I was reading the introduction to David Klinghoffer's Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History
this afternoon. He makes a very interesting point:
Klinghoffer goes on to explain that, had this decision not been taken, Christians would have been obligated to observe Jewish law, and Paul's mission to the gentiles likely would not have been successful. Christianity might have died as another Jewish sect with the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. He then discusses the impact on Western civilization. The impact of that one decision is massive. Although Klinghoffer posits that we might all be Muslim, I think it as likely we'd all be sun worhipers or the other Roman gods.
I think it is important here to note that Paul and James (Acts 21) didn't reject the Jewish people, but the Jewish law as recorded in the Torah. It is also interesting to note that Peter apparently didn't agree with the decision (see Gal 2), and Paul took upon himself to chastise Peter.
This is not a little quibble. The difference of opinion created two Christian splinter groups. The Marcionites, who took Paul's position and rejected everything Jewish, and the Ebionites, who adopted an almost Pharisical observance of Jewish law. Both of these groups were considered heretical, and they eventually both died out, but it appears to have been quite the controversy.
Then again, there is the question of Apostolic succession (or Prophetic succession as the Mormon's call it). If Peter was the "rock" upon which the church was founded, the first Bishop of Rome, the first Pope, or in LDS terms, the first prophet of that dispensation to receive the keys of the Gospel, then how is it that he was wrong? How is it that Peter and Paul received different revelations? Why is it that Paul and James not only failed to sustain their leader, but publicly rebuked him, "withstood him to his face, for he was to be blamed," and Paul recorded that rebuke for posterity?
What are we to make of this? I can see three possibilities. 1. Peter was actually correct and all of Christianity has been going down the wrong road ever since. 2. Despite his position as Jesus' hand picked leader of the church after the crucifixion, he was fallible and supported a policy based on his own prejudices. 3. The story recorded by Luke in Acts and the story recorded by Paul himself in Galatians is not true.
If we take the first position, then Paul, whose writings comprise the majority of the Bible and whose writings are the easiest to authenticate, led the church astray. Not only should all Christian men be circumcised, but we should be eating kosher and observing all of the other misvot. Think about that as you enjoy your Christmas ham.
If we take the second position, the the notion that a Pope is infallible or an LDS Prophet cannot lead the flock astray loses all of its support. If Peter, who was ordained directly by Jesus himself, can err and insert his own prejudices, neither Benedict nor Monson are immune.
If Paul and Luke made the story up and the dispute between Paul and Peter never happened, then what can we say about the reliability of their other writings? Luke was, after all, one of Paul's companions and it is only through the two of them that we know of Paul's conversion. What would be the point of making it up? I can think of a couple things, but I'll leave it up to you to think it through.
My point here is not to criticize Christianity, but to criticize those who would arrogate to themselves infallibility in determining God's will for others.
this afternoon. He makes a very interesting point:
We need to recall that in historical fact, at a critical juncture, and as a direct result of the Jewish rejection of the Christian message, the early church jettisoned the observance of Jewish law. The book of Acts recounts how the apostle Paul, in teaching about Jesus, was "contradicted" and "reviled" by fellow Jews, leading him to conclude that the future lay no longer with his own people. "Since you thrust [the message of Christ] from you," he said, "behold, we turn to the gentiles." In this way a split developed within the church. It could continue as it was, under the leadership of Jesus' brother James within the bounds of Torah law, requiring all converts to be observant Jews. Or it could take Paul's more radical view of Jesus' teaching. At a council meeting of the elders held in Jerusalem in the year 49, Paul made his case for dropping Jewish law as a requirement for Christians. After much debate, James agreed -- and the direction of Christian history was set.
Klinghoffer goes on to explain that, had this decision not been taken, Christians would have been obligated to observe Jewish law, and Paul's mission to the gentiles likely would not have been successful. Christianity might have died as another Jewish sect with the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. He then discusses the impact on Western civilization. The impact of that one decision is massive. Although Klinghoffer posits that we might all be Muslim, I think it as likely we'd all be sun worhipers or the other Roman gods.
I think it is important here to note that Paul and James (Acts 21) didn't reject the Jewish people, but the Jewish law as recorded in the Torah. It is also interesting to note that Peter apparently didn't agree with the decision (see Gal 2), and Paul took upon himself to chastise Peter.
This is not a little quibble. The difference of opinion created two Christian splinter groups. The Marcionites, who took Paul's position and rejected everything Jewish, and the Ebionites, who adopted an almost Pharisical observance of Jewish law. Both of these groups were considered heretical, and they eventually both died out, but it appears to have been quite the controversy.
Then again, there is the question of Apostolic succession (or Prophetic succession as the Mormon's call it). If Peter was the "rock" upon which the church was founded, the first Bishop of Rome, the first Pope, or in LDS terms, the first prophet of that dispensation to receive the keys of the Gospel, then how is it that he was wrong? How is it that Peter and Paul received different revelations? Why is it that Paul and James not only failed to sustain their leader, but publicly rebuked him, "withstood him to his face, for he was to be blamed," and Paul recorded that rebuke for posterity?
What are we to make of this? I can see three possibilities. 1. Peter was actually correct and all of Christianity has been going down the wrong road ever since. 2. Despite his position as Jesus' hand picked leader of the church after the crucifixion, he was fallible and supported a policy based on his own prejudices. 3. The story recorded by Luke in Acts and the story recorded by Paul himself in Galatians is not true.
If we take the first position, then Paul, whose writings comprise the majority of the Bible and whose writings are the easiest to authenticate, led the church astray. Not only should all Christian men be circumcised, but we should be eating kosher and observing all of the other misvot. Think about that as you enjoy your Christmas ham.
If we take the second position, the the notion that a Pope is infallible or an LDS Prophet cannot lead the flock astray loses all of its support. If Peter, who was ordained directly by Jesus himself, can err and insert his own prejudices, neither Benedict nor Monson are immune.
If Paul and Luke made the story up and the dispute between Paul and Peter never happened, then what can we say about the reliability of their other writings? Luke was, after all, one of Paul's companions and it is only through the two of them that we know of Paul's conversion. What would be the point of making it up? I can think of a couple things, but I'll leave it up to you to think it through.
My point here is not to criticize Christianity, but to criticize those who would arrogate to themselves infallibility in determining God's will for others.
Comments