 
In this study I investigate two areas of Paul’s thought: first, his message, then his understanding of his apostolic authority and mission.
Much of the debate among Pauline scholars in this century has been over the question of the center of Paul’s theology. E. P. Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism) has provided one of the more persuasive presentations of the case that Paul’s central ideas develop from his experience of being "in Christ" and vice versa (what he calls "participatory" in contrast to "juristic"). With Sanders’ treatment of Paul’s understanding of the Law, righteousness by faith, the human plight, et al., I basically agree, as I do with his notion that we should ask how a religious system as a
whole and on its own terms "worked." However, his description of how a religion is perceived by its adherents to function as "how getting in
and staying in are understood," does not lead one to consider why they wanted in in the first place: Paul’s converts wanted salvation,
and yet this is something that Paul rarely stops to define. This salvation involved more than a particular understanding of God’s grace and forgiveness
of sins. Sanders’ statement that Paul’s primary conviction is that "Jesus Christ is Lord, that in him God has provided for the salvation of all those
who believe . . . , and that he will soon return to bring all things to an end," is a good general summary, but needs to be more fully laid out.
Paul’s understanding of salvation involves a rather astounding (at least to modern ears) scheme of "mass apotheosis" and imminent cosmic takeover.
We must turn to the essential passages which more fully treat the content of this salvation which Paul offered his followers.
Firstborn of Many Brothers
In Rom. 8:29-30 Paul provides a sequential outline of what he calls
the plan (prothesis--v. 28) of God for all his converts.
I shall present a rather tight and technical analysis of his language here,
and how it connects to his discussions elsewhere. I want to show that he
is at least coherent, if not systematic, when it comes to what I believe
is central to his whole salvation message: his belief that a new cosmic
family--immortal "Sons of God" he calls them--is soon to be dramatically
revealed as an agent for carrying forth the final stages of God’s plan
for his creation. He sketches the essentials in a few lines:
1. The Predetermined Secret Plan
The first two thought units are expressed by the verbs "to foreknow"
and "to predestine." "To foreknow" (proginosko) is used only one
other time by Paul, in Rom. 11:2, where he refers to the selection of the
nation of Israel. In both passages its object is the group, or people,
of God, for whom the purpose of God is to be unfolded. He uses "to
predestine" (proorizo) in only one other place as well, 1 Cor. 2:7,
where it is also closely connected to this same idea of a secret "plan"
of God:
2. A Cosmic Family
The phrases (1) "to share the image of his Son" and (2) "that he might
be the firstborn of many brothers," indicate (1) the immediate content
of God’s decree and (2) one of its consequences.
Since Paul thought sharing the form of Christ involved sharing his death
(2 Cor. 4:10), sharing the form cannot be immediately equated with glorification
(i.e., it stands here at the beginning of the list of stages that concludes
with glorification). The word used here in the phrase " sharing the image"
(summorphos) occurs elsewhere only in Phil. 3:21, where Paul seems
to assume this identical sequence, but is referring to the final stage,
the glorification or transformation of the believer at the heavenly return
of Jesus. He writes:
For our commonwealth exists in the heavens, from which we expect a Savior,
the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body into the
same form (summorphon) as his glorious body, by the power
with which he is able to subject everything to himself.
A related verbal form of summorphos: metamorphoomai; is used
in 2 Cor. 3:18, along with eikon ("form" or "image"), which is the
other key term in the phrase ("sharing the image") from Rom. 8:29.
The second phrase, "that he might be the firstborn of many brothers,"
stands as an expansion of the thought about sharing the image of God. The
word translated "first-born" (prototokos) occurs only here in Paul.
The idea is closely linked to Paul’s argument in 1 Cor. 15 (vv. 20-28;
42-58) where the term aparche ("first fruits") is used as a basis
for arguing that Jesus’ transformation or glorification foreshadows that
of the many "in Christ" who follow. "First-born" as used here is therefore
anticipatory, pointing toward recapitulation. It means more than preeminence;
it implies there are those who will be "later-born." The equation of Jesus
the Son of God, with the many glorified sons of God to follow is
God’s means of bringing into existence a family (i.e., "many brothers")
of cosmic beings, the Sons of God, who share his heavenly doxa.
Or, to put it another way, Jesus already stands at the head of a new genus
of cosmic "brothers" who await their full transformation at his arrival
from heaven. Paul uses the verb doxazo ("to glorify") to indicate
the conclusion to which both these phrases of Rom. 8:29 point, summarizing
the idea of the "hope of sharing the glory of God" which he introduced
in Rom. 5:1 and develops in 8:17-25. To be a "son of God" (or "child of
God," which is his other phrase in this chapter) through receiving the
Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:14-16), is to be an heir, even a co-heir
with Jesus. Such a relationship involves a suffering with him (8:17), along
with glorification (sundoxaza) like his, but the suffering will
be transient, the glory will endure. Paul uses the various forms of the
word "heir" (kleronomos) frequently. That the concept is connected
to complete glorification at the return of Jesus from heaven is clear,
may be seen not only in Rom. 8:17, but by comparing 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 15:50-53;
Gal. 5:21; Phil. 3:20-21 and 1 Thess. 2:12. One inherits the "kingdom of
God" at the return of Jesus and through a transformation to immortal
heavenly life. Paul’s discussion of the validity of the Torah, of how one
is declared righteous, and of whether Gentiles must become `Jews’ to be
a part of God’s elect people has to do with the issue of who is
to be considered an heir. The kleronomia is not from the Torah (Gal.
3:18; 4:30; Rom. 4:14). It belongs to those who are "sons of God" by faith
in the Christ, stemming from the promise made to Abraham that he would
"inherit the world [cosmos]" (Rom. 4:13; Gal. 3:26-29; 4:1-7). Thus, Paul’s
whole treatment of the Law in Rom. 1:16-4:25 and Gal. 3-4 must be seen
as subsidiary to a broader concept, the meaning and content of the
kleronomia. For Paul this concept moves far beyond the idea of inheriting
the land of Israel, or hopes of national restoration. It is rulership over
the entire cosmos. He exultantly writes:
Just as in Phil. 3:21, which I have already quoted, Paul has in mind
here the transformation of the body, i.e., its release from decay and glorification
at the return of Christ from heaven. The use of the word huiothesia
(translated "sonship"--v 23) to refer to this event is significant. Several
manuscripts (chiefly Western) omit the word, probably because it appears
to contradict 8:15:
For you did not receive the spirit of bondage to fall back into fear,
but you have received the spirit of sonship (huiothesia) in which
we cry out "Abba! Father!" 3. The Implementation of the Secret Plan
This cosmic plan of bringing forth "many brothers" is implemented through
God’s "calling," "justifying," and "glorifying" the
special group of believers (Rom. 8:30). This idea of calling (kaleo)
occurs frequently in Paul’s letters. In 1 Thess. 2:12 he exhorts the group
to "live a life worthy of God who calls you into his own kingdom
and glory." Here again Paul connects the idea of inheriting the
kingdom with that of glory. Those who are transformed from flesh and blood
existence (i.e., glorified) at the coming of Christ from heaven are those
who "inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:42-52). The one word "justify"
here (dikaioo) summarizes the complexities of Paul’s whole argument
in Rom. 1:16-4:25 (i.e. "justification by faith") and represents as well
the results of that justified life which he discusses in 5:1-8:17.
Rom. 5:1-2 states the position of the community living in the time of the
end:
This teaching of Paul regarding the glorification of many Sons of God
is obviously tied to his understanding of the glorification of Jesus and
his status as firstborn "Son of God," exalted Lord of the cosmos. Paul
sees in the career of Jesus the model of this plan involving the many to
follow. He understands Jesus to be a kind of second or last "Adam" who
has shown the way for the whole race. In Phil. 2:6-11 Paul quotes an early
Christian hymn which reflects this pattern of salvation:
b) but did not consider equality with God (einai isa theo)
something to be grasped, but emptied himself,
c) taking on the form of a slave.
a) Being in the likeness of men,
b) and found in human form, he humbled himself,
c) becoming obedient to the point of death.
