Featured Post

It's Funny How One Insect Can Damage So Much Grain!

The title of this post was borrowed from the lyrics of Elton John's Empty Garden  (a reference to the senseless assassination of John L...

Saturday, September 27, 2014

God's Imperfect Apostles

Many Christians have attributed semi-divine status to the apostles. Some of them believe that these men were incapable of errors when acting in matters related to faith and church. In short, there are a large number of Christians who believe that these men were always acting in the capacity of God's instruments - that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit made them infallible. Is this, however, the truth? Were these men subject to the same weaknesses, frailties and imperfections that all humans experience? And, if so, how can we trust what they wrote (or what others wrote about them)?

First, an objective evaluation of the scriptural evidence related to this topic demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that these men were very human and very fallible. Peter, Andrew, James and John were all simple fishermen when Christ called them to be his disciples (Matthew 4:18-22). Matthew was a tax collector (Matthew 10:3), and Simon was a Jewish nationalist (verse 4). The gospel accounts tell us that Judas betrayed him to the authorities (Matthew 26:14-16, 47-49), all twelve of these men abandoned Christ in his hour of need (Matthew 26:56), Peter denied him on three separate occasions the night that he was arrested (Matthew 26:69-75) and Paul started out as an Orthodox Jew who persecuted the Christian Church (Acts 9:1-2). "That was prior to their conversion!" some of my conservative friends will protest.

Fair enough, let's take a look at their behavior after they were converted. Even though Christ had instructed them all to "go and make disciples of all the nations" (Matthew 28:19), we know that they only preached the gospel to the Jews for many years after he ascended into heaven (Acts 6:7, 9:31). In fact, God had to give Peter a special vision to move the apostle to preach to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Even then, the church was slow to get started on the Great Commission (Acts 11). At first, even Paul began preaching to the Jewish citizens of the Gentile cities that he visited (Acts 13). In other words, these men were a little slow and dense when it came to following Divine instructions! Like many of their predecessors in the Old Testament, they had to be pushed and prodded into performing the tasks that God had given them to do.

There was also apparently a great fuss within the church over just how much of the Mosaic Law the Gentiles would be required to obey (Acts 15). In fact, we are told that they had to have a great council of the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem to settle the matter (same chapter). Although the ministry of Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles was affirmed by this council, we read that Paul and Barnabas later had a dispute over who should accompany them in that effort and parted company because they couldn't resolve their differences (Acts 15:36-41). Does that sound like Christian behavior to you? Wasn't their dispute directly related to their ministry and the Church?

In his letter to God's Church in Corinth, the Apostle Paul reveals that there were deep divisions extant within that congregation. He said that some of the people claimed to be followers of Paul, some Apollos and others Peter (I Corinthians 1:12). In light of this information, one has to wonder if these leaders had any culpability in producing or nurturing this kind of an environment within the Church? To be sure, Paul's letter seeks to correct the situation; but one is still left to wonder about how and why it developed in the first place!

In his letter to the churches of Galatia, Paul reveals that he angrily confronted Peter over his hypocritical conduct toward Gentile Christians when in the presence of Jewish Christians (Galatians 2:11-14). Apparently he had to remind Peter (himself an apostle, author of Scripture and acknowledged leader within the Church - some say the first Pope) that Christians are reconciled to God through faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the Mosaic Law (verses 15-16). I don't know about you, but it certainly sounds to me like Peter was in error regarding this matter of the faith (at least, that seems to be what Paul is saying)!

Paul, on the other hand, sometimes seems riddled with insecurity about his apostleship and place within the Church (I Corinthians 9:1-2, 15:9, Galatians 1 & 2). Paul is also quick to point out on a number of occasions that he is giving his opinion on certain matters - that he is not operating under direct instructions from the Lord (I Corinthians 7:6-8, 12, 25 and 40). We are also informed in the book of Acts that the Bereans were "more noble" than the saints at Thessalonica because they "searched the scriptures" every day to make sure that what Paul was telling them was corroborated by those Scriptures (Acts 17:11). In other words, it wasn't the truth just because Paul said it! Finally, in his second general epistle, Peter writes that some of Paul's "comments are hard to understand" and subject to misinterpretation by certain people (II Peter 3:15-16).

In addition to the scriptural evidence cited within this post, we must carefully consider the matter from the perspective of our own experience and reasoning. Have you ever known a Christian who was perfect? Didn't John say that any Christian who claims to be without sin is not only fooling themselves, but is also "not living in the truth" (I John 1:8-10)? Didn't Paul (the apostle and author of Scripture) confess that he was still struggling against his own sinful nature on a daily basis (Romans 7:14-25)? Have you ever known anyone who wasn't subject to the same human frailties, mistakes and errors that we all make from time to time? Are you confident that everything that you believe about God and Christianity is "the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" Is there any possibility that you could be wrong about something? What did Paul mean when he said that we (he included himself) now "see through a glass darkly" (I Corinthians 13:12)? Was Paul implying in this passage that he wouldn't have all of the answers until he was in God's Kingdom? It certainly sounds that way to me.

