What was "the church of God"?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

What was "the church of God"?

Post by Irish1975 »

Paul tells the Corinthians that Jesus appeared resurrected to over 500 brethren at one time (1 Corinthians 15:6), an event not represented in the Gospel narratives. In his book Spirit Possession and the Origins of Christianity, Stevan Davies remarks something to the effect that a crowd of that size usually doesn't come together for any casual purpose. It was probably a gathering for worship.

Paul relates that Christ appeared to Cephas and James and "all the apostles." Paul recognizes James and Cephas as the pillars of the "churches of God in Christ Jesus in Judaea." So the appearances of Jesus the Lord occurred first in the churches of God in Judaea, then later they happened to Paul; in the time in between Paul persecuted this same community, which he calls "the church of God."

The phrase "the church of God" (he ekklesia tou theou), or, "the churches of God," is a distinctive usage in authentic Paul. Apart from a casual and vague and possibly inauthentic line in the appendix to Romans ("all the churches of Christ greet you," 16:16), Paul seems never to speak of the church of Christ, of Jesus Christ, or of Christ Jesus. By contrast, other NT authors use the term "church" quite differently, and only use "church of God" for pseudo-Paul (Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:5), but without Paul's usual connotations.

In this thread I am exploring whether Paul's "the church of God" was something definite and specific, both in his mind and in reality, and what we can know or infer about it.

Paul uses "the church of God" to refer to the communities that he himself founded, especially in Corinth:

1 Corinthians 1:2
To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

2 Corinthians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother. To the church of God which is at Corinth...

But he also uses it to refer to gatherings or a community that he persecuted during his "former life in Judaism":

Galatians 1:13
For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; 14 and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.

1 Corinthians 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Philippians 3:6
...as for zeal, persecuting the church ["of God," in a few manuscripts]

We learn from Galatians that the churches of God he once persecuted were in Judaea, and he particularly describes them as churches that were "in Christ." Here Paul implies that the faith he now proclaims, his gospel, is the same as the faith that defined the churches he once persecuted:

Galatians 1:22-24
I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but only, they kept hearing, “he who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” And they were glorifying God because of me.

However, Paul doesn't just preach the resurrection of Jesus, but also his death for sin "according to the scriptures." He leaves it unclear and unknown whether the other apostles also preached, or believed, or supposed, that Christ died for sins in accordance with scripture. It is possible that they knew or worshipped a Jesus/Christ who was a resurrected Lord, but not one who had died for sins.

In Paul's earliest letter, he specifically praises his flock for becoming imitators of the Judaean churches:

1 Thessalonians 2:14
For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea;

However, what immediately follows these words is the famous interpolated rant against the Jews for killing Jesus (2:14b-16). Up to this point, it appeared that Paul was meaning to praise the Thessalonians for their faithful acceptance of the word of God. Indeed, no other part of this epistle suggests that the Thessalonians had suffered any persecution whatever. Paul's only concern is for their growth in faith and holy living. This raises the question, in what respect did the Thessalonians becoming "imitators" of the church of God in Judaea give joy to Paul? It seems to have something more to do with their faith, or habit of worship, or perhaps their ability to learn from God how to love one another (4:9), or something otherwise positive. I suspect the interpolator wanted to suppress something positive that Paul was saying about the kinship between the churches in Thessaloniki and those in Judaea, and not simply inserting this implausible rant against Jews/Judaeans, and this mention by Paul of a historical Jesus.

Returning to 1 Corinthians, several references fill out the picture of what Paul meant by "the church of God," and suggest that it had some deeper meaning than simply being the christian community that Paul established in Corinth.

1 Corinthians 10:32
Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,

1 Corinthians 11:16
If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 11:22
What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

These cases are interesting. Why is Paul telling his own "church of God" not to give offense to the church of God? Perhaps there is an implicit distinction between the believers as frail sinners on the one hand, and the Holy Spirit-filled community on the other. When it comes to the discussion of women's hair and head coverings in chapter 11, he appeals to "the churches of God" as an ancillary source of authority in addition to his own apostolic authority. This might be the most concrete case in which Paul is referring to the church of God as something not simply identical to his own movement. Whereas Paul almost always refers to the church of God in Judaea as a foil to his own apostolic authority, here he seems to be recognizing them as something definite, external to his own ministry, and relevant to a debate about religious practice.

