The book “The Pauline Watermark”, by Tom Scaugh, was recently published in the USA under a Creative Commons license. This means that it may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes, as it is here. The book is available through http://books.lulu.com/content/709526 at US$19.95. It is expected that significant discounts will be available through amazon.com and Barnes & Noble from May 2007.

This book proposes to reveal something which, to many, might at first seem unthinkable — yet, on looking back, would surely seem to be the only, inescapable conclusion. The basic supposition is that St. Paul suffered catastrophic moral failure. This runs like a watermark through his writings. With this in mind, this book synthesizes some 400 references to ancient sources, as well as drawing on the intuitions of well established commentators and scholars — among them Matthew Henry and William Barclay. It is suggested that it was Paul’s failure which ultimately resulted in a theology which became the joy and strength of the Gentile Church. This is further applied pastorally to our (post) modern world. Tom Scaugh is engaged in postgraduate studies at one of the “Big Three” theological seminaries in the USA. He heads a large inner city church.

The first of fourteen chapters follows.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 PAUL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN CIRCA 60 A.D.

It is a familiar scene. Paul is on his last visit to the temple in Jerusalem. Paul — the man chiefly responsible for having “turned the world upside down”.[i]

All over Asia, Paul has taught that Jesus Christ is the decisive factor in a believer’s rela ­tionship with God — rather than the Law. All over Asia, Paul has taught that God is now rescuing both Gentiles and Jews from this pres ­ent evil age.[ii] Unavoidably, therefore, he has introduced, everywhere, a separation of Christ ­ianity from mainstream Judaism.[iii]

Paul’s calling was to take the gospel “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek”.[iv] There ­fore, in keeping with this, on his missionary travels he routinely entered the local synagogues first. Many thousands of Jews received and wel ­comed his message[v]– yet there was often det ­ermined opposition. Paul and his companions were vigorously, sometimes violently, rejected across Asia.[vi]

Paul himself writes that he found himself in danger in the city, in danger in the country. Frequently he was imprisoned, fre ­quently flog ­ged. Five times he received, from the Jews, the forty lashes less one. Three times he was beaten with rods. Once he was stoned and left for dead.[vii] His enemies claimed that he was “a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world.”[viii]

Now, finally, after an absence of several years — despised, notorious among Jews across Asia — Paul returned on his last visit to Jeru ­sa ­lem.

We read in the Scriptures that he was warmly received by the “the brethren”,[ix] and shared with them “the things that God had done among the Gentiles” — the news of which was greeted with praise to God.[x]

THE CAPTURE OF PAUL

The book of Acts describes some of the events of the following days. There is no need to detail them here.

The critical hinge occurs about seven days into Paul’s visit to the city. It seems like any other day in the temple — when sud ­denly, some Jews from Asia recognize Paul in the temple courts.[xi]

Holy One of Israel! It is Paul! In the tem ­ple!

They shout: “Men of Israel, help! Help!”[xii]

The whole city is electrified. Paul! In the temple!

Paul is seized and dragged across the tem ­ple court, and the great wooden doors grind to a close behind him. The Roman com ­mander, with officers and soldiers, runs down to the crowd. Paul is beaten, pummeled by the crowd. The officers arrest him and bind him with two chains, then remove him to the Roman army barracks nearby.[xiii]

After a brief exchange with the Rom ­an commander, Paul is permitted to address the Jews — we shall pass over this tumultuous epi ­sode for now — then he is held overnight at the Roman army barracks.[xiv]

The next morning, on the orders of the Roman commander, the chief priests and the Sanhedrin gather together — the great assembly of the Jews which may well, at that time, have wielded power over life and death.[xv] The com ­mander himself escorts Paul to the assembly, and delivers him to stand before them.

Paul looks openly into the faces of the Sanhedrin, and he says: “Brethren, I have lived before God in all good con ­science up to this day.”[xvi]

TACTICAL APPROACH

Paul knew, of course, that he was to stand trial before the Sanhedrin. He knew that he would be called upon to testify in his defense. There would seem no doubt that he devoted careful thought and fervent prayer to what he was to say.

What might have run through his mind?

Fortunately, we have some clues from the situation itself — most importantly, the advice which Paul received from the local Church, and the defense which he actually embarked upon before the Sanhedrin.

