What happens to the unbaptized gentiles in Paul?

[davidmartin]

Ken maybe the complexity around Paul's writings regarding pre-existing spiritual practices is down to Paul's own theology and system he developed, when a person tries to take some staple aspect like water baptism you're always going to have to interpret that through his system and keep coming back to it since he touches most bases. Numerous concepts were interpreted differently before Paul or among other groups of Christians that's interesting to me but i only mention it in passing
Paul had a complete system
That is why I feel its evidence that he omits to mention hell, yet hell is found in the non-Pauline sections of the NT
So orthodox Christianity as we know it had to have combined his system with others at some point and the lines where they join are still clearly visible

[Ken Olson]

davidmartin wrote:

Ken maybe the complexity around Paul's writings regarding pre-existing spiritual practices is down to Paul's own theology and system he developed, when a person tries to take some staple aspect like water baptism you're always going to have to interpret that through his system and keep coming back to it since he touches most bases.

While I think Paul's failure to mention hell is unusual in the NT, I do not think his belief that one enters the body of Christ through baptism in the holy spirit is. I think Mark held the same belief, which is why he begins his gospel with Jesus' baptism and reception of the holy spirit and John the Baptist saying that he baptizes with water, but the one coming after him will baptize with the holy spirit (Mark 1.7-10). John the Evangelist too seems to have held this belief (John 3.3-7), though, in contrast to Paul, he presents it as a new self being born rather than the old self dying.

Numerous concepts were interpreted differently before Paul or among other groups of Christians that's interesting to me but i only mention it in passing

I think it very likely that Christians before Paul interpreted various concepts differently. I just don't have any information on Christians before Paul's.

Paul had a complete system

I realize I used the word system to refer to Paul's views on what salvation is and how it is effected, but I should acknowledge that only the most conservative scholars consider Paul to be a systematic theologian. It is widely acknowledged that most of Paul's letters (all except Romans) are occasional and address specific problems that have arisen in the churches and that Paul is theologizing on the fly. There are those who think the set of beliefs expressed in Paul's letters can be fitted together into something broadly coherent (like Sanders) and those who do not (like Raisanen).

On another level, though, books on New Testament Theology generally devotes much more space to Paul and John than to the other writers of the NT because it is even more difficult to extract a theological system from the others than from them.

That is why I feel its evidence that he omits to mention hell, yet hell is found in the non-Pauline sections of the NT

I do not know what other first century Christians might have lacked a belief in hell (assuming Paul did). The concept of hell, or, rather, hell as a place of eternal torment, seems to have entered into Judaism fairly late, and there might have been other Jewish groups, and hence other Christians, who did not have the belief. I do not know that the Judaizers Paul opposes in Galatians believed in hell. I know they differed from Paul on the issue of circumcision and keeping the Mosiac law, and Matthew very likely agreed with them on those, but I do not know if they agreed with Matthew on hell.

So orthodox Christianity as we know it had to have combined his system with others at some point and the lines where they join are still clearly visible

Right, I am assuming, along with most New Testament scholars who do not teach at an institution requiring a statement of faith, that what became Christian Orthodoxy in the second (or perhaps third or fourth) century is a synthesis of elements taken from various different strands of Christianity, and further that no single strand from the first century held all the set of beliefs that would later constitute orthodoxy. This is effectively rejecting the idea that there is such a thing as Orthodox ("straight') Christianity and that it was originally taught by Jesus and passed along unchanged by reliable bearers of the tradition.

Best,

Ken

[robert j]

Robert J asked:

Why the emphasis on baptism as the deciding factor for the benefits that Paul promised his followers?

... I would agree that baptism is an initiation ritual ...

... One enters the body of Christ by receiving the spirit of Christ in baptism, but then one must maintain that status by acting appropriately ...

Exactly, multiple activities/factors/beliefs were mentioned by Paul as involved in qualifying for the salvific benefits he promised his followers. Hence my question.

For example, using Paul’s language in Galatians, his converts were evidently baptized and had “clothed [them]selves with Christ” (Galatians 3:27), but then Paul told them that if they became circumcised “Christ will be of no benefit to you” (Galatians 5:2). And Paul told his baptized converts that if they practiced any of certain forbidden behaviors, they “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21). And in the midst of his arguments against the adoption of certain Jewish rituals by his baptized converts, Paul stressed the importance of faith and believing in order to obtain justification and to realize the promise of the spirit ---

… we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ … (Galatians 2:16)

… so that through faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit … (Galatians 3:14)

… so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe … (Galatians 3:22)

Paul even downplayed the importance of the baptism ritual as opposed to his more important proclamation of his gospel, his announcement of good news –

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel … (1 Corinthians 1:17)

Trying to identify one particular concept as opposed to another as the heart or center of Paul's gospel is generally fruitless because the various concepts present in the system cannot be disentangled clearly. You could say that it is faith, or grace, or eschatology, or salvation, or Christ, or just God. But all those concepts are defined in relation to each other.

