Part V - The Old Testament

The Old Testament, also known as the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, was written by various authors in a period roughly spanning from 1200 to 200 BC. There are some variations in the number of books it contains, ranging from 39 to 51, depending on which religious traditions and the canon it used. The first five books, starting with Genesis, are referred to as the Torah, Pentateuch, or Books of Moses. Here it tells about the birth of humanity, its childhood and gradual steps towards maturity. In these we find also the Mosaic Law, or Commandments, and for this they are the most fundamental of Old Testament books. When Jesus or the apostle Paul spoke of the Law, they were referring to these same books, as they were what regulated Jewish life ad society. After these five, there are more historical books, then the poetry ones, wisdom and finally the books of the prophets, though the order does vary in some Bibles.

Knowing the past is crucial for understanding the present and to discover what may come tomorrow. Without historical references we risk loosing sight of the road we are walking in, stop progressing in it and perhaps even begin to move backward. Thus the importance of knowing and understanding also the Old Testament, which I invite you to study, albeit with some foreword.

Two testaments, but the same God

The biblical word "testament" refers to a contract between God and man. For reasons which we have already touched on, and will now further develop, God replaced the old contract with a new one. The differences between the two, however, are so great that they lead also to differing images of God. Some have even raised the questioned if indeed the God of the Old Testament is the same as that of the New. The Bible itself leaves no doubt about that - it is the same God, the same landlord, you might say, but it is the contract that has changed, which determines a different relationship. Indeed, those who have accepted Christ's sacrifice, are no longer under a contract, but are wedded (a form of contract) to the owner (God) and have became heirs. This metaphor is not mine, but was used by the Apostle Paul to describe the paradigm shift from Old to New Testament. In fact, Paul wrote at length to explain why the New Contract, signed in the blood of Jesus, had replaced the Old one, but now we will step back and look at why there had to be the an Old Testament.

The beginning

Genesis, the first book of the Bible and perhaps the one studied the most, is a simple and concise account of the origins of life and of our world. Some look at it as a figurative, symbolic account, while others consider it historical. The two approaches are the cause of an intense debate that we will not discuss here, mainly because there is already ample material, in books, websites, etc. dealing with this subject. I recommend for anyone who’s interested to research it without prejudice. For a more informed choice, having probably already studied Darwin, I’d suggest getting familiar also with the scientific aspects of intelligent-design, or creationism. In any case, in this introductory study of the Old Testament, it is necessary for us to approach the book of Genesis in its traditional view.

I will not go into all aspects of that magnificent book, but I will highlight those that I consider necessary to a fuller understanding of God's plan. In Genesis, we see God (His Word) communicating with man and woman through a theophany, which means that He manifested Himself in a bodily form, walking and talking with them, as one of them. This direct contact may leave the impression that Adam and Eve were privileged by an enhanced understanding of God, but it was not so. Adam and Eve, though physically created as adults, were otherwise like children, just starting to experience and learn. Their limited scope is evidenced by what happened right after the fall - it is written that when they heard God approaching in his usual way, walking, they were afraid and hid themselves. The fear is understandable because of their disobedience, but the fact that they thought they could hide from him, reveals much about the missing elements in their understanding of God. There is a similar situation with Cain, who after killing his brother was met by God who asked him: “Where is Abel thy brother?”  - obviously also Cain was seeing God in a theophany and could not understand about his omnipresence and omniscience, or he would have not answered "I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?” [1]. Further along we also read that "then began men to call upon the name of the Lord" [2]. From these examples we understand that initially humans had a very limited and childish idea of God. Only gradually and over time did they begin to realize that God was more than the bodily representation (theophany) some had seen, to the point that they finally understood that they could even call upon him (pray) without seeing him.

A Sacrificial Lamb

No matter how limited was that first human perception of God, sin had caused a great sense of loss and helplessness which then drove man to seek God. In return, God was already reaching out for him. In His foresight he had known that man would need this apparent separation, so he had not only allowed it to happen, but he had also prepared a way back, or rather a way to transform this apparently disastrous experience into a wonderful recreation. Abel’s lamb sacrifice was an illustration of that way, of a conciliatory mediation between man and God. It was the killing of an innocent animal which Abel, still vegetarian, probably carried out against conscience and probably only because God’s had asked. It was an irrational act of obedience, on pure faith in the suffering of another for his own sins, which pleased God and gave Abel the benefit. That simple act allowed him to receive that gift which already existed in God, but which had not yet been revealed in the earthly dimension - something incomprehensible, which could only be receive through faith, as manifested in the obedience of the  Lamb sacrifice.

Cain, instead, reasoned with his own sense of religiosity, doubted the method and preferred to give his own suffering to God. He gave his sweat, his sacrifice, the fruit of his hands, rather than the blood of an innocent lamb. He believed that his religion, which is the root of all human religions, was better than the cruel one of Abel. Unfortunately, his “better” religion resulted in the first religious persecution and murder. From then on this has been the natural consequence of all religions based on man’s presumptuous self-effort, instead of on the work and grace of God.

