elmer's commentary today on happenings in the embryonic Church at Jerusalem and Antioch torpedoes down through the centuries and lodges like an "arrow of relevance" into our own time. This is a commentary about different models of leadership and how leaders need to mediate between various factions. It's a commentary about "building community or fellowship" in an environment where one, or some of the factions, do not want to listen to any other interpretations other than their own. As Dr Elmer points out, the lesson we can learn has direct relevance to our own time. Conflict in interpretations… We began our examination of the Jerusalem Council last week by exploring the circumstances that led to the calling of the first meeting of apostolic leaders of the early churches in Syria and Palestine (c. 49 CE). The issues at stake centred on the legitimacy of the Law-free mission as pursued by the Antiochene church. This week we ask the question, what transpired at this meeting between the Antiochene delegation and the Jerusalem church?
To the Nations… The phrase "to the nations" (2:8) can be read not as exclusively restricting Paul's mission "to the Gentiles" in a purely racial or cultural sense, but inclusively "to all the nations", including Jews (Painter, 1997: 61-62). On this reading of Paul's report, the distinction between the two missions was drawn along ideological rather then ethnic lines. If this interpretation is correct, then Paul is claiming that the Jerusalem church recognised the legitimacy of the Law-free gospel, and they agreed that Paul and the Antiochene Church were free to preach that gospel to Jews and Gentiles alike. But this seems unlikely. Reading Paul's report of the outcome of the Jerusalem meeting as an agreement to divide the missionary field into two ideologically distinct movements is hardly equivalent to Paul's later assertions that as a result "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything" (Gal 5:6; 6:l5) and that in Christ "there is no longer Jew nor Greek" (Gal 3:28). Moreover, the whole thrust of Paul's argument in Galatians is to stress the unity of the Jesus movement, which is underlined by Paul's explicit rejection of the notion that there might be two distinct gospels (Gal 1:6-9; 2:14). Even in his account of the Jerusalem Council, Paul is keen to emphasise the fellowship he shared with the Apostles. Accordingly, another interpretation of the Jerusalem agreement holds that Paul is speaking of a geographical demarcation, whereby the Jerusalem church would continue to focus on the Jewish homeland while Antioch would have "the nations" outside Palestine as their mission field (Burton, 1921: 98; Holmburg, 1978: 30). Advocates of this position argue that Paul speaks of his apostolate among the Gentiles rather than to the Gentiles (Gal 16; 2:2). But, again, this seems unlikely. It is improbable that in the long term the delegates of the Jerusalem church would have accepted any geographical demarcation between the Law-observant and the Law-free missions at Jerusalem and Antioch, respectively. The most obvious reason for such scepticism is that this agreement would have required James and the Jerusalem church to relinquish all previous claims to sole authority over the Christian mission, which amounted to an absolute reversal of their previous policy. A more commonly-accepted interpretation of the agreement is that the Jerusalem Council accepted an ethnic division of the mission field (Murphy-O'Connor, 1996: 142-143). Paul juxtaposes his "gospel of uncircumcison" (Gal 2:7) that he preached "to the nations" (2:8) with Peter's "apostleship amongst the Jews" (2:7-8). This suggests that we must read the agreement as a sanction allowing Paul and the Antiochene community to evangelise Gentiles, while Peter, and by extension the Jerusalem church, would continue to focus on the Jews. But even this view has its problems. Koinonia… Important here is Paul's use of the term "koinonia", which he introduces into the wording of the accord (Gal 2:9). Pauline scholar, Philip Esler (1998: 298-299), suggests that the language Paul employs to describe the Pillars as offering him and Barnabas "the right hand of fellowship" does not necessarily imply a unanimous and mutual agreement between equal partners. In the contemporary biblical literature, especially the Maccabees (1 Macc 6:58; 11:50, 62, 66; 13:45, 50; 2 Macc 4:34; 11:26; 12:11; 13:22; 14:19), "giving the right hand" refers to establishing a truce following the cessation of hostilities. The commander or superior party "gives the right hand" while the inferior, on occasion portrayed as the petitioner, takes it in recognition of his acceptance of the terms of the treaty.