[even death on a cross]
a) Because of this God has highly exalted him,
b) and given him a name,
c) above every name.
a) That at the name of Jesus
b) every knee should bow in heaven, and on earth,
and under the earth,
c) And every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord,
to the glory of God the father.
It is in 1 Cor. 15 that Paul offers his most systematic treatment of
the destiny of the elect as related to the career of Jesus as a second
Adam. There was a party at Corinth which was saying that "there is no resurrection
of the dead"(15:12). The position of those making such a denial is difficult,
if not impossible to determine. Some would take the denial as an expression
of skepticism, perhaps akin to the position of the Epicureans or that of
an ultra-conservative Jewish group like the Sadducees, who denied the very
idea of an afterlife.. One problem with this view is that it does not take
the 1 Cor. letter as a whole, dealing with sections such as 3:1-4; 4:8-13;
10:1-12; 12-14, which might reflect a general problem with some kind of
"over-realized" eschatology. Still new consideration has been given to
the possibility of an Epicurean position behind some of the polemics of
the N.T. (See Jerome H. Neyrey, "The Form and Background of the Polemic
in 2 Peter," JBL 99 [1980]: 407-31). The real strength of this position
is that it seems to best fit Paul’s argument in 15:29-34, while the other
interpretations appear to make little sense here. A more common interpretation
has been that we have here a "Platonizing" position which viewed the notion
of the resurrection of the body as crude and superfluous. The position
favored by most scholars is that some were denying the futurity of the
resurrection, claiming in some way to already be experiencing that
mode of existence. It is conceivable that such a group might have denied
both the somatic and future aspects of the resurrection doctrine.
To further compound the problem, one must ask whether Paul himself clearly
understood the position of this group.
What has been overlooked too often is that while the occasion of Paul’s
discussion was some type of denial of the resurrection of the dead,
the chapter as a whole deals not so much with resurrection (which for the
community would apply only to the minority who had died, cf. 1 Thess. 4:13-18),
as with transformation or change of the living and the dead at the
return of Jesus from heaven. In other words, the lines of his discussion
in 15:20-28 and 35-58 apply to those alive at the coming of Christ as much
as to those of the group who have died. Thus Paul writes:
Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being" [physical
being], the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (v. 45). The implications of this Adam typology are striking: as Adam was the
head of a race of physical human beings, subject to corruption and death;
so Jesus (as a last Adam) is the first of a transformed race or genus of
heavenly beings, immortal and glorified. That Jesus is human (i.e.,
mortal, "Adam") is crucial since his transformation to an immortal, glorious
state is representative for all those who follow. Paul makes this clear
in v. 21:
1. "living physical being" to "life-giving spirit" (v. 45)
2. "perishable" to "imperishable" (v. 42)
3. "dishonor" to "glory" (v. 43)
4. "weakness" to "power" (v. 43)
5. "physical body" to "spiritual body" (v. 44)
6. "from the earth, of dust" to "of heaven" (v. 47)
At the end of this section he concludes:
The idea of "inheriting the kingdom," is closely connected to this notion
of transformation, as I noted above (1 Cor. 15:50). In 1 Cor. 15:20-28
Paul presents an overview, which to us must necessarily remain cryptic,
of the plan of God from the resurrection of Jesus (the "first fruits" of
the harvest) until the telos, or final end, when God will be "all
things to all" (v. 28). He evidently saw the time period between the return
of Christ from heaven to transform the elect, until this final end,
as one of cosmic battle and conquest of hostile demonic forces. He speaks
of Christ "destroying every rule, authority, and power," and finally death
itself (vv. 24-26). He quotes Psa. 8:6 (which in turn is an interpretation
of Gen. 1:26), which says that God has put "all things under his [mankind’s]
feet." He applies it, in keeping with his Adam typology, to the man
Jesus Christ, but by extension to this whole new race of heavenly "Adams."
Earlier he had reminded the Corinthians:
Robin Scroggs (The Last Adam) and others have argued from these
texts that Paul understands the nature of Christ in his resurrected existence
as a "human nature." He represents "true man" and thus opens the way for
mankind to achieve the "true humanity" intended at the creation. Although
one finds some support for this in Paul’s interpretation of Gen. 2:7 in
1 Cor. 15:45-49, one must not miss the radical implications of Paul’s understanding
of the destiny of the elect group. Paul develops his exegesis from Gen.
1:27 and Psa. 8:6 as well. These texts speak of man in the "image" (eikon)
of God, having "all things placed under his feet." Paul interprets this
in the light of Christ, who is the "image of God" (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18)
and has been given all rule and authority (1 Cor. 15:24; Phil. 2:10) with
"all things" subject to him. So it takes on the vastly expanded meaning
of cosmic rule, power, and exaltation. What is said of Jesus as
glorified Son of God, is also said of those "many brothers" who follow.
In the wider context of Hellenistic religions, it makes little sense to
speak of an exalted, heavenly, group of immortals, who are designated "Sons
of God," as human beings. The old rubric, "Gods are immortal, humans
are mortal" is apt here. Paul’s understanding of salvation involves a particularly
Jewish notion of apotheosis, and would have been understood as such
by his converts.
Paul’s message of salvation then is a message about cosmic conquest
and liberation. The elect group are freed from their bondage to death and
mortality brought on by sin. They are released from the power of Satan
and his demonic forces which rule the cosmos. As glorified immortals they
will participate with Christ, in the rule of God, bringing about the final
end of all opposition to his will.
In my opinion, this idea of heavenly glorification is the core
of Paul’s message. I have noted his use of the terms doxa/doxazo in
various contexts to summarize his overall view of God’s plan of salvation
(1 Cor. 2:6-8; Rom. 5:1-2; 8:17-25; 29-30; 2 Cor. 4:16-5:10; 1 Thess. 2:12).
Every major aspect of his system is related to this concept. When he speaks
of the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Christ, he has in mind a
Christological pattern (Phil. 2:5-10) which has the most direct bearing
on this heavenly destiny of the elect. His discussion of the weakness of
the Torah and the resulting chain of sin and death is connected to the
question of how one can be an "inheritor" of the promises made to
Abraham, which he interprets cosmically (Rom. 4:13-15; Gal. 3:15-29). This
whole cluster of ideas (Torah, covenants, sin, death, promises, inheritance)
provides the basis for his emphasis on justification by faith. This is
the way one enters the elect community, becomes an inheritor, and
is given the hope of glorification. Indeed, Paul’s emphasis on grace and
gift reaches its most eloquent expression when he focuses on the cosmic
destiny of these sons of God and their transformation at the return of Jesus (2 Cor. 4:13-18; Rom. 8:31-39). The giving of the Spirit, "sonship," and "life in the Spirit," all point toward glorification (Rom. 8:15-17; Gal. 4:4-7). The model he presents of suffering, as the "boast" of the true follower of God, points directly to subsequent glorification (Rom. 8:17-18; 5:1-5). His idea of inheriting the kingdom of God and the kind of ethical life this requires is directly related to the change from "flesh and blood" to immortality at the return of Christ (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:15-21; 1 Cor. 15:50). Obviously, one might take any single element of Paul’s message and argue that it is related to various others, but the ultimate content of the plan of God must be more basic than its "ways and means." Paul’s use of the language of glorification, in these key contexts, is what is noteworthy. Paul is consumed with two great insights--the vision he has had of the exalted and glorified Christ whom he knows to be the crucified man Jesus, whose followers he had once
opposed; and his conviction that by grace through faith this same heavenly glorification is the destiny of the elect group. All else falls in between.
