Following my previous post on Paul's missionary strategy, Peter Dray (old friend and UCCF staffworker) made a bible reference packed comment. Foolishly he asked me to let him know how my thoughts develop, and this lead to the following obscenely long post...
Introduction (!)
In Acts Paul’s role as Apostle to the Gentiles is established by the risen Jesus’ declaration Ananias that ‘ he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel’ (Acts 9:15 – pointed out by Peter Dray).
My previous post should not be taken to be a denial of Paul’s mission to spread the gospel to the gentiles, but rather that he did not seek to achieve this through a pragmatic approach of preaching in cities where his voice would carry the furthest. I think it more likely that he fulfilled his mission to the gentiles, strangely to our Gentile Christian ears, by prioritising his preaching towards the Jews. Although this may be strange to our thinking it fits perfectly with the biblical storyline of how God sought to bring about the redemption of the world, the blessing of the nations, through the prioritising of (the electing of) one man (Abraham) and one people (the Jews). In the Old Testament the Jews were ‘entrusted with the oracles of God’ (Rom 3:2) but not for their salvation only, but for the nations too. Paul’s missionary strategy was rooted in the conviction that he must follow God’s method of bringing salvation to the world, un-pragmatic and foolish as it may seem to the world. And this meant not short-circuiting the Jews but entrusting them with the good news of Jesus, the King of the Jews, for the good of the gentiles.
A wander through Acts
The first two ‘missions’ of Paul in Damascus and Jerusalem, immediately following his commission, involve preaching to the Jews only. Sadly though, in common with many Jews throughout Paul’s ministry both the Jews of Damascus and the Greek-speaking Jews of Jerusalem reject God in Christ, and seek to kill Paul.
In Antioch (Acts 11) we have the first example of Paul preaching to gentiles as well as Jews, following others example, although not much detail is given of how this came about. At Salamis in Cyprus we only have record of him preaching ‘in the synagogues of the Jews’. In Paphos Paul and Barnabas’ reputation proceeds them and a gentile proconsul summands them so he can hear the word of God (Acts 11).
In Pisidian Antioch he teaches in the synagogue and is initially well received. In his teaching he makes a distinction between the rulers of the Jews who have rejected Jesus, and the Diaspora Jews (11:26). As in Cyprus, his preaching in the synagogue does not mean that word does not spread beyond the Jews, and the next Sabbath ‘the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord’. Sadly this fills the Jews with Jealousy, because of their possessiveness of God, a theme Paul picks up in Romans.
Paul then declares:
"It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you [Jews]. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,
"‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’" (Acts 13:46-47)
Much as we may not understand why Paul would seek to preach first to the Jews, for Paul it is not a preference but a necessity. The Jews rejection of the gospel he preaches is a rejection of their God-given calling, as well as God himself. Isaiah 49:6 that he cites declares Israel’s vocation to bring salvation to the ends of the earth, they have rejected this vocation in their reaction to the crowds seeking the light declared by Paul. The light is no longer Israel, it is now the church, the body of Christ, and so Christ himself. God’s purposes have not been frustrated even though not all Israel are Israel, in fact the Jews rejection leads to salvation going to the gentiles as Paul now turns his missionary efforts to them. However as he told the Jews in Pisidian Antioch just because one group of Jews have rejected Jesus, this does not mean he gives up on them all and no longer thinks that he should speak the word of God first to the Jews in other cities.
In Iconium we only hear of them teaching in the synagogue, although both Jews and Greeks turn to Christ. At Lystra, Paul hears a man and this acts as a catalyst so that they preach the gospel to the gentiles there. In Philippi a few ‘chance’ events over just a few days lead to the gospel being proclaimed to, and received by, gentiles in the city. In Thessalonica ‘as was his custom’ (17:2) Paul preaches in the synagogue until the Jews rouse a mob and he has to escape the city. ‘When they arrived [in Berea] they went into the Jewish synagogue’ (17:10) too and received a much better reception. Athens is the only occasion I could find in Acts were the synagogue was not the centre of Paul’s missionary work for while he ‘reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons’ he also taught ‘in the marketplace every day’ and on invitation also in the Areopagus. Perhaps this disproves my contention but I actually think the exception proves the rule – but then I would.
