For Such a Time as This: The Apostle Paul


By Carlos E. Espinosa
A Commentary on the Sabbath School Lesson for the Week of June 28-July 4, 2008
The conversion of the Apostle Paul

The Apostle Paul had a powerful impact in the world known for its time, bringing Christianity beyond the geographical confines of Israel. His life and ministry is a model for our current mission. (The Sabbath School Bible Study Guide)

The Christian message of Paul is certainly different from that of Jesus. It could not have been otherwise, because Paul was not Jesus. Furthermore, Paul lived in different circumstances. Jesus moved into Jewish lands and spoke mainly to Jews; Paul, however, mainly preached to Gentiles.

Paul had deep Jewish roots and was proud of it (Phil.3 :4–6). He was a Jew from birth; he had been "circumcised on the eighth day." He could trace his family tree, arriving at its roots, even Israel itself. His family came from the tribe of Benjamin, which had given Israel its first king. He spoke Hebrew. He was a Pharisee (the most nationalist and traditional party), and a son of a Pharisee. He was perfectly obedient to the Law of Moses, to the point of being "faultless." And if that were not enough, he had persecuted the church of Jesus with ferocious and active zeal.

But his personal encounter with Jesus altered his paradigm.1 His worldview had been transformed. He had changed from his fanatic Phariseeism. He became convinced that Jesus was the Messiah for which he and Israel had waited for centuries. This meant, firstly, that the Jewish community of followers of Jesus—of which he was a representative— were really Jews "in the interior," and not superficially (Rom. 2:28–29). Secondly, it meant that non-Jews who followed Jesus had been "grafted in the good olive" (Rom. 11:17, 24), namely, the people of the covenant, Israel.

I think the first point that we should take from Paul as a model for our current mission is our way of understanding the Jewish people. In this regard, we must change our paradigm. We have become accustomed to repeating, without reflection or criticism, that God rejected Israel. This is totally opposite to what Paul taught. "Has God rejected his people? In no way, because I am Jewish, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin" (Rom. 11:1). There should be no doubt that Paul refers in this text to the Jewish nation, to "ethnic Israel," and not to so-called "spiritual Israel," as can be seen when the previous verse speaks of "Israel…rebel and contradictor people" (10:21). Leaving no doubt that he refers to his Jewish nationality according to the flesh, Paul identifies himself as coming from the tribe of Benjamin; he was a descendant of Abraham.

For Paul, the Christian church is not an entity separate from Judaism, nor its replacement. For the apostle, God made the New Covenant to the Jews who believed in Jesus, who numbered several thousands (Acts 2:41; 4:4, 21:20), and "Gentiles" who had been "grafted" to Israel. If we share the vision of Paul, our mission regarding the Jews will not be derogatory or boasting (see Rom. 11:18). Although we may not be Jewish—and we may not feel the same love for his nation as did Paul (Rom. 9:3)—our attitude toward the Jews should be one of humility and gratitude.

The second way in which we should take Paul as a model refers to his nonsectarian attitude. For those baptized in Christ, "there is no longer Jew or Greek" (Gal. 3:28), Paul wrote. Obviously, ethnic differences do exist; however, they do not matter to God. Gender differences are not important, either: "there is no male nor female." Privileges of any kind that put a man above the women—in society and the church—violate this principle. The same applies to social differences: "There is no slave nor free"—we are all one in Christ Jesus.

The implications of this teaching are of central importance. "Equality, fraternity, and liberty" should have prompted the Church to transform the world long before the French Revolution started to do so. Furthermore, the change could have been done based on Christian principles, based on love for humanity and its Creator.

To obtain this nonsectarian perspective, Paul had to recognize the spirit that moved Christ. When he understood that “Christ died for everyone," he realized that he could not maintain an attitude of fanatic denominational exclusivity. His physical blindness, which was a product of the encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, probably made him think about his stubborn spiritual blindness. Then he ceased persecuting and devoted himself to preaching Christ crucified for our sins and resurrected for our glory.

As Seventh-day Adventists, it will not be easy for us to abandon our denominational exclusivity. Nor will it be easy for us to abandon traditions that call for us to follow the teaching of the Bible strictly. But if we decide to follow the example of Paul, as written and not as we interpret it to favor our tradition, it is possible that scales will fall from our eyes and we will have a powerful impact in our world. Otherwise, this Sabbath School lesson will be simply one of many that accommodate us as we feed our self-righteousness.

Notes and References

1. In 1962, Thomas S. Kuhn published his classic book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in which he stated that, from time to time, certain discoveries have revolutionized knowledge in the scientific community, which have required profound changes in assumptions, theories, methods, scientific language, and so forth. Kuhn called these changes "paradigm shifts." Upon discovering Jesus, Saul of Tarsus became Paul, which also changed his understanding of reality.