If Paul’s understanding of heavenly glorification is at the core of his message, I now want to ask how his reported experiences of epiphany
and ascent might be related to that expectation. The relevant texts are 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:12, 15-16 and 2 Cor.12:1-10.
I first turn to his "conversion" experience. There can be no doubt that
Paul’s conversion to the sect of Messianists, who were proclaiming that
Jesus was raised from the dead and had been exalted to the throne of God,
was based on his own experience of having "seen" Jesus, several years after
his execution. In 1 Cor. 9:1 he rhetorically asks, "Have I not seen
(perfect of horao) the Lord?" Here and in 1 Cor. 15:8-10 he
is concerned to show that his office as an apostle stems from his vision
of the resurrected Jesus and is in line with the witness of the other apostles
who came before him. In 1 Cor. 15:8 he writes, "But last of all he appeared
(aorist passive of horao) to me." Whether Paul thought his own "seeing"
the Lord was the same kind of experience as that of the other apostles
or not, he clearly means something other than the kind of "appearances"
of Jesus in the later tradition (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:26-29) There the
emphasis is on the literal "flesh and bones" body that was crucified. These
accounts are obviously apologetic and intended to counter the charge that
the appearances of Jesus were merely visionary. For Paul it is different.
Jesus is no longer flesh and blood, but has become a "life-giving spirit"
(1 Cor. 15:45,50). His body is that of a glorious heavenly being (1 Cor.
15:42-50; Phil. 3:20-21), and he sits at the right hand of God in heaven
(Rom. 8:34). Since, as we have shown, all the terms that apply to Jesus’
present mode of heavenly, glorified existence, apply as well to the elect
group awaiting final transformation, then Paul’s message in this regard
is directly related to what he saw at his conversion. Perhaps his
experience was something like that reported of Stephen in Acts 7:56--"Behold,
I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man [Jesus] standing at the right
hand of God!"--but whatever its exact nature, my point is that he identified
the glorified one he saw with the crucified man Jesus, and such a vision
of glory must have been in his mind when he spoke of the expected glorification
of the elect. It was something he had seen. In Gal. 1:11-12 he declares:
In 2 Cor. 12:1 Paul speaks of his many "visions and revelations
of the Lord," and goes on to recount one such experience from fourteen
years earlier, his ascent to Paradise, the subject of this book. Certainly
his use of the term apokalupsis ("revelation") here and in 12:7
refers to visionary experience, which would lend support to my interpretation
of Gal. 1:11-16 above. I shall argue below that nothing in the context
of 2 Cor. 12 should lead one to conclude that Paul disparaged such experiences.
To be taken up to heaven, to hear and see things "impossible to express,"
and which "one is not permitted to utter," was a privilege of the highest
order. Given Paul’s emphasis on the heavenly glorification of the elect
to be revealed at the return of Jesus, there is every reason to conclude
that this experience, along with that of his initial conversion, would
have closely tied in with his gospel message.
I begin this section with a summary and application of the work of John Schutz on apostolic authority (Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority). Schutz carefully distinguishes between the conceptual coordinates power, authority, and legitimacy. Authority is an interpretation of power while legitimacy is an interpretation of authority. Power then, has priority (like Weber’s charisma), and is the source of authority, while authority interprets power and makes it accessible. Legitimacy is a formalization of authority, an attempt to communicate authority and make it accessible. Paul comes before such a formalization; thus to understand Paul as an apostle, we are not concerned with the concept of legitimacy, but with authority itself, i.e., Paul’s own sense of apostolic authority as seen in his letters. We have no normative concept of "apostle" from Paul’s own time with which he can be compared, so how does Paul interpret his power and upon what grounds does he view it as an ultimate source of authority? Paul’s letters are a combination of proclamation and parenesis (exhortation). As he seeks to mold and control the beliefs and conduct of his churches, the range of subjects he covers in our limited collection of letters is wide. A partial breakdown would include: 1. sexual conduct in general (1 Thess. 4:3-8; 1 Cor. 7:1-7; Gal. 5:19; 1 Cor. 5:9-10; 6:9 2. frequency of sexual intercourse (1 Cor. 7:1-7) 3. incest (1 Cor. 5:1-5) 4. homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9) 5. prostitution (1 Cor. 6:15-18) 6. celibacy (1 Cor. 7:8-9) 7. marital states (1 Cor. 7) 8. separation and divorce (1 Cor. 7:12-15) 9. alms and support of the ministry (1 Cor. 9:1-14; 16:1-4; Rom. 15:15-29; 2Cor. 8-9; Gal. 6:6; Rom. 12:13; 16:1-2) 10. non-retaliation (1 Thess. 5:15; Rom. 12:14-21) 11. community expulsions and lawsuits (1 Cor. 5; 6:1-8) 12. vegetarianism, idol meat, alcohol (1 Cor. 8:1-13; 10:23-31; Rom. 14) 13. slavery (1 Cor. 7:20-24) 14. circumcision (1 Cor. 7:18-19) 15. relations with outside society (1 Cor. 5:9; 10:27-31) 16. dress/hair length (1 Cor. 11:1-16) 17. regulations for meetings (1 Cor. 11:17-34; 14) 18. observance of holy days (Rom. 14:5-6; Gal. 4:10) 19. relations with civil government (Rom. 13:1-7) 20. paying taxes (Rom. 13:7) 21. jobs and employment (1 Thess. 4:11-12) When he sets forth and defends his positions on matters of belief or practice, he is concerned to draw implications from his gospel message (making use of dialectical argument, appeal to tradition, and exegesis of scripture); but often as not he simply appeals to his authority, demanding imitation, submission and obedience. I will argue that Paul exerts this kind of personal authority based upon his understanding of his special role as an apostle. Imitate Me In response to the fragmented and confused state of affairs in the Corinthian congregation Paul writes: For even if I boast a bit of our authority (which the Lord gave for building up, not for destroying you) I will not be put to shame . . . . let such people realize that what we say by letter when away, we do when present! (10:8, 11) I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did then when I was there on my second visit, that if I come again I will not spare them--since you want proof that Christ is speaking through me (12:2-3a). For although I am absent in body, I am present in spirit, and as present, I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus upon the man who has committed such a deed. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. The apostolic ego is the key point to be noted here. Paul passes the judgment "in the name of the Lord" and Paul’s spirit is present "with the power of the Lord." The prepositional phrases are clearly subordinate to the immediate manifestation of divine power in the community. Such language is extraordinary and implies an interpretation of power quite different from later church concepts of apostolic succession and legitimacy. 1 Cor. 11:1-16 is of particular interest in this regard, even though much of Paul’s argument will likely remain obscure to us. Paul begins the chapter with his formulaic command, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." In the following verse he commends the community for remembering him in every matter and maintaining the traditions (paradoseis) which he had delivered to them. He then proceeds to detail instructions regarding how women are to wear their hair. He concludes by asserting: The tension he feels in resolving issues of controversy in his churches is particularly clear in 1 Cor. 7, where he offers both advice and directive regarding marital states, divorce and states of life in general. Several of these issues, raised explicitly or implicitly by the Corinthians (7:1), demanded a specificity that went beyond what might have been deduced or argued from the theological content of his gospel proclamation. Although he does label what he writes regarding whether it is better to be married or single as his opinion, he pushes his own position forcefully and fortifies this "opinion" with the tactful phrase, "And I think that I have the Spirit of God" (vv. 6, 25, 40). The juxtaposition of verses 10-11 and verses 12-16 is most interesting: It is in the portions of this collection of correspondence (now preserved in 2 Corinthians) where Paul’s authority has been directly threatened by rival "apostles" and he is pushed to the wall, that the direct demand for "obedience" is especially evident. In his reconciling letter to the Corinthians (1:1-2:13; 7:5-16) he refers to his previous "letter of tears": The tone and approach adopted by Paul in asserting "his ways" in his congregations varies in any given situation according to the degree of acceptance he thinks he has from the group. This accounts for the broadly different ways his authority comes across in various letters. 