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