Thus began, as described in the first chapters of the Bible, man’s adventurous journey towards its final destination, which the concluding chapters of the Bible tell us it is to be reborn, grow in His image and eventually become one with Him in love.

The development of a child

In its infancy humanity could only perceive God indirectly, through representations. As a child learns the things of adulthood by playing with toys that bear a resemblance to real things, so God gradually led humanity towards maturity through religious representations. The entire Old Testament is in fact a long string of historical, ritual and enacted illustrations of God’s spiritual truths. Events, sacrifices, tabernacles, temples, priests, prophets, altars, purification baths and holy feasts were as the stage, actors and props needed to represent God, who needed such to communicate with man within the limits of his understanding.

The symbol of Jesus from the beginning

The first thing God did for man and woman after they had sinned was to sacrifice some animals in order to clothe them with skins [3]. The first rite of mediation between man and God was also the animal sacrifice of Abel. In John’s Revelation Jesus is referred to as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" [4]. It becomes obvious then that God had planned this redemptive sacrifice from the very onset. When John the Baptist saw Jesus, he exclaimed: "Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the world" [5]. Jesus was that Lamb that was slain from the very beginning to clothe man and woman with new life. The ancient animal sacrifice was merely the enacting of a figurative play through which man could claim, by faith, the forgiveness and reconciliation promised by God, as in the case of Abel.

The fear of God and the Law

Through these representations man sought God, but more out of fear than of love, and certainly not yet in spirit [6]. God, knowing that man’s journey to spiritual adulthood would be long and arduous, watched over him, sometimes helping him, sometimes restraining him with a firm hand. The fear of God’s judgments was in fact an effective deterrent against all manner of evil. However, it is those divine judgments and retributions for wrong doing that sometimes cause us to see the Old Testament’s God as cruel and intolerant. The Laws that He gave to Moses, were also very severe and the infringement of many of them carried the death penalty.

The apostle Paul rhetorically asked: "Why then the Law?” then he answered his own question saying “It was added because of transgressions"[7]. So the Mosaic Law was not the original intent of God, the way in which He intended to relate to humans and Paul further explained its role as that of a guardian: "before this faith came, we were held in custody and carefully guarded under the Law in preparation for the faith that was to be revealed. And so the Law was our guardian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith"[8]. The severity of the Law had a temporary role in God's plan - that of preserving until maturity could be reached in Christ.

In the Old Testament, the fear of God and of the dire consequences for transgressing His Law, held back from evil, as defined by the Law itself. The law generated social order and individual rectitude, but because it operated through imposed behavioral requirement, the result were only superficial and not an inner regeneration of the human spirit. The law was therefore only a temporary necessity which could not fulfill God’s original and final intent.

Jesus fulfilled the original plan

It was Jesus’ sacrifice that paid the full price required by the Law for our sins and therefore fulfilled it. The Law’s mandate was thus complete and the believer was no longer under its yoke [9]. By loving us to the death, Jesus redeemed us from the legal constraints of external religiosity, that which controls through legalism and fear. Through Jesus, God’s outstretched hand grabbed the soul that sought Him, drawing it to Himself and causing it to be spiritually reborn. From then on came an invitation to a new, loving, free relationship with God, which was the original intent, since creation, but was not feasible before - not until man had matured in his heartfelt desire for spiritual communion with God [10], that same desire that causes him to recognize and accept God's invitation [11]. When that happens, for that soul, the Mosaic Law is no longer needed. The inhibitory power of the fear of God and of His judgments is no longer the right tool but is replaced by the liberating power of love for God and others. For the soul who has entered into this new relationship with God, the Old Testament is thus fully finished.

Syncretism of the two Testaments

Because of some wide differences between the two Testaments and the near impossibility of harmonizing the two texts, there have been cases in history when some Christian movements thought to exclude the Old and keep only the New. Granted, having two different Testaments in the same book does in fact create some confusion, especially for those who are jus starting in their faith journey. In fact, it is rather common to meet folks who place both Testaments on the same value scale, mainly due to unawareness of the differences and reasons for the passage from Old to New. Many fall into the most common of errors in Christianity, that of taking elements from both Testaments and creating a sort of syncretism of the two. The best known is that of mixing the Laws of Moses with the teachings of Jesus, as did the Jewish Concision, which Paul repeatedly opposed in his epistles. But as Paul made use of the Old Testament to present his case in favor of the New, we also must use it. It’s true that the Old has passed, as an expired contract, but unless we know it and understand it, neither can we know and understand the significance of the New. This is why it was included in the Bible and why we must also study it.

Being balanced in

I must warn, however, that a constant reading of the Old Testament could bring about a spiritual imbalance. It can, for example, lead to a religiosity that gives more importance to outward rituals and rules, rather than a personal relationship with God and living by the principles of love Jesus taught. Or it could lead to the justification of war, racism, or other violent acts which may appear sanctioned in the Old Testament. As I said, it is not uncommon to meet those who attribute the same importance to the Old Testament as to the Gospels, but Christian means a follower of Jesus Christ and He never condoned violence, revenge and aggression towards others - indeed, He taught exactly the opposite.