Paul's insistent assertions that he does not regard the Jerusalem Apostles as his superiors is probably meant to obscure the ambiguities inherent in the accord reached at Jerusalem. Esler's interpretation carries the military metaphor of espionage and conflict first introduced with reference to the false brothers (Gal 2:4) over to the final accord with the Pillar Apostles, suggesting that any agreement would have been both fragile and conditional. Paul presents the agreement as final and binding on all participants. But the Jerusalem delegates may have understood it in terms of a provisional armistice, whereby the present, loose, ethnically-defined demarcation of the missionary communities was but a temporary measure to stave off any immediate re-engagement between the warring factions. In effect, any accord would have been little more than a moratorium. There remained a number of huge issues that were left unresolved by this accord — which we will look at next week. For the moment, I would just note that the necessity of sharing a common table between Jewish converts and Gentile converts would require a definitive compromise on the part of one or other constituency in an ethnically diverse community like Antioch. Somebody has to make way for others to "save face" and, thereby, preserve the "fellowship" or "koinonia". Fundamentalism… There is another dimension to this dispute that echoes in the Church of our own time – the rise of distinctive "Catholic fundamentalism", which is expressed in an attitude that clings to older forms of worship and faith practice, as well as centralised authority structures. Similarly, recent moves to reinstate the Latin Mass and Gregorian chant, and attempts to strengthen the central authority of the Hierarchy seems to be yet one more example of the rise of fundamentalism, which has infected most of the religious traditions.
We must imagine that the Christian Jewish movement would not have continued to be attractive to observant Jews if it were widely known that its leaders had countenanced a sister mission that stood outside the Law. Indeed they might even have risked outright hostility, which could have led to the same fatal consequences that earlier had brought the accused apostate Stephen to his untimely demise. In Galatians (6:12), Paul implicitly confirms this possibility by accusing his opponents of preaching circumcision so as to escape persecution. With the memory of the more recent oppression that resulted in the execution of John's brother James fresh in their minds, the Jerusalem leadership would have been little inclined to court a recurrence of Jewish antagonism by extending the hand of fellowship to the Law-free mission. So, too, in modern-day Catholicism, fundamentalism does not necessarily exhibit as a literalist approach to scripture and tradition, as it does in the Reformed churches. Rather it appears in an attempt to force one way of being Church on everyone. In a world defined by change, and the concomitant bogey of relativism, as ours is, Catholic fundamentalists seek to "batten down the hatches" and "weather the storm". One may simply dismiss the return of the old "bells and smells" of the Latin Mass as a quaint anomaly in an uncertain world. I fear it may also signal a dangerous lurch to the right, which can only spell more division among, and depletion of, the ranks of Catholicism.  CLICK HERE FOR INDEX TO THIS SERIES ON ST PAUL Bibliography and Further Reading:
What are your thoughts on this commentary? ©2008 Ian Elmer |
|
Against this background, it is inherently difficult to read the Jerusalem accord as an agreement forged between equals who recognise each other's authority within clearly defined boundaries, be they ideological, geographical or even ethnic. 
Fundamentalism is born of fear and frustration. It is a "fortress mentality" response to uncertainty and change.
Dr 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 doctoral thesis was entitled Paul, Jerusalem and the Judaisers: The Galatian Crisis in its Broader Historical Context.
How economic inequality harms societies... We feel instinctively that societies with huge income gaps are somehow going wrong. Richard Wilkinson charts the hard data on economic inequality, and shows what gets worse when rich and poor are too far apart: real effects on health, lifespan, even such basic values as trust. Richard Wilkinson, is Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology at the University of Nottingham, and cofounder of The Equality Trust, a nonprofit that aims to reduce income inequality by educating and engaging the public while supporting political commitment to address the problem. 16m55s [String on the Catholica Forum where the general issue of wealth inequality and this documentary was first discussed 25Jan12] | [WATCH THE VIDEO]
Doco 035: 25Jan12
This site was developed and is maintained by
www.viastuas.net.au
Click HERE to email the Webmaster