Hence, if these men (the apostles) were subject to error and mistakes, how can we trust anything they told us? How do you trust anything that anyone has ever told you? Did your parents make mistakes? Did that cause you to reject everything that they ever told you? Has anyone ever told you that they love you? Did their mistakes prevent you from believing in that love? Once again, isn't it just a little illogical (maybe even ridiculous) to suggest that everything that someone tells you is an either/or proposition? How do we know the difference between truth and falsehood? The guidance and leadership of the Holy Spirit is the key. Nevertheless, we must always be willing to acknowledge that our willingness to accept that guidance is not always what it should be. Just like Peter, Paul, James and John, we can be wrong sometimes! Moreover, our admission of this fact is not the end of the world. I agree with Paul - someday we will know more than we do today - someday we will be perfect. What do you think?


  1. Why could 1st century cultic innovators treat the Mosaic Law with elasticity?
    Proves that it was manmade/derivative - drawing on Mesopotamian/Egyptian sources/mythology.

  2. Dear Minimalist,
    The founder and proponents of the Christian religion treated the Mosaic Law as they did because they believed that the Jews had twisted, perverted and misapplied its original intent. They also understood that this law was given to the Israelites - that it was never designed or intended to be a universally applicable set of principles for all peoples and all times.
    While there is certainly a sense within the Old Testament that all of the Law was of Divine origin and often considered to be a whole, it is equally apparent that a distinction was made between the Ten Commandments and everything else. After all, the Ten Commandments were said to have been delivered to Moses in a special meeting on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20) and engraved on stone tablets by God's own finger (Exodus 31:18 and Deuteronomy 9:10). Moreover, while the stone tablets were to be placed inside of the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 10:2), the book of the Law was to be placed beside it - on the outside (Deuteronomy 31:26).
    The New Testament informs us that Jesus Christ fulfilled all of the requirements of the Law for us (Mosaic Law & Ten Commandments). Likewise, Christ stripped away all of the superfluous baggage that had been attached to those Laws and reduced them to their essence: Love of God and fellow man. This interpretation was later reinforced by Paul's statement that love constituted the fulfilling of the Law (Romans 13:10). Their message on this point was quite clear: Salvation is through Jesus Christ, not through obedience to any set of Laws. And I don't see in that any appeal to Egyptian or Mesopotamian sources.

  3. But the Jerusalem Pillars & Gospels endorse the theocratic Law [A] while, in contradiction, Pauline theology - incorporated into orthodoxy [B] - is antinomian.
    Logic: Either A or B, or AandB (my choice-Ocham's Razor) is false.

  4. I would argue that characterizing the "Jerusalem Pillars & Gospels" as endorsing the Law and "Pauline Theology" as being Antinomian is very controversial and could itself be characterized as being a very subjective interpretation of the evidence. As you know, the debate over the role of the Law within Christianity is an old one, and there are many shades of opinion between the two extremes of Legalism and Antinomianism. Your logic is based on the premise that Christ and the "original" apostles are on one side of this argument and Paul is on the other, which I (and many other people) do not accept. Think about it: If Paul had introduced a radically different reinterpretation of Christianity, don't you think that the Jerusalem crowd would have denounced him as a heretic and rejected his participation within their community (they had the perfect opportunity to do just that at the Jerusalem Council). If we are going to employ Occam's Razor in this instance, then I think that we would have to conclude that the two sides were not as far apart in their theology as many of their modern counterparts would have us believe.

  5. "the Jerusalem Council"
    It would be very nice and convenient if there was a "reconciliation" with the primitive Jesus Movement and the radical Paul but I don't believe it; I'm siding with scholars calling Acts Late & Fake - 2nd century proto-orthodox window dressing.

    By the time of Paul, Yahwism was ripe for reform, there was no unified police-state in place to enforce its theocratic revelations, stoning of Sabbath-breakers, for instance, was way down - where's Yahweh? Just like today, the theocratic revelations of Islam (amputation for theft) are largely not being enforced by its followers - where's Allah?

  6. You are certainly free to side with whomever you choose to align yourself with, but the majority of biblical scholars do not regard Acts as a Second Century work of proto-orthodox window dressing . They don't do this for a number of reasons. First, the internal evidence suggests that Luke and Acts were written by the same individual and addressed to someone named Theophilus. Acts is obviously complimentary to the gospel (it takes up where that account leaves off), and scholars have noted the similarity in style and language between the books. The book of Acts ends with Paul living for "two whole years in his own hired house" in Rome. What about everything that happened after that? These scholars also look at what the early "Church Fathers" had to say about Acts and give some credence to their attribution of the work to Luke.
    Finally, you are ignoring the evidence that contradicts your thesis about the differences between the primitive Christians and the people who followed them. I can see the contradictions - Why can't you see the harmony? My thesis attempts to incorporate all of the evidence, not to satisfy a preconceived notion about the opinions of early Christians about their obligations to Old Testament Laws. Nevertheless, I am thankful that most Jews, Christians and Muslims of today have abandoned amputation, stoning and beheading as acceptable punishments for "sins." Progress is progress - even if it's not yet universal.

  7. "Nevertheless, I am thankful that most Jews, Christians and Muslims of today have abandoned amputation, stoning and beheading as acceptable punishments for "sins." Progress is progress - even if it's not yet universal. "

    Instead we lock people in cages for decades. Progress?