Concluding remarks

If Christianity consists only of the New Testament, some might ask, then why hold on to and read the Old? Firstly because, as we have seen, it is the same God and if we can search and understand His reasons for the past, we can also understand His reasons for the present and future. We’ll understand why the New replaced the Old and why a new Law of Love replaced the old one of fear, so that not as children, who must have guardians, but as grown ups we could freely become one with Him. Then shall we begin to see also the final goal of God’s program.

In the Old Testament man partook of a temporary reconciliation with God through the lamb sacrifice. As the sprinkling of the lamb’s blood on the doors saved the Israelites from the angel of death, so now the blood of Jesus saves us from death and brings us to God. The difference is that in the Old Testament there were representations, "a reflection of things to come "[12], as Paul called it, but in the New Testament, Jesus is the ultimate and original sacrifice that makes all previous representations obsolete.

Like a woman who no longer plays with dolls when she marries, conceives and becomes a mother, so even a Christian no longer plays at religion, with its childish representations, once he’s met the real thing. The ancient religion has terminated its preparatory purpose and has given place to true life with God.

Human religiosity

In his natural state, before entering into a real relationship with God, man is subject to various images of God. Unable to enact a maturation and closeness to God by his own efforts, man clings to what he usually perceives visibly as religious. In this condition even the New Testament can revert to the Old. Certain practices from it can be turned into rituals, some admonitions can be turned into a new Pauline Law, certain recommendation into a new priesthood, temples and so forth. It is, therefore, quite possible to be reading the New Testament but still live in the Old one.

Like Cain, who was very religious, and wished to sacrifice, but had his own idea of how he could find favor with God, by working hard. Like some who thought that with the Mosaic Law they could make themselves perfect, just by trying hard. God, instead, had given it to contain iniquity, and it could not produce spiritual life, and neither can any religious effort and practice, but only God.

Paul even said that the Law strengthened and defined sin "I wouldn't have known sin if it had not been for the law. For I wouldn't have known what it means to covet if the law had not said, “You must not covet"[13]. Even in the Old Testament, forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God could not be obtained by adherence to Law, but only through animal sacrifice [14]. This involved an act of faith in something inexplicable, rather than a laborious adherence to a religious discipline. It originated long before the law, with Abel, continued with Abraham, was confirmed by Moses and was always an illustration of the sacrifice of Christ, of that New Testament which, although not yet manifested, had been established from the start.

It was the same spirit of Cain’s religion, fueled by religious presumption and legalism, to which the law gave an excuse, which finally killed the sacrificial Lamb of God.  Just like the simple faith of Abel humbled Cain’s religious self-efforts, Jesus also humbled the futile pretense of the religionists to save themselves by their religious rules. The natural man loves religion, instead of God, because religiosity exalts his desire for goodness, righteousness and holiness. Religiosity is often the method by which men attempt to spiritualize themselves. Jesus is the end of outward religiosity, the end of fake holiness and sanctimonious pretense. Jesus is the return to God in truth and in spirit [15], without the artificiality of human religiosity.

Human religion shed the blood of the true Lamb of God, Jesus, thus fulfilling God’s plan of redemption. The circle was complete on the day when men hated God so much that they decided to kill Him, and God loved men so much that He died to save them. The greatest evil against infinite love, and love won. The price for our sins was paid and the law, which required it, was fulfilled and superseded. Now, through Jesus, every person who so wishes can be forgiven and is fully accepted by God.

The thread

Some might argue that in this section we have not addressed sufficiently the Old Testament, but have talked instead about other things. As with previous sections, I reiterate that the purpose of these introductory pages is not that of providing a summary of Bible contents, which should be studied directly on the Bible. As always, my intention is only that of supplying some interpretative keys, some elements than can hopefully make whichever Bile section we are dealing with more understandable. My other intent, especially in this case of the Old Testament, was also to show the one thread running through the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, and beyond. Jesus, the theophany and Lamb of God is that running thread. He’s the beginning “In the beginning was the Word” [16], the heart “and the word was made flesh” [17], and the end of the Bible “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and last, the beginning and the end” [18]. We see Him in the garden of Eden, then with Abraham, Moses, in the furnace with Daniel’s friends, in the manger, hanging on the cross, and one day we will see him returning in the clouds, then finally in that wonderful wedding feast of the lamb [19].

The Bible, including the Old Testament, is the most fascinating love story ever written. A loving God created others to love and share himself with. He placed them in a temporary dimension, where he knew they would turn away from him, as well as ultimately return to him. He purposely remained hidden, not interfering with their choices and watched them grow. He saw them making right and wrong choices, which he knew would inevitably and eventually prepare them for a final destiny with him. In this way and in this dimension, they partake in their own creation, deciding their eternal being through their choices. They are self-determining, until, as free entities, they will seek him and discover that he had always been there waiting for them, courting them and preparing them for an eternity together that goes beyond all imagination. It is the greatest adventure there is, with none to compare with, and the ending is extremely happy [20].

Some will say, "but not for those who go to hell," but there is hope for them as well, and we’ll look at it in a future study.

