Dream's Pauline Defense Initiative

[Dream]

Yours is a good question, why, when Hebrews seems so contrary in some respects to the rest of Paul's epistles, that it wasn't edited?

I meant to leave it as an open case and didn't mean to say Paul was definitely in conflict with Hebrews. That would be against the purpose of a thread that defends Paul. Paul is supposed to be in agreement with both Hebrews and James. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe Paul doesn't believe in substitutionary atonement either?

 

[juantoo3]

I meant to leave it as an open case and didn't mean to say Paul was definitely in conflict with Hebrews.

I don't know enough about the details, but it is my understanding that there *are* some conflicts between the book of Hebrews and the other Pauline epistles, hence the suspicion that Paul may not be the author.

It is quite common, even before the time of Jesus, for sacred and semi-sacred texts to be attributed to an author with a bit more clout. This is not limited to Christianity, nor even to monothiest religions.

That would be against the purpose of a thread that defends Paul. Paul is supposed to be in agreement with both Hebrews and James.

Supposed to be in agreement. Of course one does need to ask who is supposing and why? What is the motivation for encouraging the unquestioned presumption that the whole of the NT is in agreement? Hebrews as I recall seems to me more in agreement with James than the other epistles, but I really haven't thought about it beyond the intended audience; both were directed towards groups of Jews. By contrast, the epistles are directed towards Greek minded Roman political Pagans and those they did business with.

Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe Paul doesn't believe in substitutionary atonement either?

OK, there's that term again. I am not certain what you are getting at, so I'm going to take a stab. Is this a reference to sacrifice? Sacrifice for at-one-ment? Specifically, the selfless sacrifice of Jesus as a substitute for the ritual animal sacrifice? Before I tread in this direction, I just want to be certain this is what you are pointing to.

 

[Dream]

Just as I don't feel the need to answer line by line all of Pauline Conspiracy, I also can't see going through every word of Hebrews and James and comparing them to all of the Pauline letters. I will say that if Paul teaches substitutionary atonement as I think of it, this would truly put him at odds with Halacha and invalidate him. I will explain my understanding of substitutionary atonement, and you can compare it to what Dauer has explained about atonement over in the Judaism/Babylonian Captivity and the Ritual Law section post #4.

Substitutionary atonement is like the whipping-boy concept or the sin-eater concept requiring a unique concept of sin. If I teach substitutionary atonement and I say to you 'Sin must be punished' what I mean is that *somebody* has to be punished as a result of your sin, although not necessarily you. Simplified, it means that as a result of *someone's* punishment your sins are forgiven, hence you are being forgiven through punishment. In this frame, a sacrifice is required to literally absorb your sins, which are some sort of mystical substance (think of tar). These sins then cause your punishment to fall upon the sacrifice, instead of you. This is really a very simplified view.

This is very different from saying that the individual who sins must repent and confess and that sin can have irreversible results sometimes.

 

[Dream]

Paul and Substitutionary Atonement?

Of course one does need to ask who is supposing and why? What is the motivation for encouraging the unquestioned presumption that the whole of the NT is in agreement?

I will suppose Paul never taught substitutionary atonement and see if it is defensible by putting up a given epistle of Paul's for discussion. Let me choose an epistle ....like you said 'any epistle' whatever is the easiest.... Titus has three chapters.

Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Respective to this, Paul is referring to the Torah in which he sees Jesus as a lamb at Passover. Both the lambs and the Egyptian firstborn were cursed, while the Hebrew firstborn lived. This is not about atonement at all, since the Israelites did not obtain any atonement at the passover. They were simply passed over by the death angel. Any suggestion that Paul teaches substitutionary atonement is an imposition upon the text.

James 1:26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead," among others.

Exodus 13:15 And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the L!RD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast:therefore I sacrifice to the L!RD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem.

 

[bob x]

claiming at one point that the Textus Receptus dates to 1500 AD, which I am certain is incorrect.

No, that's correct. I don't know where you got the impression that "Textus Receptus" is an old manuscript; it is simply collated from the late medieval manuscripts, by the Dutch scholar Erasmus, a little before the Reformation started. It is the oldest PRINTED version of the Greek text; it is very late, in terms of the manuscripts it is based on.

 

[juantoo3]

...if Paul teaches substitutionary atonement as I think of it, this would truly put him at odds with Halacha and invalidate him.

Substitutionary atonement is like the whipping-boy concept or the sin-eater concept requiring a unique concept of sin. If I teach substitutionary atonement and I say to you 'Sin must be punished' what I mean is that *somebody* has to be punished as a result of your sin, although not necessarily you. Simplified, it means that as a result of *someone's* punishment your sins are forgiven, hence you are being forgiven through punishment. In this frame, a sacrifice is required to literally absorb your sins, which are some sort of mystical substance (think of tar). These sins then cause your punishment to fall upon the sacrifice, instead of you. This is really a very simplified view.

