"Fourteen years" after what? (Gal 2:1 and 2 Cor 12:1)

[GakuseiDon]

I have to say I do like the idea of James punching Paul for talking about revelations, just for the imagery of it!

But when God replies to Paul, Paul concludes that "most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities". I'd say that sounds more like an on-going physical ailment than a punch. Calling it a "messenger from Satan" fits the idea of some physical ailment as demons were thought to be the cause of various physical ailments by some.

But since I believe Paul suffered a nervous breakdown -- maybe even a stroke -- which were connected to visions, I personally think his 'infirmities' were a result of that. Just my 2 cents!

[John2]

But when God replies to Paul, Paul concludes that "most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities". I'd say that sounds more like an on-going physical ailment than a punch. Calling it a "messenger from Satan" fits the idea of some physical ailment as demons were thought to be the cause of various physical ailments by some.

I'm not sure if it exactly ties in, but I was just reading 1 Peter (which I think is genuine) and noticed this part and it brought to mind what Paul says about "a messenger of Satan."


5:8-11:

Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in your faith and in the knowledge that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering.

And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself restore you, secure you, strengthen you, and establish you. To Him be the power forever and ever. Amen.

This may not be exactly the same thing Paul is talking about, but they both see suffering (via insults and abuse from others in 1 Peter and via some kind of physical ailment in Paul) as the work of Satan/the Devil and turn it into a strength.

[gryan]

I'm not sure if it exactly ties in, but I was just reading 1 Peter (which I think is genuine) and noticed this part and it brought to mind what Paul says about "a messenger of Satan."


5:8-11:

Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in your faith and in the knowledge that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering.

And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself restore you, secure you, strengthen you, and establish you. To Him be the power forever and ever. Amen.

This may not be exactly the same thing Paul is talking about, but they both see suffering (via insults and abuse from others in 1 Peter and via some kind of physical ailment in Paul) as the work of Satan/the Devil and turn it into a strength.

Yes, these are interesting textual interrelationships.

One main difference I notice: "messenger/angel of Satan" 2 Corinthians vs the Devil himself in 1 Peter.
For comparison, the Galatians received Paul as a "messenger/angel of God", not as God himself.

On a side note:
In Galatians Paul says, "when Cephas/Peter came to to Antioch, I resisted (ἀντέστην) him to his face", and
in 1 Peter, the same word--resist-- is used here: "Resist (ἀντίστητε) him (Your adversary the devil), standing firm in your faith..."

[gryan]

I have to say I do like the idea of James punching Paul for talking about revelations, just for the imagery of it!

But when God replies to Paul, Paul concludes that "most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities". I'd say that sounds more like an on-going physical ailment than a punch. Calling it a "messenger from Satan" fits the idea of some physical ailment as demons were thought to be the cause of various physical ailments by some.

But since I believe Paul suffered a nervous breakdown -- maybe even a stroke -- which were connected to visions, I personally think his 'infirmities' were a result of that. Just my 2 cents!

Yes, I have gone for years thinking of the "thorn in the flesh" as some affliction Paul experienced in his own body/mind rather than as a metaphor for a personal opponent. But I guess something clicked when I read the commentary on 2 Cor by Thrall where she says the language words better for a personal opponent. But Thrall said that she knew of no personal opponent made sense in the context. Since I knew of a candidate, the rest flowed from there.

The language of hitting with a fist as a disciplinary act of a Jewish judge fits remarkably well. The ones who hit Jesus in with a fist according to Mark/Matt did so in a context of Jewish religious life--in the Sanhedrin.

[gryan]

On a side note:
In Galatians Paul says, "when Cephas/Peter came to to Antioch, I resisted (ἀντέστην) him to his face", and
in 1 Peter, the same word--resist-- is used here: "Resist (ἀντίστητε) him (Your adversary the devil), standing firm in your faith..."

The epistle of James, which I identify as having been written in the name of the pillar James, James son of Alphaeus, "slave of all" (James 1:1), also has an admonition to resist the devil:

James 4:7
"Resist (ἀντίστητε) the devil, and he will flee from you."

[John2]

I'm not sure if it exactly ties in, but I was just reading 1 Peter (which I think is genuine) and noticed this part and it brought to mind what Paul says about "a messenger of Satan."


5:8-11:

Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in your faith and in the knowledge that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kinds of suffering.

And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself restore you, secure you, strengthen you, and establish you. To Him be the power forever and ever. Amen.

This may not be exactly the same thing Paul is talking about, but they both see suffering (via insults and abuse from others in 1 Peter and via some kind of physical ailment in Paul) as the work of Satan/the Devil and turn it into a strength.

Yes, these are interesting textual interrelationships.

One main difference I notice: "messenger/angel of Satan" 2 Corinthians vs the Devil himself in 1 Peter.
For comparison, the Galatians received Paul as a "messenger/angel of God", not as God himself.

Well, alright, but 1 Peter 5:8 says that "the Devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour," and in context I take this to mean that he uses people to insult and abuse Christians, but another way would be for him to send a messenger to Paul in the form of a physical ailment.

