As the Christmas holiday descends upon us and the streets fill with festive symbols and music, we are reminded of the stories of old, those with divine encounters in the form of visions, angels or even ghosts.
We only need consider the ghosts of "A Christmas Carol," or Clarence the angel of "It's a Wonderful Life" or Gabriel in the Christian story itself to quickly transport us to these "other" worlds.
Visitations are usually accompanied by important revelation. The most famous example of all is that of the Apostle Paul and his "Road to Damascus," as portrayed in the Acts of the Apostles.
Bright lights shine from the sky, blinding Paul and knocking him from his horse. The Lord speaks to him, the scales fall from his eyes and he is reborn -- the usual protocol. "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" And from this point forward Paul was given his new mission.
Curiously, the boastful Paul never mentioned these dramatic details but does claim an encounter with Jesus in the form of a vision. New testament scholar Paula Frederickson says that Paul was witnessing a "spiritual body" of some kind.
Spiritual apparitions are not uncommon to our religions or our literature. Hyam Maccoby, in his book "The Mythmaker," claimed that Jesus was no more the founder of Christianity than Hamlet was the author of Hamlet, but rather the invention of Paul.
As Hamlet, after his ghostly encounter, claims "the time being out of joint of cursed spite, that ever I was born to set things right," Paul too speaks of himself in the Greek as ektroma or "born out of time" -- someone called to fulfill an incomplete mission or "set something right."
Our plot thickens when we consider that Hamlet had recently graduated from the University of Wittenberg, home of Paul's most famous convert, Martin Luther, father of the Protestant Reformation. The Reformer frowned upon "other worlds" like Purgatory -- places from whence ghosts might come and go -- because they did not appear in scripture and provided the church justification to extort indulgences from the living.
Shakespeare explores these contrasting ideas and how Luther's new "religion of the book" impacted a believer's response to a visitor from another world. Should one follow an apparition, even if it resembled their father? Was a mere vision sufficient to carry out an act of revenge?
In Paul's time heavenly visitors calling great prophets like Abraham, Elijah or Jeremiah were commonplace, a sign of initiation for any prophetic career including his own. Yet, even according to his own writing, his peers were highly suspicious of his vision.
Peter and James in Jerusalem wanted to put the protagonist's life-changing vision to the test, by giving Paul a mentorship under Barnabas in Antioch. Certainly if he had met with the real Christ, his message would resonate.
In the case of Hamlet, his test would come in the form of a play, "The Mousetrap." If Hamlet's vision was true, his uncle, slayer of his father and now husband to his mother could not sit quietly while the narrative revealed his darkest secrets.
If Paul's message of a lawless Gospel to Gentiles was what Jesus had called him to preach, surely his mission in Antioch and beyond would bear fruit in synagogues throughout the diaspora. This was not the case.
Hamlet received his answer once his uncle stumbled out of the theater pricked to the heart with a murderer's guilt. From that point forward, Hamlet knew too much and we as the audience knew this vision was real, almost.
Paul's failed ministry and subsequent clash with James and Peter in Antioch forced him to return to Jerusalem to defend his vision and even his identity. They were not pleased with the extent of his Gentile mission, now a source of conflict even 15 years into his ministry.
Two thousand years later, we are haunted by the question of why a religion started by Jesus and followed by his 12 apostles -- plus Paul -- was in conflict over the inclusiveness of Gentiles. Was this vision the real thing? Certainly, if the other Apostles accepted the vision, they would not have questioned Paul.
Eventually, it took a collection and an ethnic bifurcation of the mission fields amongst Jews and Gentiles to keep it afloat, but even after this tepid endorsement, Paul's mission was inhabited by more spies and intruders.
Whereas Hamlet even in light of his play's evidence revealed the evildoings of the king, he is still hesitant to act, and it is this inaction that has defined his character ever since. Paul, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, stubbornly pressed on.
Even in a first-century universe of ascending and descending gods, Paul's was a shaky position. The Messiah came personally to this great Pharisee in order to reveal the great commission to the Gentiles, but Jesus' own family and closest apostles did not accept this?
Paul mission was challenged for the remainder of his ministry by men who knew of his encounter with Jesus. These men supposedly believed the Messiah had arrived, and yet, to them, Paul's Gospel remained his own.
As modern readers, familiar with the New Testament, we read these conflicts as inevitably coming to form the church, yet if we place ourselves in Paul's "real" time -- as he lived it -- we see that nothing was for certain except for his own vision.