Believing in the story of Jesus Christ is not sufficient to obtain salvation for Paul. Participating in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection through baptism is what is necessary ...

I generally agree with your first statement here, but have problems with the second.

Because an initiation ritual and a number of other behaviors, beliefs and practices were presented by Paul in his letters as important to qualify for the benefits he promised, I don't think it is appropriate to single out only one practice as "necessary" while downplaying another necessary practice.

In my statement you cited here from my previous post in which I identified Paul's proclamation of his gospel as "more important", my intention was to convey the relative emphasis found in Paul's letters.

Paul made a distinction between the baptism ritual and his proclamation of his “good news”, and he implied that right from the start of his mission it was more important for him to spend his efforts in preaching the gospel rather than performing baptism rituals.

Paul's letters are all we have to sort out the emphasis of his teaching. Sure, presumably his converts had already undergone baptism and it is reasonable to expect his emphasis to be with ongoing issues and requirements. That said, Paul’s mention of baptism is quite sparse in his letters and not found at all in some, though I suppose one might argue for some additional indirect, tangential references. On the other hand, the importance of belief in God and in his story of his Jesus Christ, and especially the importance of faith in those, are mentioned in great abundance and in each and every one of Paul’s letters.


Regardless of differences in approach and emphasis, I don't think we are all that far apart on this issue. Your thread —- and I'm most likely here to take my leave and leave you to it. Thanks for the conversation.

[davidmartin]

While I think Paul's failure to mention hell is unusual in the NT, I do not think his belief that one enters the body of Christ through baptism in the holy spirit is. I think Mark held the same belief, which is why he begins his gospel with Jesus' baptism and reception of the holy spirit and John the Baptist saying that he baptizes with water, but the one coming after him will baptize with the holy spirit (Mark 1.7-10). John the Evangelist too seems to have held this belief (John 3.3-7), though, in contrast to Paul, he presents it as a new self being born rather than the old self dying.

Oh yes i quite agree, for sure his emphasis on spiritual baptism isn't unusual or unexpected. I tend to see Paul working like a potter sometimes taking pre-existing ideas and shaping them before riffing off into new territory. It's hard to quantify the difference between something like a new self being born and an old self dying but it probably does or did have some significant difference in meaning even though sharing the same basic concept. This is the area that's hard to get a handle on

I think it very likely that Christians before Paul interpreted various concepts differently. I just don't have any information on Christians before Paul's.

Sure you do, its just difficult to come by and elusive. the easiest one is the 'judaisers' especially ignoring the galatians fight scene and not getting distracted by it. theres some meat there but there's others too that we know something about even if very little and can only infer their stance

I realize I used the word system to refer to Paul's views on what salvation is and how it is effected, but I should acknowledge that only the most conservative scholars consider Paul to be a systematic theologian

I'm surprised to here this, perhaps influenced by how systematically used his teachings are in Christianity. But even if Paul didn't quite tick every box he sure put a lot of effort in and he was pretty successful at it. I wonder what they highlight to argue this?
The idea that he was just helping out in some church disputes and offering some tips, i mean, no.. he's being a theologian in the classic model even if he writes letters, which are not really letters but treatises
If you want ancient letters they're all about who owes money for some sheep and stuff like that

I do not know that the Judaizers Paul opposes in Galatians believed in hell

They do if the Clementine literature and apocalypse of Peter are considered Judaising writings. Also if Revelation were to be added to the list and the fact that Matthew contains the majority of hell references. There's some weight to the idea from these that the Judaizers were commited to the belief in hell. that's the simple evidence i see anyway
Matthew was the no.1 gospel of the early orthadox church, so something happened that a gospel that is so hell friendly made it while the chief theologian of the same church never mentioned it. two groups originally that later merged would explain it rather neatly

This is effectively rejecting the idea that there is such a thing as Orthodox ("straight') Christianity and that it was originally taught by Jesus and passed along unchanged by reliable bearers of the tradition.

i think it's just as likely my dog has it all figured out!
the narrative that says 'my tradition is the one' is absolutely to be expected, everyone says that always. if everyone says it and they differ then the importance of the notion itself disappears, or rather takes in place in the grand scheme of things. Not sure its really that big of a deal, i mean it is on paper but in practice it isn't because it's more like a dogma than a belief, what is, is the things being taught as original and how thats justified and interpreted and so on

[Ken Olson]

I'm going to recapitulate here what I've been arguing about how I think 1 Cor. 5.5 should be understood.