In Corinth normality is restored and ‘he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks’ (18:4). But again, the Jews oppose him and he declares that from ‘now on I will go to the Gentiles’. And again, this strong opposition is not imputed to Jews of other cities and in Ephesus he spends three months in the synagogue before being forced to start a separate church because of opposition.
Peter Dray’s comments
Pete raises 1 Thess 1:7-8 which describes the influence of the church in Thessalonica (a important city of the region), and Acts 16:12 which mentions that Phillipi was a leading city of Macedonia. These both show that the cities Paul spent time in were important cities, and this may well be why Paul chose to visit them, but we have no evidence of this in the NT. However, we do have evidence that he sought to spread the gospel to the Jew first, and as I pointed out in my previous post immigrant Jews would be found mainly in the most important cities of the Roman empire.
Pete then says:
I'd also question whether Romans 1:16 is talking about an ongoing emphasis of Jew first, Gentile later. How does that affect the reading of 2:9 for instance, and also the discussion in chapters 9-11?
This made me think a little but I do think it is an ongoing emphasis. If there was a turning point in the ‘Jew first’ approach it is surely the rejection of Jesus that leads to his crucifixion, but I think I have shown that while Paul recognises the salvation-historical significance of this rejection, his approach in each of the cities of the Roman Empire demonstrates that he does not think that this rejection was final and ends the priority of Israel. The ordering of blessing, and so cursing, has not been altered by Jewish rejection of Jesus either now or at the final judgment (as I think Rom 1:16f; 2:9) demonstrate. Romans 9-11 is clear on this also. Gentiles are engrafted onto the Jewish olive tree but will never naturally belong there. While so far in this post we have focused on how Israel exists for the salvation of the world, in Romans 11 salvation-history has moved on and now feels the need to remind the gentile church that they have been saved ‘so as to make Israel jealous’ and so lead to Israel’s salvation.
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
"The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
"and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all (Romans 11:25-32)
It is weird to our ears, and to Paul’s. True is the saying: ‘How unsearchable are [God’s] judgments and how inscrutable his ways!’, that follows this strange description of God’s plan for the Jews and gentiles.
Dave - honoured with such a long response! OK, here are my thoughts, not especially ordered, just random thoughts at the moment:
ReplyDelete1. You have conclusively proved that Paul did attend the synagogues as a matter of priority throughout Acts. I think the fact that something different happens at Athens is probably not insignificant over all. The Athens account is different in a whole number of ways (completely pagan audience, and the only place where Paul witnesses on his own) and is something of an anomaly.
2. Despite the appearance from his letters to have had majority contact with Gentiles, Paul’s burden and heart certainly was for his people (see Romans 9:2-3, 10:1 etc.)
3. I’ve heard the suggestion that Paul went only to the synagogues to ‘provoke jealousy’ (Romans 11:11) and to further the Gentile mission. However, this doesn’t seem to make sense, as it seems many Jews did convert in some towns (e.g. Berea – Acts 17:11-12). In Rome, it seems there was already an established yet Paul went first to the Jews.
4. Luke’s theological point for the whole of Acts seems to influence the emphases that he draws in his accounts of the missionary journeys. Luke seems to go to pains to show that Paul is in continual contact with and not opposed to the Jerusalem apostles and church. Could there also be a broader theological point here about the salvific history place of the preaching to Jews (13:46) and their rejection of the gospel (see 28:28 etc.)?
5. Paul himself frequently seems to underscore Jewish priority for the gospel in the same breath as arguing for the universality of the gospel and his urgent mission to the Gentiles. I guess Romans 1:16-17 is the classic one here.
Hmm… where does this leave us and do these thoughts help at all? Acts 13-14 is interesting here, as you say. In Antioch, Paul certainly seems to say that the priority of the gospel is for the Jews, and only on their reaction turns to the Gentiles (13:46). So I’m beginning to agree with you I think.
There is an element of strategy in Paul’s dealings: the Jews already had the Old Testament Scriptures, professed to follow God and would have recognised his Pharasaic qualifications, whilst the synagogue would have provided an accessible public forum, including to ‘God-fearing’ Gentiles. And I still think Luke goes out of his way to show that Philippi and Ephesus are important towns.