To sum up, Paul recognized an already existing worship community that he calls the "church of God." He never calls it the Church of Jesus Christ, although at some point prior to Paul's calling these communities experienced visions of the risen Lord. It is possible that these communities had existed for some time before they experienced the Lord Jesus, which would explain why they are known to Paul under the merely Jewish name "the church of God." Although I can only leave this thought as a parting suggestion, it is possible that James and Cephas and the original Judaean churches of God--about whom we know essentially nothing--believed in a resurrected Christ or Jesus, but not one who had died an expiatory death for sins as in the gospel of Paul.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: What was "the church of God"?

Post by John2 »

However, Paul doesn't just preach the resurrection of Jesus, but also his death for sin "according to the scriptures." He leaves it unclear and unknown whether the other apostles also preached, or believed, or supposed, that Christ died for sins in accordance with scripture. It is possible that they knew or worshipped a Jesus/Christ who was a resurrected Lord, but not one who had died for sins.

I get the impression that all the apostles believed that Jesus "died for our sins" in 1 Cor. 15:3-11:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. And last of all he appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth ... Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: What was "the church of God"?

Post by Giuseppe »

Irish1975 wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 5:23 pmit is possible that James and Cephas and the original Judaean churches of God--about whom we know essentially nothing--believed in a resurrected Christ or Jesus, but not one who had died an expiatory death for sins as in the gospel of Paul.
can you imagine a reason for Jesus die, apart the expiatory death? A death with resurrection is surely expiatory, unless we are talking about mere show of force by Pagan gods (but even in some Pagan Mysteries -I think about Osiris and Attis -, the death of the god had always an espiatory meaning).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: What was "the church of God"?

Post by Irish1975 »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 10:12 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 5:23 pmit is possible that James and Cephas and the original Judaean churches of God--about whom we know essentially nothing--believed in a resurrected Christ or Jesus, but not one who had died an expiatory death for sins as in the gospel of Paul.
can you imagine a reason for Jesus die, apart the expiatory death? A death with resurrection is surely expiatory, unless we are talking about mere show of force by Pagan gods (but even in some Pagan Mysteries -I think about Osiris and Attis -, the death of the god had always an espiatory meaning).
The redeemer always dies in the archetypal descending-ascending redeemer myth cycle. See Ben’s thread about this. But the idea that the redeemer dies for sins, far from being universal, is hardly to be found in Jewish or Christian traditions not based on Paul’s gospel (and Isaiah 53, as read by Paul and the NT Evangelists). It isn’t in “Q,” it isn’t in gThomas, it isn’t in the epistle of James. The gnostic Christians of the 2nd century embraced a resurrection but not a Pauline redemption by blood sacrifice. Martin Hengel’s book The Atonement tries mightily to establish a non-Pauline basis for the idea and fails utterly.

The 42nd Ode of Solomon portrays Christ as a dying savior, but without the idea that he died for anyone’s sins:

I was not rejected although I was considered to be so, and I did not perish although they thought it of me.
Sheol saw me and was shattered, and Death ejected me and many with me.
I have been vinegar and bitterness to it, and I went down with it as far as its depth.
Then the feet and the head it released, because it was not able to endure my face.
And I made a congregation of living among his dead; and I spoke with them by living lips; in order that my word may not be unprofitable.
And those who had died ran towards me; and they cried out and said, Son of God, have pity on us.
And deal with us according to Your kindness, and bring us out from the bonds of darkness.
And open for us the door by which we may come out to You; for we perceive that our death does not touch You.
May we also be saved with You, because You are our Savior.
Then I heard their voice, and placed their faith in my heart.
And I placed my name upon their head, because they are free and they are mine.
Hallelujah.

Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: What was "the church of God"?

Post by Giuseppe »

My point is banally that a god dying and rising has to do so necessarily to gain something. What is more probable is some form of salvation (earthly or spiritual) for his adorers.

If expiation is not the salvation, in this case, then a ransom could be. Or the first sign of victory against a enemy (against the Archons and the Romans?).

Even so, I think that the term expiation captures all these probabilities. Since it assumes the removal of an obstacle that prevented the adorers from gaining alone the salvation hoped, without the help of Jesus.

From this POV, I don't see a difference between the Pillars and Paul able to provoke the conflict we know.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: What was "the church of God"?