5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. 2 And you are arrogant! Should you not rather have mourned, so that he who has done this would have been removed from among you?
3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present I have already pronounced judgment 4 in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing.[a] When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that [his] spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
6 Your boasting is not a good thing. Do you not know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 
[a]1 Corinthians 5:4 Or on the man who has done such a thing in the name of the Lord Jesus

The man who has been living with his father's wife has been a member of the Corinthian church. He has undergone the rite of baptism and is part of the body of Christ in Corinth. That means he has the spirit of Christ living in him as do the other members of the body of Christ. The different members of the body of Christ have the same spirit living in them.

This man (in Paul's view, which is the only view that matters for interpreting Paul) has not acted in a manner consistent with his status as a member of the body of Christ. He has not treated his body as a temple of the holy spirit within. Therefore he should be expelled from the church, which is the body of Christ. This expulsion or excommunication is effectively an un-baptism. When he is expelled from the body of Christ, this will not just that mean he will not be permitted to attend church services and that other members of the church will not associate with him. He will also no longer be part of the body of Christ and the spirit of Christ will no longer dwell in him.

The verse “you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that [his] spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” means that he will face the day of the Lord as do other people who are not part of the body of Christ: he will have his flesh destroyed by Satan. The spirit that will be saved is the holy spirit. By removing it from him now, it will not be inhabiting his flesh when that flesh is destroyed on the Day of the Lord.

Some have argued that that reading is unsustainable on the grounds that the holy spirit cannot be destroyed on the Day of the Lord. While I would agree that such an outcome would be unthinkable for Paul, it leaves open the method by which such an outcome is avoided, which is what this reading provides.

Further, I think having one's body of flesh destroyed on the Day of the Lord and not receiving a new undying spiritual body is the limit of punishment described by Paul. He does not speak of immortal souls undergoing eternal punishment.

Best,

Ken

[davidmartin]

maybe Paul was just annoyed they didn't accept him as the supreme authority on all matters, and such a slip up was a great way to assert it again. He probably loved it to bash that church into submission to his will and once docile pass around the collection plate. Same thing happens today, i take a dim view of it.

[Ken Olson]

I'm primarily interested in 1 Cor. 5.1-5 for what it says about what Paul thinks happens to those who are not saved, and how he thinks the mechanics of salvation work. But yes, his emphatic command so expel the man who is cohabitating with his stepmother immediately follows the section in which he claims supreme authority over the Corinthian church:

4.14 I am not writing this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 I appeal to you, then, be imitators of me.

But he's not just annoyed about this particular incident. The whole letter is dealing with a series of issues that have arisen in the Corinthian church and been been reported to Paul. The Corinthians are simply not behaving as Paul conceives people inhabited by the holy spirit ought. But they are behaving in ways that one might have expected from, well, human beings.

Best,

Ken

[Ben C. Smith]

The Corinthians are simply not behaving as Paul conceives people inhabited by the holy spirit ought. But they are behaving in ways that one might have expected from, well, human beings.

I think this observation is key for much of the tension in the Pauline epistles. If your official theology is that someone who accepts the spirit of God will suddenly change bad behavior into good for the rest of his or her life, then pretty much any contingency dealing with the inevitable disappointments arising from such an expectation is going to look ad hoc, inconsistent, and/or clumsy.

[Secret Alias]

I have quiet for these discussions. But my problem with the Catholic epistles has always been that the original Pauline community wouldn't have produced 'true' letters. Letters which show Paul having problems suit the orthodox who don't want to bring the heretical idea that Paul was perfect forward. A Paul with problems underscores the idea that he was human, imperfect. Not the original understanding of Paul. Hence the orthodox letters are corrupt.

[davidmartin]

yet Paul's forcefulness itself seems to negate the power of the spirit to effect that positive change?
if the spirit was that powerful why would he need to be so forceful?
the subtext is likely other leaders vying for prominence as well so how much is down to that and how much down to simple theology or morality?
Even if a few of the Corinthians were flunking his own standards it's hard to believe they all were that badly in need of correction or he was the only one trying to do it. The tension could be seen as political as much as anything apart from the narrative that Paul is the only game in town which is patently false.