However, as valid as this point is, I now wonder whether the key here is Isaiah 6, and those fiendishly difficult verses 8-13? Isn’t this what we see in Acts – clear preaching which gives no excuse for judgement? And this is how the account closes in chapter 28 – a fulfilment of Isaiah 6 which, as you say, then points to the future ministry of the church as God’s light to the nations. But as you say, Romans 11 shows that God has not finished with the Jews yet.
I’ve heard Ben Witherington’s commentary on Acts is helpful here and so I might see if I can nab my father’s copy at some point!
I’d be interested to hear what practical difference you think ‘Jew first, then Gentile’ makes today, if any?
Peter - honoured to have such a long response to my long response.
ReplyDeleteI have no time for developed thoughts tonight, but I thought I ought to attempt the beginning of an answer to your important question: 'I’d be interested to hear what practical difference you think ‘Jew first, then Gentile’ makes today, if any?'
I did think about this question a little myself when I sat down to skim read Acts for the sole purpose of making my mind up on this question. I think that the reason I do think this something worth considering is that while it is a practice we cannot follow easily in our situation far from the ancient med, Paul’s missionary strategy is a consequence/corollary of his theology. Although some of the language I have used in my posts may suggest otherwise, I don’t think that Paul’s missionary strategy is there to teach us how to do missions, but rather is a outworking of his theology, which is something that does make a practical difference.
Acts main theme is a relating of Jesus’ continuing work, through the Holy Spirit, of bringing salvation ‘in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth’. Every one of Paul’s missions in each of the cities is a miniature Acts (in fact a miniature bible story), with the word of God beginning with the Jews, then the God-fearing gentiles, and then the whole city. Sadly, the bible story, and the story of Paul’s mission are of God’s purposes being achieved through suffering and rejection.
‘The law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.’ (Rom 5:20-21). Christ was the fulfilment, the end, of the law and he brought the greatest trespass and greatest rejection of all. Paul’s mission (and the outcome of his strategy of ‘Jew first’) demonstrated that very clearly, and brought the rejection of the Jews to completion.
In Isaiah 6 language it was necessary that:
1. The word be preached to Israel (6:8),
2. the word be rejected by Israel (6:9-10),
3. the punishment of Israel resulting in just a burnt stump(6:11)
4. SO THAT the holy seed (6:13; 11:1) may grow out of that stump and the nations come in (11:10 and later in Isaiah)
In retrospect at least, Paul saw that his mission to the gentiles meant a mission of bringing about the disobedience of Israel! Not only is that demonstrated in the use of Isaiah 6 in Acts 28 (and the almost unrivalled popularity of the passage in the NT suggests this wasn’t only a Pauline insight) but also passages like Rom 11:32: ‘For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.’
It is difficult to understand why this must be so but I personally think it must be tied up to Israel’s priestly role to the world. I think that the entirety of Jewish history and particularly their continual rejection of God, culminating in their crucifixion of God’s own son, was necessary for Jesus to take on the sins of the world and make atonement for the world as the great high priest - the representative of Israel. Perhaps Acts post-Pentecost should not be thought of as set in a period in which the Old Covenant had gone and the New Covenant had arrived, as if covenants were actually eras, or time periods. But rather the story of the New Covenant rippling out from Jerusalem by the proclamation of the Gospel, and so simultaneously the Old Covenant reaching it’s climax in the Jewish rejection of the Messiah, and Jesus Christ taking on that sin, so that it may finally be dealt with and Israel made anew for the salvation of the world.
In short (which this comment was originally meant to be), and slightly controversially I think that Paul’s missionary strategy was
1. A result of his theology, and importantly…
2. A means for the completing the climax of Israel’s sin, which was for the purpose of Christ (as the King of the Jews and High Priest) taking upon himself the sin of Israel, which represented the whole of humanity, and making atonement, so that the whole world may be redeemed.
That’s a Pauline perspective anyway, Luke may have different emphases but I think it all ties in together.
For us we should learn: to recognise our sin in that of the Jews (they were after all our representatives – our priests), and so recognise our only hope is the radical one of Christ’s sacrifice which both condemns us and brings us to new life.
Phew… and wow! The gospel is stunning.
PS Whether you realised it or not the above was worked out as I went along, any thoughts are welcome. I may dare come back to the rest of your comment later.
PPS I also fear I am trying to force the ‘Jew first’ paradigm to fit into my understanding of the salvation-history and the gospel. Feel free to pull-apart.