Concerning Paul...

[JRosemary]

Beware! Here follow some random thoughts about Paul :shocked:

Concerning Paul

Even though I don’t consider myself a Christian—I lean toward the Jewish side of my family—I always find myself captivated by Paul’s letters. It’s astonishing to read his words and hear him wrestle with some of the same issues that Jews confront today: who is and is not a Jew? What does a gentile need to do to become part of the people Israel? And what about the law—are the laws of kashrut (kosher laws) and circumcision, for example, still valid or desirable?

Paul poses other questions than these, of course. And his answers may take him beyond Judaism. But he still comes across as a quintessentially Jewish figure.

Daniel Boyarin, a Talmudic scholar, put the matter quite well in his book A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity:

“Paul has left us an extremely precious document for Jewish studies, the spiritual autobiography of a first-century Jew. There is hardly another document, save parts of Josephus and Philo, which even comes close to fitting such a description.”

When I read Paul, I tend to focus on the seven letters that just about everyone agrees he wrote: First Thessalonians, Galatians, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. I should mention, though, that Second Corinthians and Philippians may be multiple letters sewn together—and a few scholars are now trying to discredit Philippians. (Since I like Philippians so much I don’t pay them any mind!)

Of course, there are problems with reading someone who lived in such a distant time. The language barrier is one. My Koine Greek is less than marvelous, so I usually read the epistles in English. That’s a shame, because Paul is even more powerful in his native tongue. Moreover, some of the terms he uses—like the term we usually translate as ‘justifies’—don’t have precise equivalents in English.

And it’s often hard to figure out the context of his letters. I know when I read his words that I’m hearing only one half of the debate, argument or teachings. I never quite know what Paul’s audience said, did or asked to elicit each letter in the first place.

But for all that, his letters still enthrall me and get me thinking.

Sometimes I just stand back and admire his words, like when I’m reading the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians. And sometimes I roll my eyes at him for taking things to extremes.

Ok, I say to him. I understand—to some extent—why you didn’t want gentile brothers running out and getting circumcised. But the men who thought that these gentiles should become observant Jews had a point too. There was no need to tell them to go castrate themselves! (Galatians 5:12)

Sometimes I just respectfully nod and move on, such as when he insists that “[God] was pleased to reveal his son in me that I might preach him among the gentiles…” (Galatians 1:16) I’m not about to argue with him about his religious experience.

And sometimes he discusses things that are totally outside my own experience—speaking in tongues, for example. Most of the Christians in my family are Catholics, and, uh, that particular charism isn’t big with them.

One thing I don’t do is try to figure out precisely how he viewed Christ. It’s not my issue. Besides, Paul’s such a brilliant, multi-faceted theologian that he makes it impossible to pin him down on the subject. Hence Christians with a very high or a very low Christology can both look to him for support.

Sooner or later I end up tackling Romans. That’s where Paul grapples with the issue of God’s eternal covenant with Israel, after all. And it’s where he insists that “God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.” (Romans 11:2) That part sounds good, although I don’t like most of what he says concerning the present role of his native Judaism.

But I appreciate his struggles with the topic all the same—and that’s what keeps me coming back

[Boromir]

[JRosemary]

Hi Karen!

I read a book called What St. Paul Really Said by Wright. I liked it, but I don't refer back to it often. That's mainly because he spends time worrying about things like whether or not Paul went beyond monotheism in his Christology. That's an important question to Christians, but not to me.

That said, Wright has an excellent bibliograhy and he points his readers to some brilliant Pauline scholars. He includes E. P. Sanders, who wrote Paul, A very Short Introduction; Paul the Law and the Jewish People; and Paul and Palestininian Judaism. These books are absolutely crucial to understanding Paul in his Jewish context.