Carlos Enrique Espinosa writes from Argentina. He holds a doctor of philosophy from Andrews University and is a professor of theology and philosophy.

Comments

Carlos, I enjoyed your comments on Paul. Although "Christians" means followers of Christ, it was not until Paul who proclaimed the meaning of Christ's life, death and resurrection as radically different from the Jewish concept, that Christianity was born. He is rightfully called the "Founder of Christianity."

Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 30 June 2008 at 5:55

Without the writings of Paul - if the NT consisted only of the Gospels and the other writings but nothing from Paul - how different would the christian religion be, or our understanding of it?

Elaine,Hi, I'm new here. I enjoy your posts. Your comments?

Posted by: Rasputin | 01 July 2008 at 4:28

Thank you, Carlos, for an excellent commentary. Much to mull over and digest. Changing paradigms, abandoning exclusivity, becoming nonsectarian appears to be a large order.

Christianity has always wavered between being guided by the Spirit and being led by the law. Obedience and following the rules is a much safer course than open ended love and acceptance. It is also an easier way to judge between the sheep and the goats.

Posted by: Donna Haerich | 01 July 2008 at 5:07

Without Paul? Christians would think of God more as abba, in the inclusive sense of our dad, instead of a judge, according to one author (Ronald Knox).

Posted by: Joselito Coo | 01 July 2008 at 6:54

Rasputin, you asked the questions I inferred. Would there even be Christianity as we know it today without Paul? The Gospels portray Jesus as a Jewish rabbi and teacher, but would it have advanced further without Paul? WDYT?

Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 01 July 2008 at 9:17

Great post!

For Paul, Israel was a fluid term, sometimes referring to his nation, but it seems more often referring to believers, both Jew and Gentile, now gathered together around the Messiah Jesus. This seems to be Paul's contention from the OT, traced back to Abraham. Israel was always truly a matter of faith, not simply bloodline, land, Torah possession, or ritual.

To me, this has implications for our self-understanding as the "remnant church." The remnant in biblical terms was never identified with Israel as a collective whole, it was identified as those who maintained faith and faithfulness. We seem to identify it today with our visible organization, because of Adventism's unique message. Then we acknowledge that there is an "invisible remnant" as well. Just doesn't sit right with me.

Secondly, Saul the Pharisee would have identified the remnant as those like him, who displayed single-minded and fanatical devotion to the Torah and Torah observance. It was their devotion to the Torah, and to seeing this replicated through all Israel, that would set the stage for God's liberating intervention from foreign, evil powers through his Messiah.

This helps explain Saul's zeal to exterminate the early church. Their fast and loose attitude towards the Torah, and their clinging to a false and failed Messiah, was polluting the nation. It was also hindering God from working on the nation's behalf. Thus Saul was convinced, that like Phineas in the OT, he was doing God a service in hunting down and violently wiping out the church.

Our individualistic notions of Paul's pre-conversion belief of keeping the Law "to be saved," seems to owe more to a Protestant and Lutheran perspective than it does to this 1st. c. Pharisaic/Zealot mind-set. It makes Paul's persecuting activities almost inexplicable, because it ignores the collective implications of his belief system and world-view. The Torah had to be kept; the faithful remnant would be identified by it; and the nation had to be called back to it, so that God could act, and their destiny be fufilled.

This entire view was turned on its head, when Saul the Pharisee met Jesus. The remnant was now identified as those who had faith in, and were faithful to Christ Jesus. The law became the type of all-inclusive neighbor love that Jesus displayed, and was to be an outgrowth of one's faith response to him. Further, the faith that fufilled the law (Rom. 3:31), was made visible not by ethnic, ritualistic or denominational badges. It was now made visible through the bringing together into equal fellowship of Jew and Gentile, by the one God of Israel's Shema. This was his fufilling of the law before an onlooking world, through a remnant that were visibly his, who proclaimed allegiance to Jesus as Lord.

Somehow, I wish that our emphasis of the remnant came closer to this, rather than the usual emphasis of the Sabbath as "the identifying mark." A mark that separates our denomination from everyone else who also truly believe in Jesus as Lord as well.

Thanks...

Frank

Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 02 July 2008 at 4:43

Frank, you reminded us that the Sabbath was the initial mark separating Adventism from the larger Christian world. Just like the Jews who were given this command and others specifically to separate them from others, is that the way we should live today, or didn't Paul say that in Christ the barrier of the dividing wall of separation now made us one group? Weren't the many rules (even dietary) intended to create a separation? Do we live as if we truly believed it? If it has been broken, why should it be continued, even boasted about?

Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 02 July 2008 at 7:39

Is it not quite amazing that our Sabbath School Quarterly study for this week and the next focuses on Paul: and just last weekend (on Sabbath Jun 28) Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed the Pauline Year. This Jubilee year is to remind those who do not know of Paul's life, as someone to emulate, and also for his "tireless efforts to unify all Christians at any cost to himself."
This Jubilee year is considered also to be a special year for the remission of sins and universal pardon, with special pilgrimages to sacred sites. Even local churches will have a special ceremony of dedicating a door for those who do not travel to Rome to avail themselves of that special door that had been unwalled.
Perhaps it is most appropriate that we be reminded to have more open doors, and of the obligation to reach out, as this quarter will emphasize...

Posted by: Izak F Wessels | 02 July 2008 at 5:12

Elaine,

Upon reflection, I find it amazing that we can exsist with conference administrations that are divided along racial and ethnic and lines, against everything that Paul's message of God and his new creation stands for, and yet claim remnant status. The entire message of Romans and Galatians is undergirded by the reality that God, through his gospel and in his church, destroys those barriers and distinctions, and yet we have managed to rebuild them.

Paul even speaks to this in Galatians: " If I rebuild what I have destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker." IOW, if Paul went around preaching circumcision and ethnic distinction as he did as a Pharisee to uphold the Law, he would actually be guilty of violating the Law's most basic premise. Hello??

In my neck of the woods, we have the GNYC and the Northeastern conference working in overlap. At this point in time, WHY? Additionally, the GNYC is divided into five or six language/ethnic ministries. I understand that the 1st c. church split their work into Jewish and Gentile outreach. But just to exaggerate the point; if we were to make significant inroads into the 125+ ethnic language and ethnic groups that live in the NY metro area, does that mean we should split into 125+ separate ministries in order to sufficiently meet diverse cultural needs?

My local church belongs to "multi-cultural ministries." Isn't that the whole point? Wouldn't it be more in line with the gospel to, as much as possible, bring people of different cultures together, despite the congregational and administrative difficulties that may need to be ironed out in so doing? Wouldn't it be a better plan to administer by region only, and throw away any hint of ethnic and racial divide?

There has to be a better way.

Thanks...

Frank

Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 03 July 2008 at 5:28

BTW,

I understand that we don't make ethnic salvational distinctions, as did Saul the Pharisee. But should we not be tending towards greater unity, rather than preserving administrative divisions along theses lines?

Our country seems poised to elect our first president of African-American descent. As a nation, we are beginning to move beyond these barriers. Call me naive or misinformed, but shouldn't we be moving in the same direction as the church??

It seems that we are not just out of step with the gospel. We are out of step with the wider culture...at least in terms of administrative philosophy and practice.

Thanks...

Frank

Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 03 July 2008 at 5:38

Frank

What does "multicultural ministries" mean? Isn't this a lumping together all the different, yet separate, ethnic and language groups in one administrative unit of a local conference?

Posted by: Joselito Coo | 03 July 2008 at 7:08

If you want to know what Jesus said on the Road to Emmaus, Read Paul! Paul got the whole package in one blinding moment. Why has it taken us from Luther to Willam Sloane Coffin, to Martin Luther King, and Pope John XXIII, and Robert Kennedy" It took two killings for LBJ to catch on. Recall that even Ellen White had a low regard for the work of her son Eidson!
As to white and black conferences. The Black Leaders didn't want to ride in the back of the bus in church either. The head elder of the white church in Augusta is Black. Yet they maintain two churches but one church school.
Tom

Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 03 July 2008 at 7:14

The following quote from Krister Stendahl may give us an idea of a Christianity without Paul - in the Eastern Orthodox tradition:

“… there are at least three quite distinct symbol systems, or paradigms, for Christian theology coming out of the Bible. One is dominated by the idea of God as the judge, and what is going to happen to us on the day of judgment. Everything circles around God's judgment, and sin and forgiveness and redemption and the cross—that's Western Christendom in Catholicism and Lutheranism. Then there is God as Lord. And that has to do with God as Lord and we as subject, and the world is full of covenants—that's Calvin and also the Jewish tradition. And that model gave the basic model for the federal structure of the United States; foedus in Latin means covenant. It's the sociopolitical model of God.

“And then there is the third, the Johannine. It's all about life. Sin is sickness, not primary guilt. It's not about obedience and Lordship. It's life: He came that they should have life, and have it abundantly. In him was life. Out of his innermost parts, streams of living water will flow (John 7). And everything is to be born anew, born out of water and blood (John 3). That's John, and that's Eastern Christendom. There is no crucifix in an Eastern church; there is the icon, where the divine life shines through the human image.”