On a side note:
In Galatians Paul says, "when Cephas/Peter came to to Antioch, I resisted (ἀντέστην) him to his face", and
in 1 Peter, the same word--resist-- is used here: "Resist (ἀντίστητε) him (Your adversary the devil), standing firm in your faith..."

Christians could resist different things, and in one case Paul resisted Peter and in the other Peter says to resist the Devil. And Rom. 13:2 implies that some Christians resisted the governing authorities. I don't know if you are suggesting that what Paul says about resisting Peter in Galatians means that Paul viewed him (and by extension James and Barnabas and all the Jews in the Antioch church) as the Devil or a messenger of Satan, but if so, for me that wouldn't jibe with what he says about Peter in Gal. 2:8 ("the One who was at work in Peter’s apostleship to the circumcised was also at work in my apostleship to the Gentiles").

[gryan]

@John2

Thank you. Your exegetical reasoning is sound, as far as I can tell (as for as it goes). I want to acknowledge that. I will wait to reply to this further because I want to ponder it for a while.

[gryan]

On a side note:
In Galatians Paul says, "when Cephas/Peter came to to Antioch, I resisted (ἀντέστην) him to his face", and
in 1 Peter, the same word--resist-- is used here: "Resist (ἀντίστητε) him (Your adversary the devil), standing firm in your faith..."

Christians could resist different things, and in one case Paul resisted Peter and in the other Peter says to resist the Devil. And Rom. 13:2 implies that some Christians resisted the governing authorities. I don't know if you are suggesting that what Paul says about resisting Peter in Galatians means that Paul viewed him (and by extension James and Barnabas and all the Jews in the Antioch church) as the Devil or a messenger of Satan, but if so, for me that wouldn't jibe with what he says about Peter in Gal. 2:8 ("the One who was at work in Peter’s apostleship to the circumcised was also at work in my apostleship to the Gentiles").

@John2

My exegesis finds two men named James in leading roles in Jerusalem. "Some from James" were the circumcision party and they came from James the Lord's brother, Mark's James the Less. They were not authorized by the pillar James, James son of Alphaeus, who had given Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.

Peter and Paul both preached the same gospel. However, as I read Paul, James the Lord's brother was preaching a different Gospel. Paul was upset that Peter and even Barnabas followed some from James the Lord's brother who were preaching a different Gospel. Paul says they submitted out of fear. I think Peter and Barnabas were probably submitting to someone in authority, even though they did not agree with his "different Gospel". They were making an outward show of submission, without inward agreement--thus Paul's charge of hypocrisy.

[John2]

Peter and Paul both preached the same gospel. However, as I read Paul, James the Lord's brother was preaching a different Gospel. Paul was upset that Peter and even Barnabas followed some from James the Lord's brother who were preaching a different Gospel. Paul says they submitted out of fear. I think Peter and Barnabas were probably submitting to someone in authority, even though they did not agree with his "different Gospel". They were making an outward show of submission, without inward agreement--thus Paul's charge of hypocrisy.

But it wasn't just Peter and Barnabas who sided with those sent from James (whoever he may have been), but also all of the Jews in the Antioch church (Gal. 2:13: "The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy"), which indicates to me that this James was a major figure like the pillar James.

As far as the meaning of the "circumcision group" group, I take this to mean all Jewish Christians, as per Gal. 2:7-9:

... they [the pillars James, Cephas and John] saw that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised ... [they] gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.

So the pillar James was part of a group that preached to the circumcised (i.e., Jews), and that is what I think Paul means by "the circumcision group" and why his anger with Peter and the other Jews in the Antioch church was about table fellowship with Gentiles and not circumcision (an issue that apparently hadn't been settled by James until the Antioch incident).

And the word used for "fear" can have the sense of respect or awe, like in 1 Peter 2:17 ("Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor"; cf. Is. 11:3: "And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord"), the NLT of Mk. 6:20 ("for Herod respected John, and knowing that he was a good and holy man, he protected him"), and most translations of Lev. 19:3 (which uses a form of the same word used in Is. 11:3: "Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father").


https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3372.htm


https://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-3.htm

The Talmud (Kiddushin 30-33) explains what is meant by “honor” and what is meant by “fear.” We honor our parents through the things we do – going to visit, calling before Shabbos, bringing them a cup of coffee. We show our “fear” of them through the things we don’t do. We don’t contradict them. We don’t sit in their designated places. The Torah does not command us, however, to hide under the bed when our parents come home. One “fears” a serial killer. What we do to our parents is show deference.


https://www.ou.org/life/torah/scared-god/

But in any event, I don't see why Peter, as a pillar, and all the other Jews in the Antioch church would be afraid or respectful of the opinion of a non-pillar (i.e., James the brother of the Lord according to your scenario), all the more so given that Peter wasn't swayed by the "false brothers" when Paul was in Jerusalem.


Gal. 2:2-4:

... I spoke privately to those recognized as leaders ... Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This issue arose because some false brothers had come in under false pretenses to spy on our freedom in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us.

[davidmartin]

James of Alphaeus. if the theory is right that says Alphaeus is Clopas
How similar Klopa and Kepa sound in Aramaic

Not that i'm saying this James could be the son of Peter (Simon Cepha), i thought Clopa might mean something else entirely