At this point I would wish you a happy reading of the Old Testament, but considering the length of it I know that for some it will be rather daunting and not that happy a task. I would, therefore, recommend using a bookmark and read it is small portions, like one or two chapters per day. The first part, the historical one, is full of adventure and compelling stories and is therefore the easier part, except for those chapters containing the genealogies and the actual Mosaic Laws. History, however, is great reading, even for those moments when one is a bit tired and wishes not to think too much. The psalms, instead, are perfect for when one feels a bit 'down. The proverbs contain wisdom which never expires. The prophetic books, instead, are a bit more complex, requiring a good knowledge of history. We will address these, though briefly, in the next section.

1. Genesis 4:9

2. Genesis 4:26

3. Genesis 3:21

4. Revelation 13: 8

5. John 1:29

6. John 4:23, 24

7. Galatians 3:19

8. Galatians 3:23:24

9. Romans 10:4

10. John 4:23

11. John 1:12.13

12. Hebrews 10: 1

13. Romans 7:7

14. Leviticus 17:11 and Hebrews 9:22

15. John 4:23, 24

16. John 1:1

17. John 1:14

18. Revelation 22:13

19. Revelation 19:7, 9

20. Revelation 21:4

Part III - The Epistles of Paul

From the Gospels we learned what Jesus was like, then in the Book of Acts we saw the Holy Spirit coming into the scene and how the first Christians put Jesus’ teachings into practice. We also read about some difficulties they had in separating from their former religion, and about the ensuing split between Paul and the mother church in Jerusalem, the reasons of which became a recurring theme in Paul’s Epistles. Although this very issue and the whole of Paul’s writings appear rather complex, please bear with me and you will see that by employing a few simple tools, some interpretative notions, it will all become rather simple and understandable.

The Law
Paul wrote extensively about “the law”, but what he was referring to was substantially different from what we understand by “law” today. Paul was referring to the Mosaic Law, the so called commandments, which were not merely ten, but hundreds, and regulated life to the smallest details. It had been the legal system of the Israelite nation since the days of Moses, and to get an idea of what it might have been like, I had drawn a comparison to a present day state ruled by Sharia, or Islamic law. It might not be the best association but it does provide a semblance of the type of culture and environment into which Christianity was born. Let us take, for example, the story of the woman caught on adultery who was brought to Jesus for judgment. According to the law she was supposed to be stoned to death, but Jesus knew they had brought her to him so that they could find something to accuse him of. They had often heard him preach a ethic that went contrary to that of the Mosaic Law. They had heard him preach mercy and forgiveness, while the law taught “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”.  They were using this woman’s case to try and force him into openly disagreeing with the Mosaic Law, so that they could declare him an enemy of their system and a false prophet. Jesus did not answer for a while and wrote on the ground, then upon their insistence He gave them the famous answer "He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her", and they all left. It was truly a divine answer, because he couldn’t have openly opposed the law without serious consequences. The only way out for him and that poor woman, who though a sinner did not deserve to die, was for him to consent to the law, while adding a condition which none of her accusers could measure up to. By this, Jesus did three main things; he saved the woman, himself, and exposed the hypocrisy of those who claimed to be followers of the law. We will study the reasons for the Mosaic Law when we delve into the Old Testament, but here we will see why Paul taught that Jesus had introduced a new Law of Love, which did away with the old one. In any case, to further explain the effects of the law in the socio-climate of that time let us simply consider that the infraction of most of the first Ten Commandments carried the death penalty as a consequence. Even Jesus, on the strength of such a commandment, was eventually condemned to death for blasphemy.

Reform or Revolution?
As we saw in the Book of Acts, the first Christians were all Jews, born and raised under the Mosaic Law. For most of them Christianity represented only a reformation, a softening of the Law with more love and mercy. Paul, instead, fought tenaciously to demonstrate that the old system, based on the Mosaic Law, had been completely superseded by Christ. He used the law and the Old Testament scriptures (the only Bible known at that time) to demonstrate that Jesus was the fulfillment and conclusion of the same. According to Paul, Jesus had closed the Old Testament and had begun a New One. The Old One, however, was until then the only recognized Bible available for anyone believing in the God of Abraham, including Christians. It had been in circulation for centuries, while the New Testament was still unwritten and unknown. Therefore Paul, like a lawyer in a courtroom, insistently used the Old One (often referred to as “the law” because the five books of Moses containing the law were the basis of it), to present his case for a New Testament. Eventually Paul’s Epistles, with his argumentation for a New Testament became the very text of it.

Paul also used the Old Testament scriptures to counter the attempts of the Jerusalem church to Judaize (bring under the Mosaic Law) those Christians of pagan origins. The most classic example is found in the Epistle to the Galatians, which tells of some envoys sent by James, Bishop of Jerusalem, to Judaize the people of Galatia, who had been converted by Paul to Christianity. Peter also became involved with this, at first supporting Paul, but then doing an about-face for fear of these emissaries from Jerusalem. Paul felt betrayed by Peter’s hypocrisy and rebuked him openly.

