Anti-Paulism

Anti-Paulism is a term used to describe opposition to the apostle Paul, particularly regarding his authority, teachings, and writings within the New Testament. Those who hold to Anti-Paulism often reject Paul's epistles as authoritative or question his apostleship. This view challenges the foundational Christian doctrine because Paul is a central figure in the New Testament, and his teachings are crucial to understanding core elements of Christian theology, such as justification by faith, the nature of the church, and the role of the law.

History of Anti-Paulism

1. Early Church Period: Opposition to Paul began in the early church, shortly after his ministry started. The book of Acts and Paul’s own letters reflect the fact that he was frequently met with hostility, particularly from Jewish-Christian groups who believed in the necessity of adhering to the Mosaic Law. These groups, sometimes referred to as Judaizers, insisted that Gentile converts must follow Jewish customs, such as circumcision and dietary laws, in addition to believing in Christ. Paul vehemently opposed this view, especially in his letters to the Galatians and Romans, where he argued that justification is by faith in Christ alone, apart from the works of the law.

2. Ebionites: In the early 2nd century, a Jewish-Christian sect known as the Ebionites rejected Paul entirely. They considered him an apostate from the Mosaic Law and held him responsible for spreading teachings that undermined Jewish customs. The Ebionites held to a form of Christian legalism, insisting that Gentile Christians needed to observe the full Mosaic Law in order to be part of the people of God. They viewed Paul as distorting the true teachings of Jesus, who they believed upheld the law completely.

3. Marcionism (2nd century): Interestingly, opposition to Paul also found an unexpected form in Marcionism, though in a different way. Marcion (ca. 85–160 AD) accepted Paul’s authority exclusively but rejected the Old Testament and most of the New Testament writings, as he believed that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God revealed by Christ. While Marcion himself was not an Anti-Paulist, his selective use of Paul’s epistles (which he saw as the only true apostolic writings) led some early Christians to become suspicious of Paul’s teachings, fearing that they downplayed the importance of the Hebrew Scriptures and might lead to further distortions like Marcion’s heresy.

4. Gnostic Reinterpretations: Various Gnostic sects (2nd–3rd centuries) also reinterpreted Paul's writings in ways that diverged from orthodox Christianity. Gnostics claimed to possess secret knowledge (gnosis) and believed in a dualistic worldview that separated the material world (which they saw as evil) from the spiritual. In some cases, they viewed Paul as an advocate for their own beliefs, interpreting his teachings on spirit and flesh in line with their dualism. However, orthodox Christian theologians like Irenaeus and Tertullian combated these misinterpretations, defending the apostolic nature of Paul's writings and his commitment to the unity of Scripture.

5. Modern Expressions: In the modern period, Anti-Paulism has resurfaced in some theological and academic circles. Some liberal theologians and secular scholars argue that Paul distorted the original teachings of Jesus or that his theology represents a radical departure from the "simple" gospel of the early Jewish-Christian movement. These critics often portray Paul as overly influenced by Greek thought, claiming he introduced doctrines (such as justification by faith and the nature of the atonement) that were foreign to Jesus’ original message. Some also argue that Paul's letters promote patriarchal or oppressive systems, particularly in his teachings on gender roles and authority.

   Certain Jewish scholars and others within the Hebrew Roots Movement have also criticized Paul, asserting that his teachings misrepresent the continuity of the Mosaic Law in Christian life. These critics contend that Paul diverged from Jesus' Jewish identity and context, thus misguiding Gentile Christianity away from its true roots.

Theology of Anti-Paulism

The core of Anti-Paulism typically revolves around a rejection of one or more of Paul’s theological contributions to the New Testament. These theological disagreements often focus on:

1. Justification by Faith: Paul's teaching on justification by faith alone (Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16) is central to his theology. Anti-Paulists often reject this doctrine, arguing instead for a works-based righteousness that includes the observance of the Mosaic Law. This was the central dispute between Paul and the Judaizers.