The Apostle to the Gentiles would suffer and die for his vision and his message would transcend his friends and enemies, but at what cost? How many were demonized through his message and through the centuries by his converts?
History has not been kind to those Paul had deemed his enemies, namely those who did not agree with him. Luke's later attempt to weave this tragedy into a mythical tale of divine destiny does truly miss the point.
Personal visions have impact on others. This was true in the Bible's prophetic tradition, as it is today in our modern myths where "invisible hands" guide the free markets, and at times lead to unbridled financial schemes without consideration for others.
The grumpiest capitalist of all, Ebenezer Scrooge, was awoken by visions, namely his former employee Bob Cratchit and his family during Christmas dinner. Similarly, George Bailey's visit from Clarence was not about the visit itself, but about the angel's message. A realization that life without a shared commitment in human beings fails to produce "A Wonderful Life."
During this holiday season -- as we enjoy our divine stories -- let's remember that ghostly sources are valued by how they help others. Messages from other worlds that lose sight of this simple fact are not a worthy source for peace on earth and goodwill to men.
Happy Holidays.
And all that nonsense about the other apostles not accepting Paul's vision or that it was God's will that Paul go to the Gentiles! When Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem with the Jewish concern about not circumcising Gentiles, Peter said at that meeting, "God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them (Gentiles) by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith," Acts 15:7-9. ( Note that Peter agrees that the Gentile believers were not purified by adherence to the law covenant, but rather, God purified them through faith.)
James also spoke, "Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this," Acts 15:14-15.
Robert Orlando, I do not recognize the voice of the Good Shepherd in your words.
You say Paul preached a "lawless gospel." Both Christ and Paul demanded holiness of living via participation in Christ, via sanctification by the Spirit of God. Jesus said that the water he gives us will become in us a well of water springing up to eternal life. (John 4:14). Jesus said that we produce good fruit by remaining in him for he is the way, the truth, the life. Paul said that we "are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works," Eph. 2:10. There is nothing lawless about accepting the words "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts," Jeremiah 31:33, as being the law of God and an actual reality in us.
Says you.
I believe that the greatest discourse by the 1st Century Christians about Paul was the fact of "if" he could be trusted. Prior, to his conversion he had to be a hated man among many people due to his job functions in life.
And, Peter, et. al. clearly understood the meaning when Jesus said that it was not what man ate which defiled him...but, rather the words which came from his mouth. Therefore, Jesus was speaking of eating things which were not kosher, and more likely than not He was eating with Gentiles.
Also, the expression "to rob Peter to pay Paul" lends itself to the understanding that Paul's missions were not without costs.
Of course it's also possible that Paul's books were changed after his death by a celibate male priest class who had their own agendas to pursue. There is certainly some evidence for it.
He did not become the long-term "apostle to the gentiles" which Paul became, but he had this sign from the Lord to include the gentiles, which was received at first with shock by some of his fellow apostles.
When Paul said that he was "born out of time" I think he meant he was reborn (accepted Jesus as
Christ) out of time, on the road the Damascus. He would rather have become a follower of Jesus earlier, with the other apostles, and to not have been their enemy during the earliest days of the church, when he participated in the stoning of the "first martyr," Stephen. Paul was wiped out with
regret that he had first been the enemy of the new Christians, rather than one of them, but he soldiered on in service of Jesus. What a difficult life, to have had the suspicions of his fellow apostles.
Jesus did say that the "work" of the Christian was to believe in Him whom the Lord had sent. Some do not understand the "work" involved in achieving the understanding which nurtures faith.
Really, Orlando? You're only willing to say that HISTORY has not been kind to them?
Don't you think you could be just a little more specific?
More precisely, CHRISTIANS have not been kind to those Paul had deemed his enemies.
Robert Orlando seems to be clueless that "the whole body (of Christ, that is, the church) grows as God causes it to grow," Colossians 2:19. Or as Luke says in Acts 2:47, "The LORD added to their number daily those who were being saved."
So Paul and his message would accomplish nothing without God at work in it.
Christ's Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21 - 7:29) points out how lacking the human interpretation of the law is in recognizing or producing righteousness. Jesus introduces those words by saying, "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven," Matthew 5:20.
Agrees totally with Paul! So when I was older, I had absolutely no trouble accepting what Paul said about the law. I recognized it from what Jesus had said.