God’s people are never perfect
The Bible never hides the weaknesses of his men and talks openly about their mistakes. This allows us to give credit to whom credit is due, which is God, and to see God’s work in spite of the frailty of his human tools. Peter was such a tool and his weakness highlighted the power of God working through him. Also Paul had flaws and weaknesses and it is helpful for us to identify them, so that we can recognize the difference between a personal opinion of his, and a teaching inspired by God. The reason why his epistles became the greater part of the Biblical canon was due to their divine inspiration but, unavoidably, there are also some human aspects.

Why God chose Paul
As by reading the gospels we saw what Jesus was like, by reading the epistles we shall see what Paul was like, his education, character, strength, as well as his weaknesses and inconsistencies. As the gospels did not conceal the weakness of Peter and the other disciples, neither will the Epistles hide those of Paul’s. All the same, the Epistles are the greatest proof of the reasons why God chose Paul. And why did He?

Paul was what none of the others were. He came from Tarsus, an influential center of Greek culture, and was educated in Jerusalem in the rabbinical school of Gamaliel. Paul was a Pharisee and part of that ideological current which first persecuted and killed Jesus, and then Stephen. To them Jesus was a false prophet, a threat to the integrity of their religion and culture, centered on the Mosaic Law. Paul was a legalist and ready to act in order to eradicate the new Christian heresy. He was the image of the crusader, the inquisitor, the protector of the true faith and tradition of the fathers.

If we were to describe Paul in just one word it would be "zeal". There were no half-measures with him, and that which was worth living for; it was also worth dying for. That intensity of emotions and ideals that first drove him to hunt and persecute the Christians, drove him after to proclaim the name of Jesus.

By comparison, the rest of the apostles, maybe with the exception of Matthew, were simple and unlearned men. God did use them greatly, but he needed Paul to develop and write the first Christian theology and to lead Christianity beyond the confines of Judaism. God, knowing that the main obstacle to overcome was the old religion, chose a rabbi from the fundamentalist group of the Pharisees, so that once converted he could understand the breadth and depth of the change that had come about with Christ’s sacrifice. Paul, devoted most of his epistles to explaining this, using the Mosaic Law and the Old Covenant as a means to prove their own demise. This is what caused him endless persecution by his own people, who accused him of being "the man who teaches all everywhere against the people and the Law and this place (temple)" [1].

Not everyone understood him, not even his teammates, and even Peter wrote of him "in all his letters… are some things hard to be understood"[2]. God, however, had chosen and prepared him for the job and after some time his ideas were finally vindicated and recognized. In order for Christianity to survive and fulfill its universal mission, it needed to become its own entity and break away from the old system. Paul became God’s instrument to lead Christianity out of its cultural nest of the Mosaic Law, and to bring it to adulthood, into the freedom of the New Covenant.

Jesus had been the author of that New Covenant and had signed it with his own blood. His disciples, however, did not immediately understand this, but discovered it gradually. It was impossible for them to comprehend right away all that He was and the magnitude of the change He was bringing about. Even if they had understood it, the Israelite culture in which they were born, was just too strong an obstacle for such simple fishermen to effectively challenge it. In the first chapters of the Book of Acts, we saw that under the impetus of the Holy Spirit, they did actually make some outstanding strides forward. But, as in trench warfare, they soon found themselves stuck in Jerusalem, the temple, the synagogues, and so tied to the old ways that they could go no further. To break the impasse God had prepared Paul, whom he led out of Jerusalem into other countries, from which he then led the young Christian movement towards its global expansion.

Human aspects of Paul
We’ve alluded to some inconsistencies in Paul and indeed there were. His personality, as with all of God’s people, did not always reflect that of the master, and his reactions to certain situations were sometimes contrary to those of Jesus. These shortcomings, though minimal by comparison to the beauty of his teachings, are worth noting in order to avoid getting confused on some matters. One may ask, in view of this, how we can know when something taught by Paul is actually inspired by God and when, instead, it is simply a matter of personal opinion. If we apply the very principle which we’ve established from the beginning, there will be no difficulty in knowing the difference. We simply need to ask what Jesus would have done, or said, if he had been in the same situation. If there is a marked difference, then we know who’s right. It’s very simple… Jesus becomes the criterion, and not our subjective judgment. I will give some examples:

Women
If we look at the historical context of that period, we discover a very male-dominated society in which women were rarely given any significant roles outside of the home. By contrast, the Gospels tell us of a good number of women near and around Jesus. There were women who followed him, others who supported him, there was Mary Magdalene, who accompanied him till the end, there was the one of ill repute who washed his feet with tears, then the adulteress whom he saved from stoning, the sisters Mary and Martha, the Samaritan woman at the well, the other with the incurable flow, who touched him and was healed, not to mention of his own mother, Mary, and more. The women around Jesus were as visible as the men, and that put him in stark contrast with the reality of that time. Even his birth, with God choosing a young unmarried girl to conceive His son, was scandalous. According to their laws and tradition, Mary didn’t deserve admiration but lapidating. Even in today’s world it would be fairly shocking, especially considering the young age of Mary, about 14, but imagine what kind of reaction it would have caused to see an unmarried pregnant girl in that period and society. Because the story of Mary and Joseph and baby Jesus has become part of our Christian culture, it hardly raises a brow, but at that time it was extremely embarrassing and counter-current. It is further evidence that the Gospels weren’t invented to create an attractive Christian myth, in which case the authors would have certainly avoided such embarrassing parts. Only someone telling the truth would have told such potentially damaging aspects of Jesus’ life and origins.

