To be clear, I’m not arguing against your thesis (in fact, I’m not arguing at all). I’m very interested in your presentation of Christ in the role of Apostle and so I want the ground to be clear so I can better see the structure of what you’re saying.
St. Paul makes it clear that he was taught by Jesus directly: “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12). (I think this is what you were suggesting by mentioning his desert experience.) With that in mind, I don’t feel the need to rely on his relationship with the Law to fill any gaps there.
I’m primarily interested in exploring what Christ’s apostolic ministry actually was. It’s not very comfortable but we must recognize that, despite all the teaching and example, the disciples were largely left in the cold even at the end of their “hands-on” time with Jesus, to the point that He finally says to them “at least believe in the works themselves.” And, following this in John 16 they say, “See, now you are speaking plainly... Now we are sure that you know all things and and have no need that anyone should question you.” (What else can he say but, “Do you now believe?”)
Interestingly, we never hear anything like this in St. Paul’s experience.
I bring up the point about the Law only to suggest that St. Paul also had a phase of his relationship with God in which his understanding of the messiah was veiled (and so he learned of Christ through the Law and Prophets without understanding the full truth of God incarnate, crucified, resurrected, and ascended) and after Christ accomplished these things, he was shown the whole truth (as were the other apostles) through his experience on the road to Damascus and afterward in the desert. St. Paul is certainly a unique case, but he was, in his own way, prepared by God like the others, after a similar pattern, for his apostolic office.
It seems that Paul’s time in the desert, during which he was taught by Christ, is parallel to the disciples’ being taught for 40 days (a number interestingly connected to the desert/wilderness) after Christ’s resurrection: “To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). In both cases it seems that Christ teaches them the fullness of the truth by completing the knowledge of Him they had acquired beforehand in a veiled form.
Anyway, I just point these things out because there does seem to be a similar pattern, although all the details perhaps aren’t perfectly aligned.
The disciples’ hands-on time was certainly a period of ignorance and partial knowledge, but I think their experiences with Christ were planted like seeds in them, and sprouted when the “Sun rose” at the resurrection (and He taught them further). And then after He sent the Spirit at Pentecost, this obviously marked yet another phase in their progression.
So those are some general, albeit scattered, thoughts on the matter. I really appreciate the engagement. There’s certainly a lot more to unpack and explore, and it’s clear to me that my article was merely an initial iteration of my thinking on this.
“Because of the considerable time spent with Him, the apostles were able to come genuinely to know Him and to appropriate His teaching in its fullness...”
Is this true? In my simple reading, I see something else as exemplified in Christ’s engagement with Phillip:
“Have I been with you for so long a time, and you do not know Me yet, Philip, nor recognize clearly who I am?”
And, following this (in John’s account):
“the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things.”
This isn’t about picking on details but seems to be central to the point you are generally making regarding Christ’s role in His earthly ministry.
Appreciate your thoughts. Your point is a good one, and I receive it! I suppose it would help if I clarified. It's not that I'm intending to suggest that the disciples who would eventually become His apostles after His resurrection and ascension understood who He was to a full extent during His earthly ministry itself, but rather that the considerable time they spent with Him during His earthly ministry sowed the seeds necessary for them to be able to "put the pieces together" later, after His resurrection, and contextualize their entire experience with Him as His full-time disciples. Had they not spent the time with Him earlier, they wouldn't be in the position after His resurrection for all those dots to be connected the way they were. This is part of what I think prepared the twelve specifically to execute their apostolic ministry, as opposed to those who spent some, but not a lot, of time with Christ during His earthly ministry.
It sounds like you’re drawing an exact cause and effect relationship here. If you are, how do we factor in Judas on one hand and on the other, St. Paul who arguably had the greatest apostolic ministry yet only knew Christ after His ascension?
Good questions. So I'm certainly not arguing that "the Twelve" who were Christ's full-time disciples did not have free will; they still needed to play their part, so to speak, in the process of being prepared to be Apostles after Christ's ascension. For Judas, he chose to betray Christ and end his own life, and so opted out of what Christ was offering him. I don't think that God's foreknowledge of Judas' betrayal nullifies Judas' genuine freedom to accept or reject what Christ offered him. After Judas defected, the other disciples cast lots and chose an apostle to replace him (and one of the criteria was the person had to have been a witness from the beginning). Also St. Peter himself denied Christ toward the end, and later repented, for example.
St. Paul is a bit of a trickier case, since, as you mentioned, he was not one of Christ's disciples along with the twelve. However, he was a Pharisee and knew the Law extremely well, and since I believe Christ is God and was involved in the giving of the Law to Moses in the Old Testament, the Law itself is a means of getting to know Christ, although in a veiled form. Paul's knowledge of the Law was then transformed after he had the encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus (and subsequently spent a chunk of time out in the desert of Arabia contemplating these things), and played a similar role to the other apostles' experience with the resurrected Christ, who perfected their understanding of the things they learned and knew in an incomplete and imperfect way during their time with him on earth. I suppose I'm trying to say God used Paul's relationship with the Law as a similar kind of preparatory phase that laid the groundwork for his later realization of who Christ really was in His fullness, which he came to know after the encounter on the road to Damascus and his subsequent time in the desert (and even afterward) cultivating his relationship with the risen/ascended Christ.