Post by Giuseppe »

I would see a more probable source of rivalry between the Jesus Revealer and the Jesus Redeemer. "Mark" (author) could merge the two Jesuses.

Basically, the difference between revelation and expiation is a quantitative difference: only few people have the privilege of a revelation, whereas an entire nation could be redeemed, without distinction of some kind.

But a crucified Jesus couldn't avoid his being an expiatory Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: What was "the church of God"?

Post by GakuseiDon »

Irish1975 wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 5:23 pmTo sum up, Paul recognized an already existing worship community that he calls the "church of God." He never calls it the Church of Jesus Christ, although at some point prior to Paul's calling these communities experienced visions of the risen Lord. It is possible that these communities had existed for some time before they experienced the Lord Jesus, which would explain why they are known to Paul under the merely Jewish name "the church of God." Although I can only leave this thought as a parting suggestion, it is possible that James and Cephas and the original Judaean churches of God--about whom we know essentially nothing--believed in a resurrected Christ or Jesus, but not one who had died an expiatory death for sins as in the gospel of Paul.
It's an interesting question, and one I've pondered over (as someone who doesn't read Greek or Latin and hasn't really studied too much on the question other than reading the source material in English translation). My own take is that "the church of God" is a sect or cult, "the church of God in Christ" is a messianic sect or cult. Perhaps the two are the same, perhaps not. According to my 'head canon', they were a sect that believed that the end times were approaching so they were expecting the messiah. The sect had nothing to do with Jesus originally, and they may have been around for years before Jesus was born. In fact, Jesus himself may have been a member of "the church of God in Christ". It was only when people started having visions of a risen Jesus that the idea that he himself was Christ emerged, and so became identified by that sect.

I don't have anything really as evidence for my position, but that's how I read Paul's motivation in his letters.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: What was "the church of God"?

Post by GakuseiDon »

There's also the mysterious (to me) passages in Galatians, where Paul says that he wouldn't be persecuted if he preached circumcision:

5:11 But I, brothers, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling-block of the cross has been removed.

That to me is a surprising statement. Paul would not be persecuted if he preached circumcision? The stumbling-block of preaching a crucified Christ would be removed if Paul supported circumcision? I feel it has something to do with "the church of God" but I can't get a sense of what is going on there.

Similarly later in Galatians:

6:12 As many as desire to look good in the flesh, they compel you to be circumcised; only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
6:13 For even they who receive circumcision don't keep the law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may boast in your flesh.

I'm not sure how this relates to "the church of God", and yet I have the feeling that it does. I suspect it hinges on whether the Pillars were considered to be part of the "church of God".
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: What was "the church of God"?

Post by Charles Wilson »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 11:16 am There's also the mysterious (to me) passages in Galatians, where Paul says that he wouldn't be persecuted if he preached circumcision:

5:11 But I, brothers, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling-block of the cross has been removed.

That to me is a surprising statement. Paul would not be persecuted if he preached circumcision? The stumbling-block of preaching a crucified Christ would be removed if Paul supported circumcision? I feel it has something to do with "the church of God" but I can't get a sense of what is going on there.
GD --

I feel that you are onto something but I'm not sure what it is. Perhaps a common Redactor of the Paulines? There is a common thread in this but it may be for those smarter than Yours Truly.

1 Corinthians 1: 17 (RSV):

[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Here is a similar verse discussing the "...cross be[ing] emptied of its power".

What does that mean? I assert that it is meaningless. That is, the Believer will place into the verse whatever meaning gives Faith to that Believer. If, however, there was a common Redactor for these verses, then there is a Principle behind the insertion. It points to (probably) one man editing something in front of him. It is a Mapping into/onto the act of crucifying. Further - and it goes to the heart of why I believe that the idea is meaningless - Baptism is something that Christ did NOT send Paul to do and neither Preaching with Eloquence. Baptism is NOT ON PAUL'S JOB DESCRIPTION and his preaching is to come from someone who now must appear STUPID as well.

This is a New Religion?

Something else is going on.
Good catch.

CW
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: What was "the church of God"?

Post by perseusomega9 »

John2 wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2020 5:48 pm

I get the impression that all the apostles believed that Jesus "died for our sins" in 1 Cor. 15:3-11:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. And last of all he appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth ... Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
nah, that's a redactor trying to be paul
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Post Reply