1 Thessalonians reflects a high degree of acceptance. Although there may have been some criticism of the character and motives of the absent apostle (thus the mild defense in 2:1-12), it likely stemmed from outside persecutors. Paul is mainly concerned with encouraging and building up the fledgling group in the face of such opposition. The general tone of the letter is warm and deeply personal. In the parenetical section (chaps. 4 and 5) he exhorts and encourages them (4:1), gives them "instruction" (4:2, 11), warns them (4:6), corrects their misunderstanding concerning the resurrection of the dead (4:13-5:12) and closes with a series of imperatives (5:12-22). Several times he mentions that they are already following the right course and asks them to do so "more and more" (4:1; 9-10; 5:11). His most insistent language comes in 5:27--"I adjure you by the Lord that this letter be read to all the brethren!" All of the elements of Paul’s apostolic authority are evident, but the tone and approach is mild. They are to "imitate" their "father" (2:11; 4:1); what they are told is the "word of God," not of men (2:13; 4:8, 15). But the enemies are outside, and the harsh language, of which Paul is so capable, is directly against them, i.e., in this case the Jews (2:14-16). Philippians reflects a quite similar manner of asserting authority. The tone is gentle, encouraging and deeply personal. They are, nonetheless, to obey and imitate the apostle: Brothers, join in imitating me, and mark those who so live as you have an example in us (3:17). 1 Corinthians represents a midway situation. There are factions within the congregation, and the language he uses is considerably heated. There is some doubt in Paul’s mind about the degree of submission he will receive. This accounts for the much stronger language, some of which I have already quoted above. The same elements are present (Paul as father, the idea of imitation, commands and directives ), but they come across in a more demanding and absolute way than in 1 Thessalonians or Philippians. Overall, though, Paul still perceives himself to be in charge. It is in sections of 2 Corinthians and in Galatians where one finds a changed approach--though the opponents Paul faces are different. Here the ground has shifted. In Galatians he uses hyperbolic language with a full repertoire of cursing, sarcasm, dire threats and warnings: I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine and that the one troubling you will bear his condemnation, whoever he is! (5:10) I wish the ones unsettling you would mutilate themselves! [i.e., their penises by a slip of the circumcision knife] (5:12) However, it is the situation reflected behind the texts we now have collected in 2 Corinthians that best illustrates Paul’s understanding of his authority per se. Despite the impossibility of reconstructing the identity and theology of his opponents with any certainty, the situation is desperate and his hold is weakened over portions of the group. The key chapters are 10-13. Paul’s efforts to re-assert his position as "father" to the congregation exhibit a different tone and approach than that of any of his other letters. It is here that he sets forth his most complex and personal defense of his authority as an apostle, making an outright demand for their obedience and submission to him. It is important that his ascent account, which comes in this section of the letter, be understood in this context. In all of his letters, despite the differing tones and variety of approaches and situations, the essential interpretation of power is the same--to please God and be accepted by Christ at his return one must live presently in imitation of and submission to the apostle whom he has sent. Paul himself represents the working of the true Spirit in the community. This raises this question of the extent to which Paul’s mediation of
divine power is shared by every other person "in Christ," to use his language.
All possess the same Spirit (1 Cor. 12:12-13). The manifestations of this
Spirit are spread throughout the whole body (1 Cor. 12, 14). The community
as a whole is "called by God" and is participating in the mission and work
of God in the world. There is certainly an extent to which the "children"
are like the "father." That is the obvious force of the notion of
imitation. The task of the father involves an "augmentation" of the power
he represents. Yet all are not apostles (1 Cor. 12:29). All are
not fathers (1 Cor. 4:15). No one else could have used the language toward
the community which I have just examined. The issue is who is to be ultimately
heard and heeded, imitated and obeyed, in a situation of shared charismata.
Rational appeal and argument can work in certain situations, and Paul makes
full use of these, but when rivals also claim to have the "Spirit" and
to speak for Christ the lines of battle can become very blurred. This is
the case in 2 Cor. 10-13.
One could hardly point to a more difficult portion of the Pauline corpus than 2 Cor. 10-13. There is the problem of style; Paul’s language and lines of argument are extremely complex and difficult. The identity of his opponents seems beyond our abilities to reconstruct. Does Paul face a different situation than that of 1 Corinthians? What might be the origin of these opponents--the Jerusalem church, the diasporic Christian mission, or the Corinthian community itself? Are they best characterized as Judaizers, Pneumatics, Gnostics (or gnostics) or some combination of these? How does Paul differ from his opposition? In what ways is he similar? John Gunther (St. Paul's Opponents and their Background), in an extraordinary job of cataloging, offers thirteen categories of identification of these opponents, reflecting the positions of thirty-nine scholars! He lists: Wandering Jewish preachers taking over the Gnostic opposition of 1 Cor.; Jewish Gnostic Christians of the same sort as in 1 Cor.; Pneumatic-libertine Gnostics; Gnostics; Alexandrian syncretistic antinomian pneumatics; Jewish-pagan-Christian gnostics; Hellenistic Jewish Christians; Non-Judaizing Jewish Christians; Palestinian Jewish-Christian Gnostics; Jewish Christian syncretists with Gnostic elements; Jerusalem Judaizers; Palestinian Jews--not Judaizers in the Galatian sense; Judaizers; Judaizers and pneumatic Gnostics. It is obvious that his list is inflated, overlapping, and imprecise, however, its very unwieldiness illustrates the difficulties of such attempts at identification. How one evaluates the ascent account is generally related to one’s characterization of the position of the opponents. Without attempting to cover all the nuances of such identification, I want to isolate several of the main lines of interpretation as they are related to this question of how Paul regarded his ascent experience. First, there is the view that the opponents were criticizing Paul as
an ecstatic visionary who relied on his "revelations" to legitimate his
apostleship, but lacked the authorization of the Jerusalem church with
its connection with the historical Jesus. Most often they would be seen
as "Judaizers," perhaps similar to those in Galatia, and either commissioned
by the Jerusalem apostles, or at least claiming authority from them. This
interpretation generally brings together Paul’s defense of his call (Gal.
1:11-12), his remarks about the "reputed pillars" of the church (Gal. 2:6-9),
his insistence that he is not inferior to the original apostles, his claim
that he too has "seen the Lord" (1 Cor. 9:1), and his reference to no longer
"knowing Jesus according to the flesh" (2 Cor. 5:16). Thus, the "superlative
apostles" contrasted themselves with him as though he had no rank (2 Cor.