This is very different from saying that the individual who sins must repent and confess and that sin can have irreversible results sometimes.

Sorry it has taken a while to get back to this. I'm still not fully sure I get what you mean, but here goes: in some convoluted sense I think most Christians have a sense that sin will reap "punishment." This concept is not limited to Christianity, there is an analogy in the Buddhist Karma. You reap what you sow. The idea that the "reward" can be transferred again I think is more than strictly monotheist; the idea of sacrifice to appease those who hold the just rewards (punishment) of disobedience, not to mention godly whim and wrath, is pretty extensive throughout the Pagan world. The Roman and Greek pantheons and how they were approached and appeased serve well as examples, but the Pagan sacrificial ritual in many ways paralleled the Judaic / monotheist sacrificial ritual. I think there was an underlying psychological difference; from the supplicants' POV there is a major shift in the mind between "G-d!" and "god(s)?" But the motions are considerably similar.

Paul and Substitutionary Atonement?

I will suppose Paul never taught substitutionary atonement and see if it is defensible by putting up a given epistle of Paul's for discussion. Let me choose an epistle ....like you said 'any epistle' whatever is the easiest.... Titus has three chapters. Respective to this, Paul is referring to the Torah in which he sees Jesus as a lamb at Passover. Both the lambs and the Egyptian firstborn were cursed, while the Hebrew firstborn lived. This is not about atonement at all, since the Israelites did not obtain any atonement at the passover. They were simply passed over by the death angel. Any suggestion that Paul teaches substitutionary atonement is an imposition upon the text.

Ummm-I am thinking "no." First, the sacrificial lambs for Passover were *not* cursed. Quite the contrary, they could not have served as a suitable sacrifice if they were cursed. My second point is that the Passover *was* a point of "at-one-ment," in that instruction was given; obey and live (be "at-one"), or disobey and die (as the archetypal enemies of G-d did). The challenge for the newly freed Hebrews was to remain in a state of at-one-ment, which I think even they would be willing to acknowledge they failed to do. (As an aside and point of clarification, it was the scapegoat that was cursed.)

I am reminded; to those who are given, much is required. G-d gave a heckuva lot to the Hebrews that fled Egypt into the desert. And they still griped and grumbled until they got a sentence passed. They got to wander for 40 years in the desert until all of the adults died, it was only the innocent children and those born in the desert that would ultimately enter the Promised Land.

And then it all started over again, rise and fall, rise and fall, rise and fall...The story of Christianity is really just one more "rise and fall" chapter in a 6 thousand year old saga.

At this point in my study I believe Jesus served in the final role as Passover Lamb. Some points surrounding this I struggle with, but the timing and the events during and the prophecy fulfilled such as Psalms 21 all speak to me of Jesus' role in finalizing the sacrificial fulfillment for atonement. Like the Hebrews going into the desert though, what do we do with it? We can embrace it, or belittle it; one to our betterment and atonement, the other not so.

 

[juantoo3]

the Pagan sacrificial ritual in many ways paralleled the Judaic / monotheist sacrificial ritual. I think there was an underlying psychological difference; from the supplicants' POV there is a major shift in the mind between "G-d!" and "god(s)?" But the motions are considerably similar.

Now that I've had a little time to review this, I am reminded of another teaching I hadn't considered in awhile. I think with this "whipping boy" concept you are suggesting the sacrifice takes the heat as a replacement, in effect so the perp can walk free. That's not how I understand the sacrifice coming from Judaism. I am welcome to correction by our Jewish friends, but I was taught that the blood sacrifice was to cover the sin. Perhaps having heard the saying "washed in the blood of the lamb?" The lamb did not take the sin as a substitute, per se, but the blood "mystically" covers the sins of the sinner. I think in practical terms it probably gave the penitent something to think about as well, that their *missing the mark* comes at the price of a life.

But this does give me cause to think, because if this is so it puts the Messianic sacrifice into a bit different light than I typically hear presented...which would seem to be more in line with the "whipping boy" concept you mentioned.

 

[Dream]

First, the sacrificial lambs for Passover were *not* cursed. Quite the contrary, they could not have served as a suitable sacrifice if they were cursed. My second point is that the Passover *was* a point of "at-one-ment," in that instruction was given; obey and live (be "at-one"), or disobey and die (as the archetypal enemies of G-d did). The challenge for the newly freed Hebrews was to remain in a state of at-one-ment, which I think even they would be willing to acknowledge they failed to do. (As an aside and point of clarification, it was the scapegoat that was cursed.)

Oh, you're right. The Passover lambs didn't get cursed verbally like the scapegoats did. (I never said what it was I did for employment, did I?)