We know that Paul was in no mind for confrontation with the Jews. On his arrival in Jerusalem, he immediately acceded to the sug ­gestion of James and the elders that he undergo purification rites at the temple, to prove his sub ­mission to the Law.[xvii]

Jerusalem was now foreign territory to Paul[xviii] — dangerous territory. Unlike his mission field in Asia, this city was under the rigorous control of the Sanhedrin. This was the heart of the beast, and he needed to submit to the advice of the local brethren.

It might well have crossed his mind to turn this into an opportunity for witness. Yet the Sanhedrin would surely have been hostile from the start. Besides, Paul had the interests of the local Church on his shoulders. He dared not place the Jerusalem Christians in jeopardy by engaging in aggressive witness, and infuri ­at ­ing a body at whose mercy they lay.

Not only this, but it is clear that Paul con ­sidered that the Sanhedrin was beyond redemp ­tion. In his own words, their eyes did not see, their ears did not hear.[xix] “Their minds were blind ­ ­ed.”[xx] They were unlikely to listen under any circumstances. Paul surely recognized that, in wisdom, another line of approach was re ­quired.

Surely, when all had been taken into ac ­count, his most sensible approach would be based on claims of character — of conduct.

Character and conduct were, in principle, something over which any and every member of the Sanhedrin would be able to agree. If Paul were to declare unwavering commitment to the Law, this should place him beyond controversy at the start.

In fact, in a sense, this was the defense he had been preparing for in advance, although he surely hoped that he would never need to use it.

On the advice of James and the elders, Paul had made a public display of legalistic righteousness. He took pre-emptive action through purification rites at the temple. This, said James and the elders, would ensure that “all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you” [xxi] — namely, that Paul despised the Law of Moses.

Paul’s best approach seemed confirmed. His defense should rest on his commitment to the Law.

ABOVE REPROACH

Let us pause for a moment. What did Paul mean when he said that he had lived before God in all good conscience?

In Paul’s time, the moral Law con ­tain ­ed codes of conduct which governed every aspect of the life of the Jews — both general principles and specific ap ­pli ­ ­cation. Its most famous em ­bodi ­ ­ment lay in the Ten Commandments.

Running parallel with this, the ritual Law set out the terms of Israel’s cove ­nant with God, which in ­cluded the detailed pres ­criptions of the sac ­ri ­fi ­cial system. The ritual Law, in the New Testa ­ment, is considered to have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

In Paul’s own words, the conscience is that part of a per ­son which either “accuses or excuses”. Specifically, it convicts one of “the re ­quirements of the Law”.[xxii] Since this is a law which he says even the Gentiles may know “by nature”,[xxiii] he clearly has to be referring to the moral Law.

Therefore when Paul speaks of having liv ­ed in all good conscience, he means in the first instance that he has obey ­ed the moral Law. He has claims to good cha ­rac ­ter and conduct.

However, we know that Paul further em ­pha ­sized that, “for conscience sake”, one should not offend those for whom the ritual Law was still binding.[xxiv] While it is clear that he consi ­der ­ed himself to be free from the ritual Law in prin ­ciple,[xxv] he continued to hon ­or it, so as to “please all men in all things … that they may be sav ­ed.”[xxvi]

The answer to the original question is there ­fore twofold.

When Paul spoke of a good conscience, he clearly in ­tended to convey his obedience to the moral Law. His conscience, ac ­cor ­d ­ing to the famous com ­ment ­ator Matthew Hen ­ry, “put a difference bet ­ween good and evil”.[xxvii]

At the same time, however, Paul sought not to of ­fend the conscience of others through disregard for the ritual Law. Presumably it was partly with this in mind that he under ­went ritual purifi ­cation at the temple.

EVASIVE MANEUVER

Thus Paul looks across the assembled Sanhedrin, and he begins: “Brethren, I have lived before God in all good con ­science up to this day.”

The reaction, however, is startling — chilling! The High Priest is outraged. Paul? A man who has lived in all good conscience?

“Strike him!” he shouts, “Strike him on the mouth!”[xxviii]

Paul recognizes instantly, in the High Priest’s reaction, the direction that this hearing is taking. The Sanhedrin is primed to issues of conscience — of behavior! This will not be about faith at all! His best defense has become their first line of attack!

So this is where they are going! White ­washed tombs![xxix] Legalists![xxx]

All these years, Paul has resisted this wretched, calculating mindset of the Pharisees. He is dead to that! Dead![xxxi] He has lived not by the letter, but by the life-giving Holy Spirit![xxxii]

They dare to think they will accuse him of lapses of behavior — he who is washed, who is sanctified, who is justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of his God![xxxiii] In Christ Jesus he has redemption through His blood — the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace![xxxiv]

Paul recognizes — cleverly, deftly — des ­pe ­rately — that he needs to “swing” the Sanhedrin. No, they dare not get at his character. They dare not access his past sin!