Sanders, I should mention, revolutionized Pauline studies. He followed in the footsteps of his own teacher (W. B. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism)) and then went even further. Here's how Wright explains Sanders position:

"His major point, to which all else is subservient, can be quite simply stated. Judaism in Paul's day was not, as has regularly been supposed, a religion of legalistic works-righteousness. If we imagine that it was, and that Paul was attacking it as it was, we will do great violence to it and to him. Most Protestant exegetes had read Paul and Judaism as if Judaism was a form of the old heresy Pelagianism, according to which humans must pull themselves up by their moral bootstraps and thereby earn justification, righteousness and salvation. No, said Sanders. Keeping the law within Judaism always functioned within a convental scheme. God took the initiative, when he made a covenant with Judaism; God's grace thus preceeds everything that people (specifically, Jews) do in response. The Jew keeps the law out of gratitude, as the proper response to grace--not, in other words, in order to get into the covenant people, but to stay in. Being 'in' in the first place was God's gift. This scheme Sanders famously labeled as 'covenantal nomism' (from the Greek nomos, law.) Keeping the Jewish law was the human response to God's covenantal initiative."

Wright goes on to say that, "Sanders thus, at a stroke, cut the ground from under the majority reading of Paul, especially in mainline Protestantism. Judaism, he insisted, was and is a perfectly valid and proper form of religion."

Lastly, Wright says, "In Germany, many Pauline scholars regard Sanders simply as a dangerous menace who doesn't know what he's talking about. He nevertheless dominates the landscape, and, until a major refutation of his central thesis is produced, honesty compels one to do business with him. I do not myself believe such a refutation can or will be offered; serious modifications are required, but I regard his basic point as established."

Wright read and liked the book I mention: A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity by Daniel Boyarin. This really is an excellent book. Boyarin engages Paul across the centuries as one Jew wrestling with another Jew over issues that are crucial to them both.

Wright mentions also Wayne A. Meeks's The First Urban Christians, Albert Schweitzer's The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle and Krister Stendahl's Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, all of which I like very much.

I think, however, that Stendahl is so taken with the dialogue between Judaism and Christianity that he whitewashes Paul's view of Judaism's present role. Sanders remains more clear headed on that subject. I'll quote him in full as he tackles Romans in Paul, the Law and the Jewish People:

"The simplest reading of 11:13-36 seems to be this: the only way to enter the body of those who will be saved is by faith in Christ; the mission to the gentiles will lead to the salvation of 'all Israel' (that is, 'their fullness;' thus at the eschaton God's entire plan will be fulfilled and the full number of both Jews and Gentiles will be saved, and saved on the same basis; the Gentiles and the Jews are inextricably intertwined--Jewish disobedience leads to Gentile salvation, which in turn leads to Jewish salvation. It is God's intent to have mercy on all, but mercy has faith as it's condition."

Sanders adds wryly, "It perhaps goes without saying (though I shall nonetheless make the comment) that Paul's view does not provide an adequate basis for a Jewish-Christian dialogue."

[JRosemary]

How did this happen? My reply to Karen ended up above her question, lol.

Boromir, thanks for chiming in. Yes, when Paul explained to the Galatians that God had reavealed his son in him so that he could proclaim him to the gentiles, he was speaking to a very specific audience--an audience that had just listened to some harsh criticism of Paul. Here's my take on that in a fictional book I wrote called Shadowed Glass:

*

Caroline turned her attention back to his letter [Galatians]. It was rough going, trying to translate it without a Liddell-Scott by her side. But she persevered and flattered herself that she understood much of what she read.

It was a heated letter: Paul must have been in a rage when he dictated it. Caro could picture him pacing back and forth, alternately shouting at the Galatians and pleading with them.

To begin with, some other missionaries had come to the Galatians and questioned his credentials. They probably said something like, ‘Paul is not a true apostle. He never knew Jesus; his handed-down gospel relies on information from men like James, Jesus’s own brother, or Cephas, his disciple’. Cephas, she guessed, was another name for Peter.

Meanwhile Paul insisted that his gospel was from God, not men:

“But when God—who had appointed me from my mother’s womb and called me through his grace—was pleased to reveal his son in me so that I might proclaim him to the gentiles, I did not consult with flesh and blood, nor did I head for Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me.”

Paul claimed that his encounter with the risen Christ made him an apostle. His mission was not based on any human authority. And even though he eventually went to Jerusalem and stayed with Peter for a fortnight—this was some three years after his call—no one there added anything to his gospel.