- Harvard Divinity School Bulletin
Vol. 35, No. 1 (Winter 2007)
Why I Love the Bible
by Krister Stendahl

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin_mag/articles/35-1_stendahl.html

Posted by: Joselito Coo | 03 July 2008 at 7:43

Joselito,

That's just what it is. The point is, why should that just be one sub-division of conference administration? If we take gospel unity seriously, should we not be moving towards administering its work minus as many racial and ethnic divisions as possible. I realize that there may be pragmatic reasons for such distinctions, and the need to address particular cultural needs. But it just seems that we're not moving quickly enough in this direction, while the rest of the world that we are trying to reach is.

Tom,

I understand how the dual conference administrative arrangement originated in the 1940's. But I just don't, for the life of me, understand its perpetuation in 2008! Unless, of course, it's about saving people's jobs and salaries.

Thanks...

Frank

Posted by: frank7 (not verified) | 03 July 2008 at 2:32

hi frank
i have checked what you have written in your commentarys.
i have thougth some thing about sabbath as mark of beast.
and i also have thougth about our organization as the only
true organization.first the sabbath does not identify the true
worshipper of god the sabbath is not the seal of god.
neither is the sunday the mark of beast,the seal of god is
obedience to god's law or all the law including the sabbath.
and the mark of beast is when some one disobey all the law
including sabbath.about our organization i know they are not
infallible. but i do not know anything better than i have
learned in this organization,therefore our organization teach
good things and bad things.nevertheless i know to choose between the right and wrong.i follow this church because has
no one teachings like our church.paul was seventh day adventist when he had met jesus,he followed traditions instead
the truth.many many people are following traditions inside our
churchs.when paul has met jesus which is the truth he forsook
the traditions.traditions build wall between each person ,each
nation and including people what say themselves worshippers of
god as was saul before to become paul.and also i cannot punishment nobody who has not kept the sabbath.beacause they
don't have the awareness as i have.many many people will be lost
forever keeping the sabbath,why lost ?because they follow
traditions,i am seventh day adventist for 22 years and
i follow this church because the doctrine is pure is holy is good,i am not a wall ,i am a bridge like my master jesus.
because i do not follow traditions i follow the truth,do not
matter what our organization have taught i follow only the truth.many people left our churchs and remain lost around
teaching new doctrines what are doctrines of the demons.
our organization shall not be save,because the organization
is not the temple of god i am temple of god,i am the church;
therefore god has an invisible church and i am sure ;i am
part of it.who wants to have god's character needs to keep
his law and paul taugth these things when traveling for each
place.when each one live the gospel the wall shall be broken
down but while people talking rather than living the gospel
the wall shall remain.do not forget to remember iam the church
people are watching my steps ;or where jesus is living on me.
really is jesus living in me?
laercio

Posted by: laercio (not verified) | 05 July 2008 at 3:25

It's too late this week, but if La Sierra continues to post these on the Sabbath School lesson, we'll be posting them along with the Spectrum commentary.


Posted by: Alexander Carpenter | 05 July 2008 at 5:47

Espinosa says:

"As Seventh-day Adventists, it will not be easy for us to abandon our denominational exclusivity. Nor will it be easy for us to abandon traditions that call for us to follow the teaching of the Bible strictly."

What "traditions that call for us to follow the teaching of the Bible strictly" is he suggesting that Adventists abandon?

That is, where in his text does he suggest this, and/or from which traditions does he suggest we withdraw?

HA

Posted by: Harry Allen (not verified) | 05 July 2008 at 8:06

hello harry
what is tradition to you?
what is the difference between tradition and pinciple?
i shall give an example to you think about it;has angel wings?
another example;has been god who sent the flood?
whom kill more god or devil?the saul killed in god's name,
he thougth made it correct but he followed traditions.
what does have more power,the prayer or god?do you think
to build house in the heaven or building it in the our planet
restored?and about the fathers'day mothers'day,friends' day
demons'day and'''''''''''.what do you think about each thing?
awaiting you reply.hoping who do not have wall between you and me,
laercio

Posted by: laercio (not verified) | 06 July 2008 at 3:12

My Opinion is:
1. Whatever your backgroud and who you are, God wants to use us to be a great missionary.
2. To be a great Missionary, we must Repent, Invite the Holy Spirit and Reborn Again
3. Focus on God's calling
4. Meditating about Jesus' cross and realizing why Jesus died in calvary.

Thanks

Anthonius
Ciracas SDA-Indonesia

Posted by: Anthonius (not verified) | 06 July 2008 at 11:43

Post new comment

Because conversation is our mission, we publish all comments immediately. We simply request that you focus on the posted topic, and not attack anyone or use profanity. Please sign your post. Consistently used pseudonyms are acceptable, but "anonymous" is not. This site is a place for thoughtful conversation and a healthy exchange of ideas and perspective; rants and tirades don't further this mission and are not appropriate. We reserve the right to delete comments which do not follow these guidelines. Thank You!
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.

User login