There seems an obvious way to turn the Council aside.

Deep religious tensions simmer among the Pharisees and the Sadducees — the two major parties of the day. The Pharisees believe in the resurrection of the dead, while the Sadducees strenuously reject this.[xxxv] The situation has been the talk of the nation — a veritable tinderbox.

Paul cries out: “Brethren, I am a Phari ­see! A son of Pharisees! I am on trial with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead!”[xxxvi]

There is an uproar.

It works! A ferocious dispute breaks out across the floor. Soon it turns to violence. The Roman commander or ­ders the troops to seize Paul and to bring him back into the barracks.[xxxvii]

Too late, the Sanhedrin realizes Paul’s ruse. They seek to summon him again, to “det ­er ­mine his case more accurately”, but they do not succeed.[xxxviii] The Romans transfer Paul, for his safety, from Jerusalem to Caesarea.[xxxix]

THE SANHEDRIN’S PLAN

Let us pause once more — this time to consider the options that lay before the San ­he ­drin as they contemplated the trial of Paul — Paul, the Big Fish.

The Romans had called a snap trial, and the members of the Sanhedrin had little time to prepare.

Their core concern was that, all across Asia, Paul had been teaching the Jews to turn away from Moses. He had been advising them not to cir ­cumcise their children, or to observe the cust ­oms of their fathers.[xl] Or so they thought.

Of course, this was not true.[xli] At least, it was a half-truth. Rather, Paul had permitted the Jews to lay aside their customs, insofar as they were now dead to the Law through the Body of Christ.[xlii]

Although Paul’s teachings might naturally have led to the abandonment of the cere ­monial Law,[xliii] there was no reason to suppose that Paul had ever advised this.

The Sanhedrin could by all means put Paul on trial for claims that he had given Jesus Christ precedence over the Law. Yet very close to this lay his belief in the resurrection of Christ. By taking this approach, they would surely find themselves a mere step away from in ­ternal dis ­putes over the resurrection of the dead.

The resurrection of the dead was the cen ­terpiece of Paul’s gospel — which in turn was centered in his belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul had said: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins[xliv] … He was raised from the dead. He is at the right hand of God, and intercedes for us.”[xlv]

Surely, the Sanhedrin was fully aware of Paul’s belief in the resurrection. The Christian gospel was a teaching most familiar to them by now.

It was just such issues which they needed to avoid. They were surely aware that, if they should enter such territory, it could potentially tear the Sanhedrin apart. The battle could be lost before it was engaged.

On the other hand, the Sanhedrin might have considered putting Paul on trial for being a des ­piser of the Law of Moses.[xlvi] This is precisely what gave the local Church such cause for con ­cern on his arrival in Jerusalem.

Yet this, too, might not yield an open and shut case. For a week now, Paul had been meti ­culously and publicly carrying out the require ­ments of the Law. Besides, he had written proof of this, which he had lodged with the temple au ­thorities.[xlvii]

Surely, neither of these options looked too inviting to the Sanhedrin. Either could fail.

Supposing, however, that a fault could be found with Paul which had neither to do with his belief in the resurrection, nor with his claims to legalistic righteousness?

UNCLEANNESS

For a Jew, there were essentially two reas ­ons why one might be arrested and accused of desecrating the holy temple. Both had to do with ritual uncleanness, or impurity.

One such form of impurity was temporary — assuming that one would undergo purification rites. The reasons for such impurity were di ­v ­erse, and had to do with the ritual Law. For instance, one might have touched a carcass, or an unclean animal. A woman was impure after having given birth, and there were sexual im ­purities of various kinds.[xlviii]

In all such cases, one could be ritually cleansed — if one would submit to the ritual Law, of course.[xlix]

Frequently, there was a period of sepa ­ra ­tion, whether short or long — and frequently an expiatory sacrifice was made at the temple.

There was, however, a second form of im ­purity that could not be cleansed.

There was no cleansing for a disease that would not heal.

While the Bible does not state the matter quite as directly and brutally as this — after all, healing is possible, since nothing is too hard for the Lord[l] — there is no doubt that this is dread ­fully and tragically implied. Some will forever be unclean.

Various diseases are listed in the Scrip ­tures as rendering a person unclean — among them leprosy, bodily discharge,[li] open sores, or diseases “in the skin of the flesh”.[lii] Some of these diseases would ultimately heal, some would not.