11:5; 12:11). Schoeps (Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light
of Jewish History) has argued that the pseudo-Clementine texts, while
reflecting a much later stage of anti-Paulinism, preserve for us in compact
form the essential arguments of these Judaizers at Corinth (whom, according
to Schoeps, Paul faced at Galatia as well). He relies on the debate between
Peter and Paul (who appears under the name of the heretic Simon) in Homily
17. Peter argues that "Paul’s" claim to "revelations" of the Lord have
no validity:
The personal knowledge and the personal instruction of the true prophet gives certainty; vision leaves us in uncertainty. For the latter may spring from a misleading spirit which feigns to be what it is not.I see two major weaknesses with this position. First, there is no convincing evidence in these chapters, nor in 1 and 2 Corinthians as a whole (despite the reference to a "different gospel" in 11:4; cf. Gal. 1:6-9), of a Judaizing position akin to that of the opponents at Galatian who demanded that Gentiles be circumcised and keep the Torah. The way Paul goes about defending his apostleship simply does not correspond to that kind of opposition. Second, even though Schoeps’ appeal to the pseudo-Clementine materials has a certain attraction, it seems unlikely that Paul would appeal to his "visions and revelations" (even if "speaking as a fool"--11:21) if such visionary experience was the very point at issue. The rhetorical subtleties which he employs in his "Narrenrede" (irony, sarcasm, parody) indicate something much more complex is at stake. Paul is pressed to boast of his revelations precisely because his opponents were making claims on the basis of their own ecstatic experiences. Schmithals (Gnosticism in Corinth) holds the position that the opponents were genuine Gnostics of Palestinian origin who boasted of pneumatic-ecstatic experiences of all kinds. He argues for a "one front battle" with Paul facing the same Gnostic opposition throughout the Corinthian correspondence. Such opponents would have charged that Paul was not a Pneumatic (at least on their level) and therefore not an apostle. Paul defends himself against such a charge both in 1 Cor. 14 and 2 Cor. 12. In both cases he does not reject such experiences; indeed, he must show that he has them "more than you all" (1 Cor. 14:18) and in "abundance" (2 Cor. 12:1, 7). Schmithals, however, holds that he depreciates them as expressions of individual or "personal religion," fundamentally different in character from his Damascus revelation, and of no value to the community as a whole. Thus, in 2 Cor. 12:1-10, he is unwillingly pressed to meet his opponents on their own ground, "foolishly" boasting of an abundance of visions and revelations. Dieter Georgi (Die Gegner des Paulus), arguing from 2 Cor. 2:14-7:4 and 10-13, has proposed that Paul faces a new group of opponents who had come into the community after he wrote 1 Corinthians. He characterizes them as wandering Hellenistic Jewish pneumatics who viewed Moses and Jesus on the model of a theios aner, glorying in their revelations and miracles as demonstrations of their "power" (dunamis). They are part of an organized Christian missionary movement, stemming from diasporic Jewish-Christian circles. Paul, while ironically boasting of his own pneumatic experience, stands in sharpest contrast to them with his emphasis on the crucified Jesus and his model of the suffering apostle who has power in weakness (2 Cor. 4:8-12; 6:4-10; 11:23-29; 12:10). While Schmithals opposes Georgi’s overall thesis, he agrees that the false apostles in Corinth are the type of traveling Pneumatics which Georgi describes. However, he would insist that they are Gnostic apostles and that Paul faces their opposition throughout the Corinthian correspondence, not only in 2 Corinthians. There does seem to be a growing consensus among scholars on a number of key points. First, the lines of battle are drawn over the issue of who is a true apostle--what Kasemann calls the question of "legitimitat." Paul’s authority has been questioned and he is pressed to defend himself (though strictly speaking he denies this--2 Cor. 12:19) in contrast to his opponents, whom he asserts are false apostles (11:13) and servants Satan (11:15). Second, contrary to Schmithals, a new situation has developed from that reflected in 1 Corinthians. Third, this new group of "apostles" are certainly of Jewish background (3:7-18; 11:21-23), taking pride in such identity, though probably unlike the Judaizers at Galatia. Whether they are Hellenistic Jewish Christians from the diaspora or Palestinian Christians from the Jerusalem church seems impossible to resolve. Finally, and this point is crucial, both Paul and his opponents claimed pneumatic powers, the ability to work miracles and various experiences of vision and revelation. At issue then is how Paul, in 2 Cor. 10-13, goes about defending his apostleship against these newly arrived Jewish opponents who are also claiming pneumatic powers; and specifically, for this study, what is the point of his mentioning his ascent to Paradise in such a context? E. Earle Ellis ("Paul and His Opponents," in Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults, edited by Jacob Neusner, vol 2: 264-98) offers a succinct characterization of this type of situation: The Pauline mission was an enterprise of pneumatics, persons who claimed special understanding of scripture and who experienced manifestations of inspired, ecstatic speech and of visions and revelations. The primary opposition to that mission arose from within a segment of the ritually strict Hebraioi in the Jerusalem church and with variations in nuance continued to pose, sometimes as a counter mission and sometimes as an infiltrating influence, a settled and persistent "other" gospel. Each group claimed to be the true voice of Jesus, each claimed to give the true gnosis of God, and on occasion, each made its higher appeal to apostolic status. It was, in a word, a battle of prophets, and the congregation was called upon to choose--Paul or his opposition.Most scholars have concluded that Paul, in facing such opposition, to one degree or another, disparaged pneumatic experiences, refusing to allow such to serve as a basis for validating his authority. The following comment by C.K. Barrett on Paul’s ascent experience typifies this viewpoint: It is true that xii.2ff describes an experience in which Paul was caught up to heaven and heard words which he was not allowed to communicate to his fellow men; . . . It remains significant that, to find a suitably impressive example of visions and revelations of the Lord (xii.1), he goes back fourteen years (xii.2); such raptures did not happen to him every other week . . .. To Paul, the spiritual world was unmistakably real, and from time to time he experienced it in an ecstatic way; but so far from cultivating this kind of experience he rather disparaged it, and laid no weight on it in his exposition and defense of the Gospel (Second Corinthians, p. 34).Barrett argues that the apostle’s legitimacy appears not in the power of his personality, not in such ecstatic experiences or revelations, not in his commissioning by the right ecclesiastical authorities, but only in the extent to which his life and preaching represent the crucified Jesus. Accordingly, even if Paul must reluctantly compare himself with his opponents, ultimately he refuses to do so, "boasting " only in his weaknesses and sufferings. Bornkamm essentially follows this same line of interpretation. I have already noted how Schmithals argues that Paul depreciates such experiences as expressions of individual religion. W. D. Davies (Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, p. 87) holds that the ascent experience is not of "primary importance" and that Paul never makes any vision he may have had (as the "Hellenistic pneumatics" must have done) the basis for any of his teaching. James Dunn (Jesus and the Spirit, p. 339), while admitting the obvious, that Paul "was no stranger to ecstatic experiences," says the question of real moment is whether they were important to Paul. He concludes: Certainly Paul knows experiences which take him out of himself--even, it perhaps seemed at the time, out of the body (II Cor. 12:2ff.). But such experiences are the least significant for Paul; it is the daily experience of weakness that finds him closest to God and the power of God most effective through him (II Cor. 12:9f.; 13:4).He goes on to say, "Paul derived his authority as an apostle not from the inspiration of the present but from the decisive events of the past which remained determinative for believers" (p. 277). He is referring to the authoritative Jesus tradition and his once-for-all revelation or appearance to Paul, whereby he was commissioned to take the message to the Gentiles and establish the church through that ministry. Russell Spittler, in an article appropriately called, "The Limits of Ecstasy," (in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, edited by G. Hawthorne, pp. 259-66) concludes: In this context it becomes clear that Paul introduces his visionary experience of heaven only in order to show that it is not such experiences on which he relies for evidence of his apostleship.I could cite any number of other scholars who draw similar conclusions. My own position runs directly counter to this trend of modern interpretation. The resolution of the question must involve at least three lines of inquiry. First, there is the question of the exegesis of the text itself. Does Paul’s overall defense in 2 Cor. 10-13, and the way in which he brings in the ascent experience, indicate that he disparaged such revelations, or that he is, in fact, defending his authority as an apostle on the basis of such? Second, in a wider context, with regard to Paul’s overall understanding of revelation and authority, what would be the significance of this particular experience? And finally, is it important that Paul mentions an ascent to heaven when he comes to "visions and revelations," and not just any pneumatic experience, not even his initial vision and call at his conversion (as in Galatians)? This third question relates to an even broader inquiry--the significance of ascent as a religious experience in the Hellenistic period. I will take this up in the following chapter. At this point I will argue that for Paul the experience of ascent to Paradise was important and did serve to confirm his self-understanding of his authority as an apostle, and further, that it is significant that he tells of a journey to heaven, and not just any ecstatic experience. Throughout these chapters Paul exhibits fierce indignation, and asserts his authority to the uttermost. His invective amounts to a "declaration of war" against