2. The Role of the Law: Paul taught that the law of Moses, while good, was not a means of salvation and that Christ had fulfilled the law, freeing believers from its ceremonial and judicial requirements (Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:24-25). Anti-Paulists often argue that Paul undermines the ongoing validity of the law, which they believe remains binding for Christians, especially Jewish Christians.

3. Paul's Apostleship: One of the key claims of Anti-Paulism is that Paul was not a true apostle. Some early groups, like the Ebionites, denied Paul's legitimacy because he was not one of the original Twelve Apostles and did not have a direct connection with Jesus during his earthly ministry. Instead, Paul’s conversion came through a visionary experience on the road to Damascus (Acts 9), which some critics viewed as less credible.

4. The Person of Christ: Anti-Paulists sometimes claim that Paul introduced a distorted Christology, focusing on Christ's divine nature and his role as the risen Savior, and downplaying his humanity and ethical teachings. Critics argue that Paul shifted the focus from the moral example of Jesus’ life to the atonement and resurrection.

5. Paul's Ethics: Some modern critics view Paul’s teachings on issues like gender roles (e.g., 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Timothy 2), slavery, and authority as retrogressive or oppressive. They claim that Paul’s writings reflect cultural biases and are inconsistent with the more egalitarian and compassionate teachings they attribute to Jesus.

The Historic Christian Orthodox View

The historic Christian orthodox view holds Paul to be a divinely inspired apostle whose writings are integral to the New Testament canon and are authoritative for Christian doctrine and life. Paul's teachings are seen as consistent with, and complementary to, the teachings of Jesus, rather than being in opposition to them.

1. Paul’s Apostleship: Orthodox Christianity affirms that Paul was a legitimate apostle, chosen directly by Christ. His encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) is seen as a special, direct commission from Christ to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul repeatedly defended his apostolic calling, particularly in his letters to the Corinthians and Galatians (1 Corinthians 9:1, Galatians 1:1).

2. Harmony Between Paul and Jesus: Orthodox theology rejects the idea that Paul distorted or contradicted the teachings of Jesus. Rather, Paul is seen as deepening the understanding of Christ’s mission and the implications of his death and resurrection for salvation history. Paul's doctrine of justification by faith is not a departure from Jesus’ teachings but a clear articulation of the grace-centered message of the gospel (e.g., Matthew 11:28-30, John 6:29).

3. The Role of the Law: The historic Christian position upholds that Paul did not reject the law in a wholesale sense but placed it in its proper context. Paul taught that while the law reveals sin and points people to their need for a Savior, it cannot save. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9), and the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Mosaic Law were fulfilled in Christ. However, the moral law (such as the Ten Commandments) continues to have a place in Christian ethical teaching as a guide for living out one's faith (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14).

4. Paul’s Christology: Paul's Christology is consistent with the broader New Testament witness. His letters emphasize both the divinity and humanity of Christ. Passages like Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 1:15-20, and Romans 1:3-4 affirm Christ’s pre-existence, incarnation, and redemptive work. This is in line with the broader witness of the Gospels and other apostolic writings, such as John’s Gospel.

5. Canon and Inspiration: Paul’s epistles were accepted as part of the New Testament canon from the early centuries of the church. His letters were widely circulated and revered in the early Christian communities, as Peter himself acknowledged the divine inspiration of Paul’s writings (2 Peter 3:15-16). The early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine, consistently defended the authority of Paul’s letters as Scripture.

Conclusion

Anti-Paulism represents a rejection of the apostle Paul’s authority, teachings, and writings, and it has surfaced at various points in church history, from the early Jewish-Christian sects to some modern liberal and secular critiques. However, the historic Christian orthodox view firmly affirms Paul as a divinely appointed apostle whose writings, inspired by the Holy Spirit, are authoritative and foundational to Christian doctrine. Paul’s teachings on justification by faith, the role of the law, and the person and work of Christ are fully in harmony with the rest of the New Testament and essential to the understanding of the gospel message.