Pauline Companions - different companions, different angles:
Examples of Cruciformity:
What did Paul teach everywhere in every church? Most Christians would answer "the gospel" and most would mean by that a system of personal salvation. If I replied that a good answer comes in 1 Corinthians, many would think quite naturally of 1 Cor 2:1-5 or 15:1-10. These are excellent places to reflect upon what Paul taught in every church, everywhere!
However, elsewhere in 1 Corinthians Paul answers our question explicitly.
- In 1 Corinthians 4:9-13 Paul describes his own cross-shaped (cruciform) lifestyle. If you are unfamilar with this passage, please read it!
- Then (4:14-16) he writes that his goal for this self-description is not the Corinthian's shame but rather that they would immitate his manner of life.
- Then (4:17a) he tells them that this is why he has sent Timothy to them - to remind them of his manner of life in Messiah Jesus.
- Finally, this is what Paul taught "everywhere in every church" - (4:17b) a manner of living that fits the servants of a crucified and then vindicated King and Saviour.
Now, I grew up in evangelical america, went to Church my whole life, went to a christian college and graduated from a seminary, all of which see themselves as VERY Pauline. So why have I never heard one sermon about what Paul taught "everywhere in every church" from this passage? Why have I never heard a devotional, been to one Bible study, or read a single article on this passage? Why have I never heard it integrated in our devotion to "Paul's theology / Paul's gospel?"
Paul urges the Corinthians - since he is their "father through the gospel" - that they imitate him in his "folly" in the world's eyes - in weakness, dishonor, hunger, thirst, poor attire, beatings, sojourning, laboring, blessing enemies, enduring persecution, entreating slanderers, that is, being a theatre of God's ways revealed in the cross of Christ but that appear foolish to the world.
This relates to this blog's desire to think about the nature and content of Paul's gospel by paying attention to Paul's ministry companions. The initial post (above) reflects upon what we might make of Paul's gospel in light of his relationship with other gospellers. If Paul, Mark and Luke labored in the gospel / as "fellow workers for the kingdom of God" (Col 4:11 - reference to Mark and Aristarchus specifically), does the existence of Mark's narrative and Luke's narrative about Jesus as the true Messiah of Israel help us think about Paul's "gospel"?
This post wishes to point out another way Paul refers to another set of companions. Paul's references to Tychicus and Epaphroditus in Col 4:7-13 form an interesting parallel with 1 Cor 4:9-17; and 9:-11:1 (as well as 2 Cor and 2 Timothy). Moreover, his references to Timothy and Epaphroditus in Phil 2:19-30 also provide an interesting parallel which is strengthened by what Paul writes of himself in Phil 3:17-4:1.
Phil 3:17-18 alone is striking in light of the above:
"...join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. For many... walk (live) as enemies of the cross of Christ."
How do these passages help us think about Paul's gospel?
Since Paul is the Corinthian's "father" through the gospel of the Crucified King (1 Cor 2:2; 15:1-5) they are urged to imitate his cross-shaped life.
Timothy is not like so many who seek their own interests but rather serves with Paul in the gospel. This is why Paul wants to send him to the believers in Philippi (Phil 2:19-24). Epaphroditus deserves their honor because "he nearly died for the work of the Messiah, risking his life" (2:29-30).
I realize that 2 Timothy is highly disputed as Pauline. So for the moment and the sake of the argument, accept it as reflecting Pauline convictions. The entire letter confirms the importance Paul and those who followed in his footsteps placed upon lives which share in and show forth a crucified (and resurrected) Messiah. See especially 2 Tim 1:6-12a; 2:1-3, 8-10; 3:10-13; 4:1-5.
Some think of Paul's Gospel as a system of personal salvation - a message about how to get saved. Others see Paul's Gospel as an announcement about Jesus as Israel's true King (thus the One who fulfills God's promises to Israel) and the rightful Lord of every nation (also fulfilling ancient promises). If Christians are going to read the narrative Gospels and Paul's letters together in a canon, how will we take their relationship? Some read the Gospels as raw material telling us what Jesus did and then proceed to read Paul's letters to find out what it means to us. In other words, the long narratives called "Gospels" do not include the "gospel" - only the materials for it. The Gosples provide material; Paul writes the gospel.