I admit I'm relying upon the pudding section in my memory right now, however I still don't think the passover lamb was considered an atonement. The Day of Atonement called 'Rosh Hashanah' is a completely different day than when the Passover is celebrated (although the Passover lamb was a sacrifice that everyone in the house participated in by eating it). Passover seems to me more about God making a distinction between Israel and Egypt. It also seems like all the Israeli homes become like tiny cities of refuge as the angel of death passes them by (Numbers 35:28). The lamb's death and the people inside remind me of how those accused of accidental murder must wait in a City of Refuge until the high priest's death.

Back to the nitti-gritty: do you remember and of those potential conflicts between Paul and Hebrews?

 

[Quahom1]

Oh, you're right. The Passover lambs didn't get cursed verbally like the scapegoats did. (I never said what it was I did for employment, did I?)

I admit I'm relying upon the pudding section in my memory right now, however I still don't think the passover lamb was considered an atonement. The Day of Atonement called 'Rosh Hashanah' is a completely different day than when the Passover is celebrated (although the Passover lamb was a sacrifice that everyone in the house participated in by eating it). Passover seems to me more about God making a distinction between Israel and Egypt. It also seems like all the Israeli homes become like tiny cities of refuge as the angel of death passes them by (Numbers 35:28). The lamb's death and the people inside remind me of how those accused of accidental murder must wait in a City of Refuge until the high priest's death.

Back to the nitti-gritty: do you remember and of those potential conflicts between Paul and Hebrews?

The Passover lamb was indeed an atonement and should one accept that atonement they would be spared. Indeed, it was a a precursor to what was to come, and that is the Christ who's blood would spare us, if we chose to accept it on ourselves.

I'm amazed how things fit together between the old and the new testament.

 

[Dream]

I am welcome to correction by our Jewish friends, but I was taught that the blood sacrifice was to cover the sin. Perhaps having heard the saying "washed in the blood of the lamb?" The lamb did not take the sin as a substitute, per se, but the blood "mystically" covers the sins of the sinner.

The Passover lamb was indeed an atonement and should one accept that atonement they would be spared.

You probably are right. Also, since noticing the similarity between the Passover Home and a City of Refuge (Joshua 20:6) it jumped out at me in John that when Caiaphas prophesied about Jesus' death for the nation.(John 11:51) The writer of John specifically mentioned that the prophecy was not about Caiaphas' own death, suggesting that perhaps there is more to a high priest's death than just release of prisoners in the Cities of Refuge. The writer of Hebrews makes a big deal out of the high priest's death, and that does seem related to the Passover lamb.

Still no whipping boy, though. I don't know of any sacrifices listed in Leviticus or elsewhere that are intended to obtain forgiveness for breaking one of the Ten Commandments. From what I can tell, to atone for breaking these requires repentance, prayer, sometimes restoration of lost property or other compensations, marrying the girl, etc. The sacrifices relate to Peace, Purification, Thanks, and Burnt. I do not see a 'Forgiveness' offering, besides the prayer of an intercessor such as Solomon, Daniel, Jesus, etc. It is hard to imagine Paul saying otherwise.

 

[Quahom1]

You probably are right. Also, since noticing the similarity between the Passover Home and a City of Refuge (Joshua 20:6) it jumped out at me in John that when Caiaphas prophesied about Jesus' death for the nation.(John 11:51) The writer of John specifically mentioned that the prophecy was not about Caiaphas' own death, suggesting that perhaps there is more to a high priest's death than just release of prisoners in the Cities of Refuge. The writer of Hebrews makes a big deal out of the high priest's death, and that does seem related to the Passover lamb.

Still no whipping boy, though. I don't know of any sacrifices listed in Leviticus or elsewhere that are intended to obtain forgiveness for breaking one of the Ten Commandments. From what I can tell, to atone for breaking these requires repentance, prayer, sometimes restoration of lost property or other compensations, marrying the girl, etc. The sacrifices relate to Peace, Purification, Thanks, and Burnt. I do not see a 'Forgiveness' offering, besides the prayer of an intercessor such as Solomon, Daniel, Jesus, etc. It is hard to imagine Paul saying otherwise.

The sacrifices made to God in the old testament were between God and individuals who sought atonement. And if the sacrifice was done correctly, then God was pleased with the aroma of the sacrifice (the intent of the one seeking forgiveness). But God wanted something more. He wanted all of mankind, past present and future, hence a "messiahah" was promised to make the ultimate sacrifice for all of man.

Paul, had quite a challenge convincing people that the sacrifice had been made, and God accepted wholey that sacrifice. And through that sacrifice, God and man are once again re-united.

Man is like a child, and has to learn, but can only learn so much at a time, concerning the awe of God. The old testament shows us how God was bringing man along in learning of God, a bit at a time.