those who fail to submit. He warns the community (i.e., anyone who would interpret his "weakness" as a lack of divine power) in 10:11: "Let these people understand that what we say by letter when absent, we do when present!" His purpose in writing is not ultimately to defend himself before them (13:19), but to give them opportunity to correct their ways and submit to him before he makes his visit (12:21; 13:10), so that he will not have to be severe in his use of the authority given to him by Christ (12:10). There is a sense in which Paul is in complete control of the situation. He knows that he may have lost a portion of the group, as I have discussed earlier, thus his tone is severe and desperate. But in his own final analysis, Paul cannot lose. He has no doubt of his authority from the Lord, including the power "to destroy" if necessary (10:8; 13:10). His discussion begins and ends on this note. He wants those who have been influenced by the opponents to "mend their ways" and "complete their obedience" (13:11; 10:6) before he arrives. For the opponents and those who will not come around, there is no hope. They are "false apostles," "deceitful workers," and servants of Satan himself. He confidently declares that they will suffer an end corresponding to their deeds (11:13-15). Precisely what form this threatened punishment of the disobedient is to take we cannot say. I think it unlikely that he has in mind judgment at the coming of Christ. Reacting to the charge of his enemies, he dispels any notions of "meekness" by speaking of the boldness that he intends to show against his enemies when he comes (10:2). The military language of 10:3-6 is more than rhetorical display. Paul plans to take some kind of action when he arrives. He speaks of "weapons" which have "divine power to destroy," using terms which he often associates with his own apostolic office (10:8; 12:9; 13:1-4, 10). The kind of scene described in 1 Cor. 5:3-5, where the man is to be "`delivered to Satan" for destruction is probably our best indication of what he contemplates. As Morton Smith has shown, our best parallels for understanding this kind of talk and action are in the magical papyri. In 4:18-21 he had spoken of the arrogance of some who did not seem bothered by his threats to "come" to them; he offered them the choice of gentleness or a rod, and reminded them of the divine "power" at his disposal. In 2 Cor. 10-13 the situation is more desperate and Paul is ready to act. Even though Paul does take up a certain kind of ironic defense of himself in 11:1-12:10, the overall tone of the chapters is one of full confidence to deal with those who have attached themselves to the opponents. With all of this boldness he still makes the most tender appeal. He reminds them how he loves them and how he is willing to "be spent" for them (12:15). He only wants to build them up, and is disappointed that they have not returned his love and "commended" him themselves (12:11). One charge made against Paul was that he was bold and forceful in his letters, but that when actually present was weak and unimpressive (10:2, 10; 11:16). It was said that he had "overextended" himself in various ways as he sought to exercise his apostolic authority (10:14). This might be related to his policy of not taking financial support from them, which some saw as proof that he did not have the full rights of an apostle (11:7-11; 12:13-18). There is every indication that some in the group went on to question whether Paul had the right to be called an apostle at all, asserting that he did not meet "the test" in comparison to others (10:18; 13:3). This probably involved an appeal by the opponents to "signs, wonders, and mighty works" (12:12), as well as to "visions and revelations" (12:1), which they felt demonstrated their own power and standing as apostles. They, at the same time, took pride in their Jewish background as Hebrews, Israelites, and descendants of Abraham (11:22). Several of these charges Paul refutes directly, using a technique of denial and reversal. It is they who have overextended themselves, not he; he was the "first to reach them" and is their founder, while these false apostles "boast" of work done in another man’s field of labor (10:13-16). He did not take money from them because he loved love, like a parent who sacrifices for his children. He showed no trace of craftiness or guile (11:7-12; 12:13-18). The opponents, on the other hand, take all kinds of advantage over them, seeking to enslave them, and would never adopt Paul’s way of not "burdening" the church, because they are greedy for the gain it brings them (11:12-21). The crux of his response, however, involves the subtle and shifting use of four key terms: weakness (astheneia); power (dunamis); boasting (kauchesis) and foolishness (aphrosune). Paul’s concern is to make it clear that he is not the least bit "inferior" to the opponents, whom he sarcastically labels as "super-apostles." The core of his defense begins and ends with this assertion (11:5; 12:11). His argument is very difficult because of a complex mix of sarcasm, irony and parody. He reverses the level of the discussion, so that at various points he is operating on two different planes, with the key terms of the discussion carrying different meanings. At one and the same time he meets the opponents on their own ground, and denies the validity of that very ground, by setting forth his authority on a different level. He charges that the opponents operate kata sarka, "on a worldly plane" (10:18). They attempt to do battle with him on that level (10:2), claiming that Paul fails to meet the "test" (dokimos). This idea of a test or proof is important in these chapters (10:18; 13:3, 5-7). The Corinthians wanted "proof" that Christ was speaking in Paul. But he closes his letter by asking them to examine themselves, to see if it might be they who have failed the "test." This test is finally whether or not they submit to him. Their operation on this worldly plane causes them to boast over "worldly things" (11:18). They compare and measure themselves with one another (10:12), commending themselves on the basis of their pneumatic powers and their Jewish connections (10:18). They see themselves as having power, while Paul is judged as weak and unimpressive (10:10; 11:6). Speaking as a "fool" (11:1, 16-17, 21; 12:11), Paul is able to engage the opponents point by point on this level. He too can boast of worldly things. He is a Hebrew, an Israelite, a descendent of Abraham, a servant of Christ (11:22-23). He too can speak of "visions and revelations" which he has experienced (12:1). But in doing so he actually cuts the ground from under them. First, he denies that they are, in fact, servants of Christ. They are evil and deceitful ministers, false apostles, who are serving Satan, not Christ (11:13-15). And as for their revelations, he implies in 12:6 that such claims were based on falsehood. By this he does not mean that their visions are fraudulent, but as servants of Satan, their claim that their power is from Christ is necessarily a lie. Paul insists that "another spirit" stands behind their manifestation of pneumatic power (11:4)! His point is that since his many "visions and revelations" are truly "of the Lord," even if he did wish to meet them on this point, he would at least be speaking the truth. But ultimately he refuses to operate on this level of comparison and boasting of himself and what he has experienced (12:5), instead he shifts the ground. He says in 10:18, "for it is not the man who approves himself who is accepted (dokimos), but the one whom the Lord approves." They had charged that he was weak (10:10). Paul turns the charge against them. If he "must boast" (11:30; 12:1) then he will boast of this--his weaknesses (11:30; 12:5). On the "worldly plane" this would be an admission of defeat, but in terms of "whom the Lord approves," weakness turns out to mean divine power, the power of Christ himself (12:9-10). It is in this context, between 11:30 and 12:10, that he mentions his ascent to Paradise. Paradoxically, this extraordinary and exalted revelation brought "weakness": By recounting this revelation Paul is not trying to assert the validity of suffering as a criterion of apostleship, contrasting it with visionary ecstatic experience. That is not the way his argument runs. Rather he is setting forth two ways of commendation. There are those who commend themselves, boasting on their own behalf, and there are those whom the Lord commends, who of themselves are nothing and can boast only of weakness. This is the heart of his argument, as 10:18 clearly shows. His extraordinary ascent to heaven was certainly evidence of the Lord’s commendation. This experience is to be compared to his "Damascus" vision and calling. Both were granted to him by the Lord. He calls both "revelations." The first relates to his call and commission as an apostle, the second is a highly privileged confirmation of the Lord’s commendation. Indeed, that this journey to heaven is a higher and more privileged experience than that of the epiphany at his conversion. As Albert Schweitzer (The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle) pointed out, all of the apostles had "seen the Lord," but as far as we have evidence, only Paul claims to have been taken to heaven and told secrets he could not disclose. It is precisely because he regarded this experience so highly that he is most careful and reticent in recounting it to the Corinthians. He does not want it to be taken as the same kind of boasting that characterized his opponents. At the same time he is eager to demonstrate that he is not the least bit inferior to them. My argument in this section is that Paul’s experience of ascent to Paradise
is related to the ways he exercises authority in his churches. I have shown
how he asserts that authority in various situations in his letters. It
is his unwavering conviction that he "speaks for the Lord." That authority
is based on his self-understanding as an apostle: an apostle whom the Lord
has called; upon whom the power of Christ rests; whom the Lord, not men,
has commended. In a crisis situation, such as that reflected in 2 Corinthians,
when that very authority is called into question, he asserts it all the
more, with a rigor unparalleled in any of his other letters. In this context
his recounting of his ascent to heaven is his way of affirming in the boldest
possible manner that he is the one commended by the Lord, that he is the
one who must be heeded. He does indeed "boast" in his weakness in this
chapter, but that very "weakness" came as a result of his highly privileged
revelations (12:7). For Paul the issue is singular and clear cut--the opponents
are of Satan, while he speaks and acts with the authority of Christ.
