Out of all the Biblical books, Paul's are the ones that might initially seem to be most philosophically bizarre given their core tenets, and at times contradictory to the rest. The Torah could be true without anything else in the Bible being true, and the prophetic writings and gospels could be true if they are consistent with the Torah, but Paul's writings would have to be consistent with all of these to be true if the former things are indeed correct. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter acknowledges that Paul is severely misunderstood by "ignorant and unstable" people (one can find many of them in modern churches). For instance, he is often the author complementarians appeal to. One such case is where he might seem, to some, to say in 1 Corinthians 11:7 that only men are made in the image of God, as opposed to both genders (Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1-2). Yet, even by saying that women are made in the image of man (and Eve is said to be created from Adam in Genesis 2), he would obviously be saying that women must be made in God's image. If they are made in man's image, with man here speaking of a literal human male, and men are made in God's image, then women would by necessity share this status with men!
In Acts 24:14, Paul says before Felix that he is not opposed to anything in the Law, being committed to its whole just as he is committed to Yahweh and Christ. What, then, of his statements such as that husbands should love their wives and wives should submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-33)? The Torah makes no such claims about love being an obligation only husbands have towards only wives or submission being an obligation only wives have towards only husbands, instead presenting men and women as metaphysical equals that, with the exception of things like circumcision that only apply to literal anatomy and not to supposed gender-specific psychological/spiritual "differences" (none do or could exist), have the same rights and obligations. Still, Ephesians 5:21, only just before this supposed complementarian passage, tells general Christians to submit to each other, a group that includes husbands and wives already.
Speaking of circumcision, while it is first prescribed by God in Genesis 17:9-10 when he makes a covenant with Abraham, Leviticus 12:2-3 includes a command to circumcise baby boys eight days after their birth, making this part of the Law (only men have foreskin to remove, so this is an anatomical thing, unrelated to any fallacious gender stereotypes). Paul, as someone who says the Law is righteous in Romans 7:7 (not unjust or insufficient as many Christians have asserted afterward) and who plainly identifies as a full theonomist in Acts 24:14, might appear to contradict not only his own professed worldview in 1 Corinthians 7:19, but also the divine prescriptions he otherwise of course says to uphold. He says neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters, only keeping God's commands. Paul would be an ideological hypocrite, not just a hypocrite on the level of behavior versus philosophical stances, if he meant this literally, not that his theological claims being false would necessitate that the rest of the Bible is.
Look two verses prior, though, and you can see that Paul is broadly speaking about Christians staying in various situations they were in when they came to God in repentance. He says in verse 18 that if a man is circumcised, he should not become uncircumcised, and that if he is uncircumcised when he becomes a Christian, he should not become circumcised. First of all, a circumcised man cannot just become uncircumcised again, so the literal conception of Paul's teachings here already fails. This is not something a man could simply reverse on a whim. Like how Peter's vision of the animals in Acts 11 is really not about food or the supposed lifting of the kosher diet restrictions at all, but about accepting and welcoming Gentiles into commitment to Christianity, Paul's comments about circumcision and uncircumcision are really about contentment and potentially remaining in various circumstances when one becomes a Christian. A man could not literally choose to undo his circumcision short of supernatural or as-of-yet unrealized technological power.
Paul had previously encouraged Christian men and women who had non-Christian spouses to not divorce their spouses merely because they happened to already be married when their spiritual commitment started (1 Corinthians 7:10-16) and, right before mentioning circumcision, specified directly that he is referring to general situations in verse 17. He also says soon after that servants can stay servants when they become Christians, though they can obtain their freedom if they are able to (1 Corinthians 7:21-24). Paul is not saying that the Law is good and also that circumcision, a requirement of the Law and thus one of the commands of God he mentions in 1 Corinthians 7:19, does not matter. These two things would not be consistent. One logically excludes the other. What might appear on the surface to be contradictory, like several other key Biblical statements interpreted through assumptions or out of context, is not.
No comments:
Post a Comment