Not only the Gospel writers, but Paul also, challenged the traditional view on women when he declared: "there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" [3]. He also spoke of women who played important roles in the church, who were assisting him, who prophesied, who housed churches in their homes (in the Epistles the word "church" did not refer to a building, nor to a religious institution, but to groups of believers who gathered together, usually in someone's house).

Nonetheless, Paul derived from a cultural milieu in which women were different and inferior to man and, from time to time, his intrinsic cultural baggage did resurface in his comments and instructions. Thankfully, when writing on these things, he sometimes prefaced his comments with “I speak this by permission, not of commandment “ or “I speak, not the Lord” [4], as if he was sensing an insufficient approval of is personal views. Furthermore he was also the only unmarried apostles, as he himself indicated, "Do we not have authority to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brothers of the Lord do, and Peter? [5]. His own celibacy, his high recommendation for such a lifestyle, his idea that marriage was “ok” but not the best, and his general view on women, did also denote a different kind of influence in his life. It was not the typical Hebrew male mentality that wished to exert authority over women but looked upon marriage, sexuality and having children as Godly virtues. The celibacy ideas, which he expounded with a mixture of doubt and conviction, were common instead in those centers of Greek culture, such as Tarsus, where he was raised, and the other northern countries where he lived most of his life. It was part of a Gnostic, dualistic influence that affected many religions and philosophies of that period.

On women, there are therefore some contradictions in Paul, as is even demonstrated by his injunction to “Let your women be silent in the churches; for it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be in subjection, as the Law also says” [6]. It contradicted what he himself had just said about the equality of the sexes, as well as what Peter had said on Pentecost, that “ your sons and your daughters shall prophecy” [7], which would be impossible to do if the daughters are to keep silence. Obviously, this rule of Paul is disregarded by most Christians.

In any case it is not necessary to list all of Paul’s comments about women, as you will inevitably come across them while reading his epistles. Some men might not mind them, while some women could find them offensive. In most cases, however, they will appear outdated. Please don’t allow this to make you doubt the wonderful work and tremendous teachings of Paul. Just consider the time in which Paul lived, what the prevailing attitudes about women and slavery were then, and you will see that he was heading towards their liberation. It may not appear so, when compared with today's reality, but I'm sure that you will forgive Paul for being simply the fruit of his time. If you study carefully that which was before him and that which came after, you will see the very hand of God using Paul to free Christianity from the shackles of the past and push in the right direction.


Note: The life and work of Paul was in its time a crucial step in the fulfilling of God’s plan for Christianity, the next stage in a journey that still continues today. Form creation to the grand finale of God, there is in fact a progressive revelation taking place, one that involves a gradual maturation and deepening of man’s understanding and relationship with God. This, according to Paul and John, will culminate with the second coming of Christ, and the so-called marriage supper of the lamb, which we will study separately. At the beginning, this progressive revelation manifested itself in various encounters and covenants with promises, such as those that God made with Abraham, Moses, etc.. Paul spoke of these calling them "shadow of things to come" so that "when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son” – “for we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when the perfect thing comes, then that which is in part will be caused to cease” [8]. By this we understand that the relationship between man and God, both individually and collectively, is a reality that changes with time, a journey that has a beginning, as well as an ultimate end.

Justification by faith
Paul refused any compromise with the old law and used the same scriptures which had proclaimed it, to demonstrate its fulfillment, conclusion and demise. He devoted much of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians and Hebrews (though not written by him, it reflects his thinking) to this very theme. According to Paul, there couldn’t be a salvation half by works of obedience to the law, and half by grace, through Christ’s sacrifice. It was either one or the other: " But if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it is of works, then it is no more of grace; otherwise work is no more work" [9]. Christ’s atonement was sufficient and to offer any other sacrifice was an affront, as if declaring his blood ineffective. Paul attacked this human presumption over and over, and yet, very few Christians really understand at heart what he tried to get across. Even though Paul devoted many arguments to it, the predominant influence of the old Mosaic Law in the cultural legacy of those who wrote the Bible, as well as human nature itself, prevents most from seeing the reality of justification by faith. Our ego, in fact, makes us more prone towards a religion of works (like Cain), rather than grace (as Abel), and so Paul’s words often remains veiled in mystery.

Some inconsistencies in Paul himself may also be responsible for some confusion in this matter. Being a man of strength and of great responsibility towards the churches he had founded, when there appeared some deviance that threatened their harmony and good conduct, Paul became intensely animated with zeal for their welfare. From this zeal sprang some scathing rebukes that ran contrary to his own teachings on justification by grace – or those of Jesus, who did not place any conditions on salvation, but faith.

Likewise, while Jesus was often accused of preferring the company of sinners [10], Paul taught instead to avoid them. While Jesus never uttered harsh words against prostitutes, adulterers, criminals and corrupt tax collectors, Paul, in his zeal for the church, said instead that these were not allowed into the kingdom of God [11]. This is a classic example of how to apply the Gospel and the image of Jesus as a criterion for judging what else we read in the Bible. Obviously, when there is a difference, the Christian will follow Jesus’  example.