To be clear, I’m not arguing against your thesis (in fact, I’m not arguing at all). I’m very interested in your presentation of Christ in the role of Apostle and so I want the ground to be clear so I can better see the structure of what you’re saying.
St. Paul makes it clear that he was taught by Jesus directly: “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12). (I think this is what you were suggesting by mentioning his desert experience.) With that in mind, I don’t feel the need to rely on his relationship with the Law to fill any gaps there.
I’m primarily interested in exploring what Christ’s apostolic ministry actually was. It’s not very comfortable but we must recognize that, despite all the teaching and example, the disciples were largely left in the cold even at the end of their “hands-on” time with Jesus, to the point that He finally says to them “at least believe in the works themselves.” And, following this in John 16 they say, “See, now you are speaking plainly... Now we are sure that you know all things and and have no need that anyone should question you.” (What else can he say but, “Do you now believe?”)
Interestingly, we never hear anything like this in St. Paul’s experience.
Great thoughts!
I bring up the point about the Law only to suggest that St. Paul also had a phase of his relationship with God in which his understanding of the messiah was veiled (and so he learned of Christ through the Law and Prophets without understanding the full truth of God incarnate, crucified, resurrected, and ascended) and after Christ accomplished these things, he was shown the whole truth (as were the other apostles) through his experience on the road to Damascus and afterward in the desert. St. Paul is certainly a unique case, but he was, in his own way, prepared by God like the others, after a similar pattern, for his apostolic office.
It seems that Paul’s time in the desert, during which he was taught by Christ, is parallel to the disciples’ being taught for 40 days (a number interestingly connected to the desert/wilderness) after Christ’s resurrection: “To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). In both cases it seems that Christ teaches them the fullness of the truth by completing the knowledge of Him they had acquired beforehand in a veiled form.
Anyway, I just point these things out because there does seem to be a similar pattern, although all the details perhaps aren’t perfectly aligned.
The disciples’ hands-on time was certainly a period of ignorance and partial knowledge, but I think their experiences with Christ were planted like seeds in them, and sprouted when the “Sun rose” at the resurrection (and He taught them further). And then after He sent the Spirit at Pentecost, this obviously marked yet another phase in their progression.
So those are some general, albeit scattered, thoughts on the matter. I really appreciate the engagement. There’s certainly a lot more to unpack and explore, and it’s clear to me that my article was merely an initial iteration of my thinking on this.
Thank you for this.
You wrote:
“Because of the considerable time spent with Him, the apostles were able to come genuinely to know Him and to appropriate His teaching in its fullness...”
Is this true? In my simple reading, I see something else as exemplified in Christ’s engagement with Phillip:
“Have I been with you for so long a time, and you do not know Me yet, Philip, nor recognize clearly who I am?”
And, following this (in John’s account):
“the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things.”
This isn’t about picking on details but seems to be central to the point you are generally making regarding Christ’s role in His earthly ministry.
Appreciate your thoughts. Your point is a good one, and I receive it! I suppose it would help if I clarified. It's not that I'm intending to suggest that the disciples who would eventually become His apostles after His resurrection and ascension understood who He was to a full extent during His earthly ministry itself, but rather that the considerable time they spent with Him during His earthly ministry sowed the seeds necessary for them to be able to "put the pieces together" later, after His resurrection, and contextualize their entire experience with Him as His full-time disciples. Had they not spent the time with Him earlier, they wouldn't be in the position after His resurrection for all those dots to be connected the way they were. This is part of what I think prepared the twelve specifically to execute their apostolic ministry, as opposed to those who spent some, but not a lot, of time with Christ during His earthly ministry.
It sounds like you’re drawing an exact cause and effect relationship here. If you are, how do we factor in Judas on one hand and on the other, St. Paul who arguably had the greatest apostolic ministry yet only knew Christ after His ascension?
Good questions. So I'm certainly not arguing that "the Twelve" who were Christ's full-time disciples did not have free will; they still needed to play their part, so to speak, in the process of being prepared to be Apostles after Christ's ascension. For Judas, he chose to betray Christ and end his own life, and so opted out of what Christ was offering him. I don't think that God's foreknowledge of Judas' betrayal nullifies Judas' genuine freedom to accept or reject what Christ offered him. After Judas defected, the other disciples cast lots and chose an apostle to replace him (and one of the criteria was the person had to have been a witness from the beginning). Also St. Peter himself denied Christ toward the end, and later repented, for example.
St. Paul is a bit of a trickier case, since, as you mentioned, he was not one of Christ's disciples along with the twelve. However, he was a Pharisee and knew the Law extremely well, and since I believe Christ is God and was involved in the giving of the Law to Moses in the Old Testament, the Law itself is a means of getting to know Christ, although in a veiled form. Paul's knowledge of the Law was then transformed after he had the encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus (and subsequently spent a chunk of time out in the desert of Arabia contemplating these things), and played a similar role to the other apostles' experience with the resurrected Christ, who perfected their understanding of the things they learned and knew in an incomplete and imperfect way during their time with him on earth. I suppose I'm trying to say God used Paul's relationship with the Law as a similar kind of preparatory phase that laid the groundwork for his later realization of who Christ really was in His fullness, which he came to know after the encounter on the road to Damascus and his subsequent time in the desert (and even afterward) cultivating his relationship with the risen/ascended Christ.