Even today, if we were to see the glory of God as he really is, it would destroy us.

 

[Dream]

I am retiring my defense of Paul. He's dead, after all.

 

[juantoo3]

Why would you retire from defending Paul, Dream?

Without Paul, there would be no Christians. Or if there were, they would all have to be Jews first. (Not that that would be a bad thing, but Christianity would look a whole lot different without Paul).

 

[Dream]

Why would you retire from defending Paul, Dream?

Without Paul, there would be no Christians. Or if there were, they would all have to be Jews first. (Not that that would be a bad thing, but Christianity would look a whole lot different without Paul).

A perfected defense, assuming there is one, would be to prove Paul's letters are in accordance with Torah. It is only possible to prove this to yourself, because it depends upon Torah study. It has to be done by each person interested, and besides Paul would hate to think that believers were arguing over him. I think he would rather be misunderstood. We are not to be baptized into the name of Paul but in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. (Paul says 'Baptized into Christ' which is the same as being baptized into Torah, I think.) He would be Ok with it if we read him for clues and insights but not as taking his letters as replacing Torah itself. With this in mind, I've retired my public defense as it could provoke meaningless arguments and could not be understood by the reader without Torah knowledge in the first place. Also, based on statements in Ecclesiastes ("Beware!") it could not be transmitted to future generations and could not be authorative.

I Corinthians
1:13-14 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius;

Acts
17:10-11
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea; and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Ecclesiastes
2:18-19
I hated all my toil in which I had toiled under the sun, seeing that I must leave it to the man who will come after me; and who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool? Yet he will be master of all for which I toiled and used my wisdom under the sun. This also is vanity.

12:11-13
The sayings of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings which are given by one Shepherd. My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.

(notice how Ecc 12 says 'given by one Shepherd' and compare it to Paul's rhetorical question 'Is Christ divided?')

 

[juantoo3]

12:11-13
The sayings of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings which are given by one Shepherd. My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.

It's not often I have my own arguments argued back at me...touche!

I agree that in the end it is irrelevent to salvation. Even so, we are admonished to put away childish things as we mature, and to grow in the Word of G-d.

Ultimately I think I see the writings of Paul a lot like a commentary by a respected Rabbi...I think Paul lays out some wise advice, and some foresighted interpretations, and there is wisdom in his words. But are those words Divine? I think Paul would blush and deny that they were Divine. I think he tells us in no uncertain terms that his words are his opinion, borne of experience, but that he was least worthy of all to be counted among the apostles.

 

[Servetus]

This is an interesting thread (Dream). I do hereby bump it up to the top of the queue.

Serv

 

[Dream]

I might disagree with one or two statements that I made six years ago. After scanning it, ... , hmmm. Yes I might have changed my mind about a couple of things.

Also, I'm not going to defend Paul. As Juantoo3 pointed out, possibly multiple writers contributed to him, and its possible that his letters might contradict some things in Hebrews. Also, how can I check him against Torah if my primary guideline for understanding him is that he complies with it? So then I might shoehorn his words into a compliant frame but without really knowing if he meant them to be. Its a guess but might not be the right one.

 

[Servetus]

Also, I'm not going to defend Paul.

Ok, then I will. In that case, pity Paul. But seriously, as I see it, Paul stands in need of no defense.

As Juantoo3 pointed out, possibly multiple writers contributed to him, and its possible that his letters might contradict some things in Hebrews.

Oddly (or perhaps paradoxically) enough, I sometimes consider the contradictions within Christianity as contributing to its structural strength. In a certain light, Christianity looms largely above me, like some other-dimensional Golden Gate or Mackinac Bridge, held together and conjoined by the sheer tension of its constituent, numberless and opposing parts. That is cosmic architecture. It is electric.

Also, how can I check him against Torah if my primary guideline for understanding him is that he complies with it?

I would not know. I, for my part, don’t make him comply with Torah, at least as it was received and interpreted by the religious elites of his era. From my standpoint, if all had been well with the system as it was, there would have been no need for reformers and, ultimately, a redeemer.

So then I might shoehorn his words into a compliant frame but without really knowing if he meant them to be. Its a guess but might not be the right one.

Anyway, there is no harm in trying to defend him. I, myself, sometimes hold St. Paul at arm’s length because, as you have probably gathered from other threads, I rather accept one of his arch-critics, Nietzsche’s, assessment of Paul to be at best ambiguous, but still am grateful to the latter because, as I see it, he, by his evangelizing efforts, was the primary means by which this gentile, at any rate, who had "walk’ed in darkness" and the shadow of death saw a great Light –that is to say, Jesus.

Best regards,

Serv

 

[Dream]

6 years of our lives have passed. Four forum members got married. Here is a much older thread about 'Pauline Christianity' and Judaism.