Paul did not view his apostolic authority in a vacuum, but understood it in the context of his apostolic mission. Apostolic authority and mission must be seen hand in hand, together forming his apostolic self-understanding. After listing the appearances of the risen Christ to Cephas, to "the twelve," to James, and then to all the "apostles," he tells of his own selection: He sees himself as one called to a very particular mission. I pointed out previously how Rom. 1:3-4 offers a terse summary of Paul’s essential message. The very next verse is a similarly formulaic statement regarding his mission: This language is echoed in Rom. 15:18, which comes in the middle of one of the most basic treatments of his understanding of this mission: For I will not dare to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me, to win the obedience of the Gentiles . . . . I want you to understand this mystery brethren, so you won’t be conceited: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and thus all Israel will be saved (11:25-26b).Paul understands that there is a certain select group of Gentiles that God has chosen and is calling to make up a new Israelite community (Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:3). His preaching in the major cities of the empire, both east and west, is the means by which they are gathered together and prepared for their role in God’s plan. When his work is completed he expects Israel as a whole to come to believe in Jesus as Messiah and Lord. Paul develops this understanding of his Gentile mission through an interpretation of prophetic texts in the Hebrew Bible, particularly sections of deutero-Isaiah. This is a major factor in understanding the dynamics of Paul’s apostolic consciousness--he literally finds himself and his apostolic mission in these texts of sacred Scripture. Isa. 49:1-6 (LXX) is perhaps the single most significant text. I have put the phrases and terms in italics which Paul may have understood to refer to his own ministry: and hearken you Gentiles; After a long time it will happen, says the Lord. From my mother’s womb he has called my name. And he has made my mouth a sharp sword, and he has hidden me, under the shadow of his hand; He has made me as a choice shaft, and he has hidden me in his quiver. And he said to me, "You are my servant, O Israel, and in you I will be glorified." Then I said, "I have labored in vain, therefore this is my judgment with the Lord, And now, thus says the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his own servant, to gather Jacob to him and Israel. I shall be gathered and glorified before the Lord, and God shall be my strength. And he said to me, "It is a great thing for you to be called my servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob, and to recover the dispersion of Israel. Behold, I have given you for a covenant of a race, for a light of the Gentiles, that you should be for salvation, to the ends of the earth. I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations (Jer. 1:5). In Romans 15:7-29 he sets forth his modus operandi. He has been called as a "priestly servant" (leitourgon) of Jesus Christ to the Gentile nations, in the priestly service (hierougounta) of the Gospel of God, so that the offering (prosphora) of the Gentiles may be acceptable (15:16). His collection from the Gentiles’ churches, which he was preparing to take to Jerusalem, is an embodiment of that priestly service (v. 27). He likely has in mind Isa. 2:2-4 and 60:5-9, where the Gentile nations are to flow into Jerusalem bearing gifts from all nations of the world. He feels that this offering from his churches in Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia is a vital sign of the validity of his mission (Rom. 15:27; 2 Cor. 9:12-15). At the time he writes the letter to Rome, he has finished his work in the East (15:19-23). After the trip to Jerusalem with the funds he has raised, he plans to move on to the West, via Rome, to Spain; then his commission will be completed (15:24-29). This extraordinary sense of itinerary illustrates just how concretely he understands his role in God’s eschatological plan. He is headed for unknown regions, fired by the vision of deutero-Isaiah, that "those who have never heard" shall be told (Isa. 52:15; Rom. 15:21). Closely tied to this understanding of mission is Paul’s idea about suffering on behalf of his congregations. His model here is Jesus, but he seems to be drawing as well from themes in deutero-Isaiah. Since all believers are "in Christ," and the paradigms of suffering/glory and weakness/power lie at the center of his theology of the cross, all "share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings" (2 Cor. 1:3-7). This is related to his idea of imitation. He tells the Thessalonians that they "became imitators of us and of the Lord" because they faced great affliction (1 Thess. 1:5; cf. 2:15). But there is a sense in which Paul’s sufferings are different. He represents Christ, present to his churches, and like Christ he suffers on their behalf. In the fragments of 2 Cor. 2:14-6:13, 7:2-4, Paul gives his most profound description of his "ministry." One should note carefully his use of the first and second person in this section. I am convinced that when he uses the plural "we" he is speaking of his own particular work as an apostle. He has his special role in mind, not the ministry in general. He is the aroma of Christ to God, the one through whom the world is being divided into two classes, those who are being saved and those who are perishing (2:15-16). He has received his commission from God and "speaks in Christ" (2:17). His message is that Jesus is Lord, and he is their servant, because of Jesus (4:5). The catalogue of sufferings (4:8-9) is described as "carrying in the body the death of Jesus" which leads to life for them (4:10-12). All this is "for your sake" he tells them (4:15). He has been given a "work of reconciliation" so that God makes his appeal through him to them (5:18-20). He is Christ’s "ambassador" (5:20). The commendation of his ministry is his abundant sufferings (6:4-10). This latter passage is quite similar to 11:23-29, where he also lists his trials and sufferings, speaking as a "fool." The same contrast between Paul and the community is found in 1 Cor. 4:8-13, where his irony expresses a judgmental tone. As an apostle he is "last of all" like one "sentenced to death," a "spectacle" (theatron) before men and angels (4:9). He recounts his many sufferings (4:11-13), describing himself as the "refuse of the world," and the "offscouring of all things." Paul concludes his heated letter to the Galatians with the sharp declaration, "From now on let no one bother me, I bear on my body the marks (stigmata) of Jesus!" (6:17). Whatever he means by "marks," he appears to have in mind some type of suffering which he relates to Jesus’ own. His most explicit statement is in Philippians, where he is contemplating his possible death (1:19-26). He tells them: "Even if I am to be poured out upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all." The language is difficult to interpret, but he appears to picture himself as a sacrificial priest who will offer their faith as a gift (cf. Rom. 15:16, 27), crowned with the pouring out of his own blood over it. In 3:8 he says that he has suffered "the loss of all things" for the sake of Christ. He is like Jesus, who "emptied himself" and gave up all he had (2:7). But he expects more than suffering, he expects to die like Christ as well: Hans Windisch, in his valuable study Paulus und Christus, has shown how similar Paul and Jesus are, in the portrayal in Acts, as well as in Paul’s own letters. He argues that both fit the type of the theios aner, that both are prophet, apostle, pneumatic, teacher, scribe, servant and mystagogue. Indeed, Paul can be seen as "greater" than Jesus in that he is sent to all nations, while Jesus went only to Israel. There is some truth to this. Paul is called to be God’s servant to the Gentiles, but this is Christ’s service, carried out through his power. But the "slippage" inherent in Paul’s language is the problem. Certainly for Paul, Jesus is Lord, he is the Son of God, the suffering one, the one who has been exalted to God’s throne with all power and glory. Yet his message is that he, and all believers, are destined to rule, are the Sons of God, must also suffer in this present time, but will be glorified and exalted at the End. So we have Christ, Paul and his communities. The same language, with various nuances, can be applied to all. Still, in for the present historical working out of God’s plan, Paul’s special identity does stand apart. His task is different from Jesus’ (Rom. 15:8-12). Indeed, it was Jesus’ ministry that really prepared the way for his own role in bringing about the final events of history. Both Jesus and Paul are servants and agents in the plan (1 Cor. 15:28). God sent forth his Son. He commissions Paul. Yet, at root, Paul is theocentric. The beginning and end of God’s purposes belong to God alone. Paul expresses this most eloquently in Rom. 11:33-36. Still, as apostle to the Gentiles, Paul’s work is more important than, and far surpasses, that of even the greatest figures of Israel’s history, or of any of the other apostles. As Munck pointed out, he has been appointed by God to fill the key position in the last great drama of salvation. Conclusions