Some final words on Paul’s epistles 
I do wish to make it clear that this introduction to Paul's epistles is not meant to be taken as a summary of the same. The contents of the epistles, in fact, are much wider and I have only barely touched a few. My intent was never to summarize, nor even to give some hints of the contents, which must be read straight in the Book, but simply to provide some interpretative tools. I wanted to give an historical context, some explanation of terms and intents and some advanced preparation for what could appear hard to understand or contradicting. These are things I deemed necessary to settle in advance in order to avoid the doubts and confusion that often assail the unprepared reader. Too many begin reading the epistles without prior preparation and then give up as soon as they meet the complicated reasoning of Paul, his apparent contradictions, or chauvinistic attitudes, and desist from continuing in their study. Sadly they loose a very vital part of their Christian training, which can only be obtained through a thorough study of Paul Epistles. With these simple basic notions, I believe that the reader can now begin to study and let the epistles speak for themselves.

A final word. As mentioned above, Paul was a doctor of the Mosaic Law and quoted it repeatedly to expound his reasoning to those who knew it and lived by it. It is not necessary for us to know all the same details in order to understand Paul’s central message, but eventually we will also look at the Old Testament and we’ll understand better some of his reasoning. For the time being, however, it is more important for us to stay grounded on the Gospels, so if reading Paul becomes a bit tiresome, which is likely, then I suggest returning to the Gospel in order to maintain their fundamental priority.

Wishing you all an enlightening reading.

1. Acts 21, 28
2. 2nd Peter 3, 16
3. Galatians 3, 28
4. 1st Corinthians 7: 6 and 12
5. 1st Corinthians 9, 5
6.  1st Corinthians 14:34
7. Acts 2: 17
8. Hebrews 10, 1, Galatians 4, 4 and 1st Corinthians 13, 9:10
9. Romans 11; 6
10. Matthew 9: 10 – 13 and 11: 19
11. 1st Corinthians 6: 9 -10

Part II - The First Christians

At this point, having read the Gospels, we should have a fairly accurate picture of Jesus. Let us now hold it firmly before our eyes and use it to measure what we will read next, which naturally, will be the story of the very first Christians, as told by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. It is pleasant reading, but I do wish to make a premise; although the first Christianity was the one started by Jesus himself, the original which we should refer to, it is not always, nor in every way, the best model, and we'll see why.

The book of Acts, or Acts of the Apostles, defined by some critics as a romanticized account, has been proven to be historically accurate and the most reliable for that early period of Christianity. There is much to be learned from this book, where we see the role of the Holy Spirit energizing the first disciples to bear witness and practice Jesus’ teachings - we see God working great miracles to spread his message and protect his young church - we see the courage of the first Christians and their spirit of love, unity and sacrifice - but we also see some problems arising in their midst, a disagreement, the cause of which already existed in Jesus' days, and that ran so deep that it eventually broke into the first Christian schism. Paul’s Epistles, which we will study after Acts, deal extensively with the reasons of this rift. To prepare for their later study, we must then seek to understand the background and dynamics of this event, as told by Luke in the book of Acts (and later by Paul in Galatians). Another reason for seeking understanding of this event is that it is not relegated to the past, but lives on to this very day, howbeit in different forms.

The importance of what is not written
When reading the book of Acts it is also crucial to note what is not written. For example if we see that a particular aspect of our Christianity is not mentioned as part of early Christianity, then it would behoove us  to put it aside, for the time being, and return to the original simplicity. I'm not implying that there are no other valid aspects of our faith, which were revealed or understood later, but I am simply recommending that we proceed by stages, like in the building of a house, the foundations first, then the walls, etc...

On the other hand we will also note that certain practices of the early Christians are no longer part of modern Christianity. They were mainly part of an Israelite cultural heritage, with no particular relation to Christianity and were thus abandoned over time. A closer look at the socio-cultural environment of that period might help us understand better.

The historical socio-cultural context
The Israelites were the “chosen people” to whom God, through Moses, had given his laws, the so-called commandments. To get an idea of how these laws affected society in those days, one could perhaps look at a present day country in which the Islamic Law, or Sharia, is the constituted legal system. I am not using this example because the two things are identical, but simply because it gives an idea of a society where religious commandments do not determine only ethics and morality, but are also the official legal system. In the Israel of the early Christians, the Mosaic Law was the actual law as well as the religion. There was no distinction between the two and it regulated the social order, as well as expressed the will of God to the people. Unfortunately, under this provision, abuses of the law were often committed in the name of God, and those who exercised power did so legally, as well as spiritually, oppressing others in the name of God. Jesus came into this state of things and clashed with it brutally - especially with the religious leaders, those who interpreted and applied the law, who soon had him crucified. It wasn’t any different for his followers, who soon met the same wrath from the same hierarchy.