Now, no one says this too explicitly. But american evangelical use of these texts often falls out this way. The goal of pointing it out is to raise the following questions.
- What is the best way to understand the relationship between Paul's letters and the narratives about Jesus called "Gospels"?
- What is the best way to think about the nature and content of Paul's gospel?
- What is the best way to think about the relationship between Paul's Gospel, what he preached when founding or visiting churches, and what he wrote in letters to communites of those who already believed the gospel?
- In the three synoptic narratives about Jesus called Gospels, Jesus preaches a gospel. His gospel is the good news of the kingdom of God (Matt 4:17, 23-24; 9:35-39; 10:4-8; 24:9-13; Mark 1:1-3, 14-15; Luke 4:18-21, 40-44; 8:1-3; 9:1-6; 16:16-17). Must Paul's gospel be a substantially different gospel? (See Acts 28:23, 31)
- If Paul's gospel is essentially the same as Jesus' - just from a different moment in the drama (after its climax rather than just before / during its climax), do the reflections above about Paul with Mark and Luke and then Paul and his co-laboring, co-suffering companions make much sense? Or would they fit better into a system of salvation orientation?
Which way of viewing the data comports best with missionary companions who write long narratives later called "gospels" (by the earlies communites who believe in Jesus), with a central character announcing a kingdom and being killed because of it? Which way of viewing the data fits best with ministry companions who suffer for allegience to this Messiah set forth as examples to be followed by those who have heard and believed Paul's Gospel?
posted by robby @ 11:14 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Rob,
Congrats on the excellent blog! I look forward to reading your musings on such an exciting topic. I wish you blessings in ministry and study.
Grace
Mike Bird
PS Any friend of Jamie Grant is a friend of mine too
Thanks, Mike. Perhaps you've noticed a link to your superb blog on my side column. Hope that's OK. I'm not cetain about the ethics of blog posting!
Shalom and hug a tall, hairy Scott for me,
robby
Robby:
Looks like I'm about a month behind everybody else in comments, but I'll keep with it.
Misc:
1. Re: 2 Tim. I think the doctrine of canon answers the modern day textual critics. Authorship, from this distance, is too subjective a thing to decide; we also have so little information on the composition of some of these books.
2. I see the cruciform life as complimentary to the Scripture-wide principle of truth only being known and held as it is lived; the doctrine and behaviour thing, which Paul expressly teaches. The message is the crucifed and risen Jesus. The believing acceptance of that message realises its implications. Perhaps the Hebrew mind hears the message and goes right into the lifestyle without thinking and the Greek mind hears the message, considers the implications, and goes into the lifestyle after being sure the syllogism involved is valid. Either way, the message, using Gospel terminology (as in M,M,L & J), is "repent for the kingdom of God is at hand."
3. The NT message is a way of salvation, however one defines the message itself. It is better considered the story of Jesus (referring to Jesus' own summary of the OT, the "I have more to tell you" of Acts, etc.). This Jesus sets up the cruciform life of his disciples throughout the Gospels: his call to bearing the cross, the upper room discourse about who hates who, prophecies made to the disciples (I'm thinking of Peter at the end of John), etc. I think you could cull out of the Gospels Jesus' words about the cruciform life of his disciples and then show how Paul and his companions lived this out; it's a way of showing the continuity and consistence between the Gospels and Paul that I've not thought about before. It's a way of life continuum as over against a doctrinal continuum.
4. As for your final list of 5 questions, I really like the tie in of the Gospels being written by people who ministered with Paul. That's been recognised for ages, of course, but it comes to me with a new vitality; gives those particular Gospels more context.
As for the nature and content of Paul's gospel, I think of how his main approach was exposition of the Old Testament with a call to repent and believe its message of the Messiah; a content/life thing.
I do not see a disjunction between what he initially preached and his epistles. His epistles are often reminders and further exposition of the original message. They are contextual applications of the message.
For question no. 5, I think of the problems we have as ignorant and arrogant moderns. We make Christianity an existential experience instead of recognising that we are inheritors of the historic Church. There is Christian experience, but it is an experience, in the eternal Spirit, that is shared with all the saints; and it ain't the health and wealth gospel; that's for sure.
More later.
Post a Comment
<< Home