It is important to note that, in most cases, such diseases were not viewed as being self-in ­flicted. While the Scriptures sometimes attri ­b ­ute disease to sin in the life of the diseased, this is by no means systematic. Job is an example of a man who was diseased despite his being “blameless and upright” in the sight of God.[liii]

Barring isolated exceptions,[liv] it would seem that only in one case do the Scriptures routinely make a direct causal link between sickness and personal behavior. This is in the case of forni ­ca ­tion.

FORNICATION

Paul himself writes about the one sin which enters into the body itself: “Flee from sex ­ual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.”[lv]

This echoes an oft-repeated Old Testament theme. The temptress is a danger to one’s own body: “In the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death …”[lvi]

The Scriptures warn the sexually permis ­sive man: “A wound … shall he get … a dart [shall] strike through his liver.”[lvii]

Not all sins of fornication had fatal conse ­quences, of course — yet many could leave a person unclean for life. Many such diseases will have left a permanent mark “in the skin of the flesh”.

We shall, for now, pass over the phrase “in … the flesh”. This will become central to the ar ­gu ­ment of this book.

If such uncleanness were to be found on a person, they were ceremonially unclean. There was no cleansing for as long as the disease per ­sist ­ed. Further, no one who was thus ceremoni ­ally unclean was permitted to enter the temple courts. In fact, such a person was to be “cut off from Israel”.[lviii] If he ever should enter the temple, he would defile it.[lix]

“Who can bring a clean thing out of an un ­clean?” asked Job. “Not one.”[lx]

One wonders whether Paul might have had such uncleanness in mind when he put forward a radical new gospel: “There is nothing unclean of itself.”[lxi]

The Christian was released from the un ­re ­mitting burden of such unclean ­ness.

[i] Acts 17:6 RSV.

[ii] Colossians 1:13 NIV.

[iii] Livingstone 2000:433.

[iv] Romans 1:16 AV.

[v] Acts 21:20.

[vi] 2 Timothy 3:11.

[vii] 2 Corinthians 11:23-25.

[viii] Acts 24:5 NIV.

[ix] Acts 21:17 RSV.

[x] Acts 21:20 RSV.

[xi] Acts 21:27.

[xii] Acts 21:28 RSV.

[xiii] Acts 21:32.

[xiv] Acts 22:24.

[xv] Encyclop ¦dia Britannica 2007d.

[xvi] Acts 23:1 RSV.

[xvii] Acts 21:26.

[xviii] Acts 22:21.

[xix] Romans 11:8.

[xx] 2 Corinthians 3:14 AV.

[xxi] Acts 21:24 RSV.

[xxii] Romans 2:15 NIV.

[xxiii] Romans 2:14.

[xxiv] 1 Corinthians 10:28 AV.

[xxv] Colossians 2:20-21.

[xxvi] 1 Corinthians 10:33 AV.

[xxvii] Henry 1961:1729.

[xxviii] Acts 23:2 RSV.

[xxix] Matthew 23:27 RSV.

[xxx] Romans 9:32.

[xxxi] Galatians 2:20.

[xxxii] 2 Corinthians 3:6.

[xxxiii] 1 Corinthians 6:11 AV.

[xxxiv] Ephesians 1:7 NIV.

[xxxv] Acts 23:8.

[xxxvi] Acts 23:7 RSV.

[xxxvii] Acts 23:10.

[xxxviii] Acts 23:14 RSV.

[xxxix] Acts 23:23.

[xl] Acts 21:21.

[xli] Acts 21:24.

[xlii] Romans 7:4.

[xliii] Dummelow 1912:848.

[xliv] 1 Corinthians 15:17 RSV.

[xlv] Romans 8:34 RSV.

[xlvi] Acts 21:21.

[xlvii] Acts 21:26.

[xlviii] Rylaarsdam 2007.

[xlix] Numbers 19:20.

[l] Genesis 18:14.

[li] Leviticus 15:2 RSV.

[lii] Leviticus 13:3 AV.

[liii] Job 1:1 RSV.

[liv] Proverbs 23:29-32.

[lv] 1 Corinthians 6:18 NIV.

[lvi] Proverbs 5:4-5 RSV.

[lvii] Proverbs 6:33, 7:23 AV.

[lviii] Numbers 19:13 RSV.

[lix] Numbers 19:20 RSV.

[lx] Job 14:4 AV.

[lxi] Romans 14:4 AV.