The beginning of a new era
Despite being ostracized by the authorities, and thanks to the many miracles and powerful manifestations of the Holy Spirit, the early Christians multiplied rapidly. These, including the apostles, all derived from that same Israelite culture which we just described. Though painfully aware of its shortcomings, they were nevertheless still influenced by it. One aspect of such cultural conditioning was that, by virtue of Abrahamic descent, they all felt part of a privileged elite, God’s chosen people and his representatives on earth. Their upbringing brought them to see all non-Jews condescendingly, as gentiles, pagans, infidels, and not worthy of equal respect and dignity. With these “inferior races” they even avoided contact, lest they became contaminated by it.

Many early Christians were also part of those crowds who initially rejected Jesus and voted in favor of his crucifixion. The reason was that he did not match their idea of a Messiah but, rather, that of an impostor. He had not liberated them from the Romans, nor restored the throne of David or made them powerful, as they though the Messiah would do. Later, as they heard of Jesus’ resurrection, saw further miracles by his disciples, many of them changed and came to recognized in Jesus some great one sent by God. It was not yet a complete change, nor enough to give them a new culture and a change of attitudes, and they continued to be Israelites in religion, laws, culture and outlook towards the outside world. For a few decades, Jerusalem’s Christians still lived in the Old Testament, with Jesus as a new supplement to it. Christianity thus belonged to the “chosen people” and, if it wasn’t for God’s intervention to bring about more substantial changes, it would have remained a sect within Judaism.

How did God change things? In the book of Acts we notice some key elements and the first is in chapter ten. There, Peter received a revelation from God instructing him not to consider the gentiles (non-Jews) as unclean, since in his eyes there was no difference between Israelites and gentiles. The enormity of the problem was expressed by Peter when, in obedience to that vision from God, entered the house of a Roman and said, “You know that it is an unlawful thing for a man, a Jew to keep company with or to come near to one of another nation. But God has shown me not to call any man common or unclean” [1]. Nothing could be clearer than that, but it wasn’t enough to bring about a significant change. Instead, the event through which God took hold of the helm of Christianity and changed its route, was the transformation of Saul into the Apostle Paul, as told in Acts chapter nine.

Saul, an educated Pharisee, zealous of the Jewish faith and tradition, had initially fought against the “heresy” of the new Christian sect. God intervened by blinding him, then opening his eyes again and, finally, Saul saw things as they were and became Paul. He then recognized Jesus as the true Messiah, the author of a brand New Covenant, and everything changed. Paul became the apostle par excellence, who then lead Christianity in its transformation from Jewish sect, into universal church.

Being unwelcomed in Jerusalem, Paul went to other nations and population centers of the Roman Empire. There he preached the good news (gospel) of Jesus to the Gentiles, without the heavy burden of old Jewish mores and laws, which he now saw as superseded in Christ. His success was enormous and, with the Spirit of God sustaining him, his new model of Christianity spread rapidly among non-Jewish populations. Eventually this developed into a deep rift with the mother church in Jerusalem, who did not accept Paul, nor his new Christians. If it weren’t for his successes, they would have chosen to ignore him, but because of the numbers who followed his “new” theology, they had to eventually come to terms with him.

The root of the problem
At the root of the problem was the fact that the Jerusalem church did not believe Paul’s doctrine to be correct. To them Paul was a new young upstart who did not really understand original orthodoxy. To be a Christian, they said, it was necessary to first keep the required prescriptions of the Mosaic Law. For them, in fact, Christianity was a supplement to the one true religion, namely that of the Old Testament. Paul, instead, claimed that Christ had begun a brand new era, a New Testament, and that the Old One was no longer binding for Christians.

The clash between these two ways of understanding Christianity was so severe that it never ended. It even resulted in an open confrontation between Peter and Paul [2] and was the cause of the first council of Jerusalem [3], which was resolved by a compromise, but did not end the disagreement.

An epic change and its effects
Paul remained on the outer reaches of the official church and his ideas were poorly received, if not openly opposed, by his colleagues in Jerusalem. This state of things remained fairly unchanged until a catastrophic event occurred. Although prophesied in detail, its fulfillment is not described in the book of Acts, and we must search other historical sources to learn about it. That event was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and it was then that that original brand of Christianity, who still followed the old Jewish religion, lost its central role. The Jewish Christians of the so-called Concision (because circumcised) migrated elsewhere, mainly towards Arabia and, supposedly, it was from their descendants that Muhammad learned about Jesus. This could explains why the Quran reflects an opinion similar to that of some factions of early Jewish Christianity, who saw Jesus as a great one, but not as God incarnate, nor as the founder of a New Testament.

At a heavy cost, with the destruction of Jerusalem, the Diaspora of the Jews and of the Church of the Concision, Christianity finally matured and cut his umbilical cord to the Old Testament. Paul, from being the odd one out, became instead the leading Apostle. His vision for a universal Christianity became finally recognized and others followed him to proclaim it to the whole world. His writings, and those of his disciple Luke, became widely accepted and eventually formed the majority of the New Testament.

With this I leave you to the reading of the Acts of the Apostles, which I'm sure you will find fascinating.

1. Acts of the Apostles 10, 28
2. Epistle of Paul to the Galatians 2
3. Acts of the Apostles15