Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T11:49:39.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paul: Law and Salvation*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Edvin Larsson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From F. Chr. Baur and onwards, New Testament scholarship has laid strong emphasis on the difference between the Paul of the letters and the Paul of Acts. A few examples will suffice to illustrate this approach. The real Paul, the Paul of the letters, claims to be an apostle. In Acts he is depicted as subordinate to the Twelve, for whom the title apostle is reserved. In Galatians and Romans Paul takes up a strongly polemical attitude to the Jewish torah and to circumcision. The Paul of Acts circumcizes Timothy (16. 3). And he declares his solidarity with the law, the prophets and the people of Israel (23. 6; 24. 14 f.; 26. 6, 23; 28. 21). In his epistles Paul strongly emphasizes the significance of the death of Christ. He proclaims its atoning effect for all mankind (Rom 3. 24 ff.; 5. 6 ff. 1 Cor 1. 18 ff.; 15. 3; 2 Cor 5. 18 ff.; Gal 3. 13). The author of Acts seems to regard the suffering and death of Jesus, the servant of God, almost as a test, which he had to undergo before ‘entering upon his glory’. To be sure, the death of Christ is also by Luke described as the act through which he won the church for himself (20. 28). And the missionary message in Acts contains the statement that he died according to the Scriptures (3. 18; 13. 27–29). It is, nevertheless, obvious that the death of Christ does not receive the same comprehensive interpretation in Acts as in the Pauline epistles.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , July 1985 , pp. 425 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

[l] See, for instance, Kümmel, W. G., Einleitung in das Neue Testament20 (Heidelberg 1980) 149 f.Google Scholar

[2] Problems connected with the title ‘apostle’ are discussed by Schneider, G., Die Apostelgeschichte I-II, HThK 5. 1–2 (Freiburg-Basel-Wien 1980–1982), Bd I, 221–32 (with lit.)Google Scholar, Roloff, J., Die Apostelgeschichte, NTD (Göttingen 1981) 34–6.Google Scholar See also Jervell, J., Luke and the people of God (Minneapolis 1972) 75–112.Google Scholar

[3] Wilson, S. G., Luke and the Law (NTSMS 50) (Cambridge 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Jervell, , op. cit. 133–53.Google Scholar Among the numerous studies on Paul's own conception on the law, see the recent works by Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London 1977) 431–523Google Scholar, Hübner, H., Des Gesetz bei Paulus (Göttingen 1978)Google Scholar, Räisänen, H., Paul and the Law (WUNT 29) (Tübingen 1983).Google Scholar

[4] Cf. Rese, M., ‘Die Aussagen über Jesu Tod und Auferstehung in der Apostelgeschichte - Altes Kerygma oder lukanische Theologumena?’, NTS 30 (1984) 335–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[5] Wilson, , ‘It has long been recognized that while these words echo Pauline language they do not express Pauline thought with any precision’, op. cit. 59.Google Scholar

[6] Bruce, F. F., Commentary on the Book of Acts (NLC London 1954) 278 f.Google Scholar, cf. Wilson, , op. cit. 59.Google Scholar

[7] See Jervell, , op. cit. 153–84.Google Scholar

[8] From a historical point of view it seems for example most likely that the decree was promulgated after the Jerusalem-conference, cf. Paul's version in Gal 2. 1–10. Luke, or the tradition before him, has for some reason combined the conference and the decree. This assumption by no means makes it necessary to presuppose that the Jerusalem-conference took place before Paul's first missionary journey.

[9] Jervell, , ‘Das Aposteldekret in der lukanischen Theologie’, paper (unpublished) presented to the seminar on Acts at the SNTS meeting in Canterbury, England, 1983.Google Scholar

[10] Jervell, , art. cit., 2.Google Scholar - Wilson, , op. cit. 84 ff.Google Scholar, vigorously denies that the rules of the decree are derived from Lev 17–18. He concludes: ‘Whether we are thinking of the original or the Lukan setting of the decree, a connection with Lev 17–18 seems improbable’, 87. Wilson brings forward critical arguments which deserve consideration. He fails, however, to present a better solution of the problem. His own alternative, an ethical interpretation of the decree, is far from convincing. It still seems to be necessary to presuppose some kind of connection between the rules of the decree and Lev 17–18.

[11] Cf. Haenchen, E., Die Apostelgeschichte5 (KEK Göttingen, 1965), ad loc.Google Scholar

[12] An interpretation of this kind by Haenchen, ad loc. He seems to regard the decree as the ‘minimum’, which the Law itself demands from the Gentiles. Bruce, ad loc., thinks that James will emphasize, that ‘there was still opportunity for the Gentiles to learn the law of Moses, for it was read publicly every sabbath in the synagogues’. But regarding the Gentile-Christians ‘Moses, so to speak, would suffer no loss, in failing to obtain the allegiance of those who never had been his’ (Bruce here is quoting R. B. Rackham). Bruce assumes that this observation was intended to calm the apprehensions of the Pharisaic party in the Jerusalem church.

[13] Wilson, , op. cit. 64 f.Google Scholar is inclined to regard the Timothy-episode as historical: ‘there is nothing in Paul's letters which precludes such behavior in this exceptional case and for the purpose specified’.

[14] Bruce, ad loc.

[15] Cf. Jervell, , Luke, 170 f.Google Scholar

[16] On this point I am in disagreement with Stolle, V., Der Zeuge als angeklagter (BWANT 102) (Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln-Mainz, 1973) 113 f.Google Scholar, who denies such a christianizing. He maintains that the Law does not contain ‘everything’ (114, n. 65) and combats the view that the faith could be derived from the torah. Stolle seems to overlook that for Paul (Luke) the entire Christ-event is latent in Scripture but revealed and actualized in the death and resurrection of Jesus (13. 16–41).

[17] In this article I have not found it possible to discuss the much debated problem of the salvation of the Jews according to Luke. Among the latest studies on this question, see the (somewhat one-sided) article by Sanders, J. T., ‘The Salvation of the Jews in Luke-Acts’, in Luke-Acts. New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature seminar (New York, 1984) (Ed. Ch. H. Talbert) 104–28.Google Scholar Sanders maintains that in the last part of Acts (especially 28. 28) Luke has no hope for the salvation of the Jews. He even regards Luke's view as anti-semitic.

[18] Molland, E., ‘La circoncision, le bapteme et l'autorité du décret apostolique (Actes XV, 28 sq.) dans les milieux judéo-chrétiens des Pseudo-Clémentines’, StTh 9 (1955) 1–39.Google Scholar

[19] If the historical development is taken into consideration, the relationship between Acts 10–11 and ch. 15 does not appear so problematic as is generally held. Luke can then be dependent on a tradition, which informs him that there were people in the Jerusalem church, who, on closer consideration (cf. 11. 18), were not willing to accept uncircumcised Gentile-Christians, in spite of the events related in ch. 10–11. The discussion then had to be reopened. The problem then is not a question of the author's composition or of Luke's theological intention, but a question of the historical situation. Cf. Wilson, , op. cit. 71 ff.Google Scholar

[20] 1 Cor 9. 20 ff. is unduly neglected in the ongoing discussion of the relationship between the Paul of the letters and the Lukan Paul.