Paul does not emphasize what he saw, but what he heard. We can only conclude that since it was something beyond human ability to utter and was to be kept secret, that he would have understood it to be a highly privileged revelation. But he does tell us what he did, namely he entered Paradise--that is (as I understand it), he was taken into the highest level of heaven, before God's throne. We might speculate a bit about this, though there is not a lot one can say, given the limited nature of his letters on this kind of subject. He does believe that Jesus has ascended to heaven, and has been given a place of rule at the right hand of God the Father (Phil. 2:10; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Rom. 8:34). This is quite literal to him, for he speaks of him "descending from heaven,'' to the level of the clouds, and gathering his saints to join him in the air above the earth (1 Thess. 4:16-17). He has a glorious (shining?) body (Phil. 3:20-21). We can assume, that as an educated Jewish scholar, Paul would have pictured the throne of God in the highest heaven much like it is pictured in the Hebrew Bible (especially Exodus 24:9-11; Isaiah 6:1-5; and Ezekiel 1 and 10). We have no way of knowing to what extent he might have delved into any form of further speculation, akin to the merkabah lore, about the heavens and the throne of God, though it is hard to imagine that this would have been absent from his training as a scholar and teacher. We do know that he uses technical terms for various levels of heavens and orders of angelic/demonic powers, none of which are found in the Torah or Prophets, and that in a general way he participates in this "explosion'' of interest in the unseen world among Jews in Second Temple times. The main features of his apocalyptic vision are known to us from texts of the period, though as a prophet himself, he adds his own detailed revelations (such as 1 Thess. 4:16-17). So we can safely assume, that if entering Paradise meant being taken before God's throne, given Paul's beliefs and expectations, this would have been an absolutely extraordinary experience. In his world of men and angels, what could be greater than this ascent to heaven? The only thing greater would be the events he expects to take place at the coming of Jesus from heaven. But there is a relationship between these two journeys, his and Jesus'. He expects two main things at Jesus' return. First that he (and the others) will be transformed from a mortal to a glorious immortal body, and second, that they will all "be with the Lord.'' He closes his apocalyptic section in 1 Thess. 4:13-18 by saying "and so we shall always be with the Lord.'' He tells them later in the letter that it doesn't matter if they die before the end, because either way they will "live together with him.'' When late in his career he thinks he might die before the end comes, he speaks of "departing to be with Christ,'' which I take as an indication that he expects by this time some special resurrection and ascent to heaven of his own (Phil. 1:23; 3:10-11). In such case, this would be a return to heaven for him, since he had already had this experience in the 40's C.E. In other words, there is a sense in which he has already, however briefly, "been with the Lord.'' What about his other expectation--the change of the decaying body? Obviously he does not think his body was changed on his journey to heaven. He knows he is flesh and blood and will die, and he expects that he might be resurrected like Christ (Phil.3:11). But if he has been in the highest heaven, and seen Christ "seated at the right hand'' of God, in his shining immortal form, then he has actually already seen what is to come. In this sense his journey is proleptic and functions like some of the others I surveyed, as an anticipation or foretaste of what he expects to come. I would argue then, that his ascent to Paradise has several direct connections with his message. If the core of that message has to do with glorification and rule with Christ at his coming, Paul's ascent reflects it completely. It is not mere theological speculation for him. He has been with Christ, he has experienced the glory and power he associates with Jesus, the very one who has been transformed from a mortal to an immortal son of God and who reigns over the whole cosmos at the right hand of God. Paul himself equates the power to rule with the power to transform (Phil. 3:22), so there is a direct connection between the two. What about his mission? Given the perceptions he has of his special calling--that he was chosen before birth like a great prophet, that he has seen the Lord, that his mission to the Gentiles is a fulfillment of Isaiah's vision of the end and will bring about the final redemption of Israel, and (possibly) that he too, like Jesus, will die, be resurrected, and ascend to heaven before the end--this extraordinary experience of having already gone up once and received secret revelation only completes a picture. Next to his initial calling and conversion, (which is always unparalleled as a demonstration of God's overflowing grace in choosing one so unworthy for so great a task) his ascent to heaven must have been his highest moment. He says as much in 2 Cor. 12:7. Because he might be too elated over what he has been given, he is harassed for years by an angel of Satan so that he will always remember the lesson that suffering and weakness lead, paradoxically, to power and glory. He has had a taste of that power and glory, a special taste. This gives powerful conviction to all his statements about "beholding the glory of the Lord'' (2 Cor. 3:18) or the slight momentary affliction which is to result in "glory beyond all comparison'' (2 Cor. 4:17) or the sufferings of the present being unworthy of comparison with the "glory soon to be revealed'' (Rom. 8:18). Beyond this there is little one can say. I think
the texts I examined in the previous chapter can shed light on Paul's experience.
Broadly speaking he presents a Hellenistic way of salvation--a particular
scheme of apotheosis, or "immortalization,'' with certain apocalyptic peculiarities.
The broad contours of his religious experiences--epiphany, the reception
of oracles, visions, the journey to heaven, secret revelations--these are
all well known to us, especially from the Greek magical papyri, the Hermetic
texts and various forms of esoteric Judaism of the period. Add to
that his specific expectations regarding his mission to the Gentiles, the
conversion of Israel, and the imminent parousia of Jesus as cosmic Lord,
and you have it--his own particular vision and version of that most general
Hellenistic (and human) hope--escape from mortality. And yet it is
those very apocalyptic "particulars'' that make Paul really Paul.
His was not a scheme of salvation for any place or for all time.
Although he has endured and been appropriated in many different ways over
the centuries, from the standpoint of the history of Judaism, he belongs
in those crucial years of hope and promise, before the terrible days of
August, 70 C.E., when many such dreams came to an end. For Paul the
"appointed time'' of the End had drawn very near (1 Cor. 7:26, 29, 31).
How near, it is difficult to say, but he wrote that in the early 50's C.E..
If he, like others in the movement before 70 C.E., expected the fulfillment
of Daniel 11 and 12, with the "desolating sacrilege'' set up in the Temple
at Jerusalem, then events such as Gaius' attempt to have his statue placed
there (41 C.E.) would have fueled his apocalyptic speculations.
Apparently his plans to go to Spain never worked out, due to his arrest
under Nero (Rom. 15:28), so his grand hope of bringing the bulk of Israel
to accept Jesus as Messiah through his Gentile mission became more and
more hopeless. By 70 C.E. it was becoming increasingly difficult
to maintain any immediate hope for the "redemption of Israel.''
Others could pick up the pieces in various ways, as Jacob Neusner and his
students have demonstrated so clearly, but Paul was gone and what emerged
in his name, even in the short decades after 70 C.E., was the beginning
of a new and very different story.
|
The Jewish Roman World of Jesus Main Page
SECTIONS: Hellenistic / Roman Religion & Philosophy | Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls Christian Origins and the New Testament | Ancient Judaism Links | Gallery | About Dr. Tabor | Contact Dr. Tabor |