But there was another issue at stake. The same missionaries who disputed Paul’s apostleship also told the Galatians that, in addition to trusting Christ, they should be circumcised.

Paul was furious. In his mind trust in Christ destroyed the distinctions between Jew and Greek. He thought that circumcision and all the other Jewish observances would sever the Galatians from Christ. If these missionaries were so keen on circumcision, he wrote, they could go ahead and castrate themselves.

It was hard to figure where James and Peter fit into this. Judging from Paul’s letter, they were both still observant Jews. And Paul had no problem with that, so long as they didn’t force circumcision on his gentile converts. The three of them came to an agreement, but afterwards Paul and Peter clashed in Antioch. Their fight had something to do with food and fellowship between Jewish and gentile Christians. The fallout was vicious enough to split friends and partners.

Caroline closed her eyes and rubbed her head. Paul’s writing was powerful, but it was deep and difficult, especially for someone whose Greek left much to be desired.

*

Ok, back to your comments. You described Paul's postition in Romans quite well, but I strenuously object to it!

Now, of course Paul is free to criticize Judaism--that's what Jews do, after all. As the saying goes, as soon as you put two Jews together you get three opinions.

As far as Romans goes, my problem with Paul is that, as you pointed out, he believes that Jews must eventually come to faith in Christ. With this I emphatically disagree! I'll re-quote E. P. Sanders here, because I think he clearly states Paul's position:

"The simplest reading of 11:13-36 seems to be this: the only way to enter the body of those who will be saved is by faith in Christ; the mission to the gentiles will lead to the salvation of 'all Israel' (that is, 'their fullness;' thus at the eschaton God's entire plan will be fulfilled and the full number of both Jews and Gentiles will be saved, and saved on the same basis; the Gentiles and the Jews are inextricably intertwined--Jewish disobedience leads to Gentile salvation, which in turn leads to Jewish salvation. It is God's intent to have mercy on all, but mercy has faith as it's condition."

Sanders adds wryly, "It perhaps goes without saying (though I shall nonetheless make the comment) that Paul's view does not provide an adequate basis for a Jewish-Christian dialogue."

Make no mistake--I don't care if Paul keeps kosher, doesn't keep kosher, circumcises his gentile converts or doesn't circumcise them. In fact, his opinions on those matters don't seem so shocking anymore. Lots of Reform Jews don't bother with the laws of kashrut, after all, and don't insist that male converts get circumcised.

I also don't care if he believes that Jesus Christ was in some sense divine. How far that belief takes him (and his gentile converts) out of the realm of Judaism is an issue that Jewish and Christian scholars can debate.

But his conviction that Jews must eventually come to faith in Christ is, I believe, completely wrong. I believe that God's covenant with Israel is eternal and that Judaism is valid today just as it was two thousand years ago. I do not believe Judaism was merely a 'staging ground,' so to speak, for the advent of Christianity.

Nor do I believe that Judaism is the only path that God provides for humankind--after all, the Talmud states that the righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come. I believe that God's hand is at work in all the great religions that endorse ethical conduct and spur us to heal the world.

Paul has a powerful message for those who respond to the figure of Christ. I'm grateful for his vision and I'm glad that Christianity is alive and well in the world.

But I wish he hadn't assumed that his message would be binding on everyone. I don't want a world where no one lights the Shabbat candles, or greets Shabbat as a queen while singing the Leka Dodi, or proclaims the Sh'ma in synagogue.

By the same token, I don't want a world where no one bows before Vishnu or where no one follows the eight-fold path of Buddha. Paul's vision of all humanity united in the body of Christ, however well-intentioned, seems to me a nightmare.

[JRosemary]

Sigh...my posts keep ending up in the wrong order! Boromir, see above for my response to you

[Karen]

Hi JR,

Great to read your thoughts. Have you read any of NT Wright's work on Paul, particularly Paul: In Fresh Perspective? His expertise as a historian is 1st c. Judaism, and his particular area of interest as a theologian is Paul. I find his work both fascinating and inspiring.

[Zeuxis]

[Boromir]

[JRosemary]

[Boromir]