Javascript required
Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Review on the Book Paul a Jew Not a Christian

Johann D. Kim's review of "Paul Was Not A Christian: The Original Message of A Misunderstood Campaigner." by David deSilva.

Book: Paul Was Not A Christian

Pamela Eisenbaum. Paul Was Non a Christian: The Original Bulletin of a Misunderstood Campaigner. New York: HarperOne, 2009.  xi+318 pp.  $24.99 hardcover.  ISBN 13: 978-0060722913.

The thesis of the book is that Paul should be understood as a Jew, not as a Christian, in lodge for anyone to understand him correctly. Paul had no intention to found a new organized religion in opposition to Judaism because he was not converted from one religion to another, namely from Judaism to Christianity, a bad 1 to a good one. Eisenbaum argues that Paul remained Jewish, even after his Damascus experience, in fact he was thoroughly Jewish all his life "ethnically, culturally, religiously, morally, and theologically" (9).

Then, where did Christian misunderstanding of Paul originate?  Eisenbaum points to the volume of Acts as the main culprit because the volume portrays Paul's feel of encountering Christ as a conversion.  Eisenbaum seriously challenges the historical value of Acts equally a primary source for the study of Paul mainly because it does not bear well with Paul's ain letters: "the portrait of Paul that emerges from the narrative in Acts differs markedly from the image Paul projects of himself in his messages" (12).  The half-dozen disputed letters are also of no value for the study of Paul's identity considering of their historical dubiousness.  Even within the undisputed letters of Paul, there are difficulties to interpret Paul because of ambiguity and contradictions, which Eisenbaum illustrates with several verses. Eisenbaum insists that these problems arise mainly "due to the inconsistencies between the traditional image of Paul" and "what Paul actually says in his messages" (31).  In affiliate 3, Eisenbaum attempts to show how, in the Christian tradition, Jewish Paul became not only a Christian, but the Christian after his death.  Eisenbaum argues that the interpretive lens that the later Christian tradition came to apply to read Paul was none other than his conversion.  Withal, this image of Paul did not come from his letters just from other (later) sources.  This prototype was perpetuated past Augustine and Luther whose experiences happened resembled Paul's alleged conversion.  Therefore, "the introspective censor of the West" (Stendahl's famous phrase) became the framework that has guided the Christian reading of Paul over the centuries.

Eisenbaum proceeds to demonstrate that past attempts to read Paul as a Jew amongst modern Jewish interpreters of Paul was simply a reversal of the Augustinian-Lutheran reading; despite their attempts to take Paul'due south Jewish identity seriously.  The New Perspective reading of Paul, nevertheless, is a different story.  The NPP (New Perspective on Paul) reading shows that Paul did non abandon his Jewish roots by rejecting the Torah but remained a faithful Jew.  Since the Judaism of Paul's solar day was not a legalistic faith that required works-righteousness, Paul did not accept to get out Judaism afterward he was "called" by Christ to be the Campaigner to the Gentiles.  Withal, Eisenbaum is non satisfied with the NPP either considering many of its proponents keep to view Paul in terms of the Augustinian-Lutheran framework.  She pushes further to get beyond the NPP to see the real Paul.  She proposes a radical new paradigm for reading Paul.  At this juncture, she but hints at how radical this new paradigm is past proverb that the Torah is non applicable to Gentiles since Paul'south argument is based on the view that "God does non require the same things of all people at all times" (62).  This forms the basis for Eisenbaum's argument throughout the book.

In the next several capacity (5-9), Eisenbaum painstakingly shows that Paul was basically a covenantal theologian committed to the Torah, by demonstrating that Paul was in line with the Judaism of his day. With the help of E.P. Sanders, Eisenbaum argues that Jewish covenantal theology established that the Jews are already justified considering they are in the covenant ("participation in the covenant is salvation" [91]) and the Torah functioned not as an entrance requirement to the covenant only as a guide to remain in the covenant. Thus, the Torah was merely applicable to Israel, not to Gentiles who were outside the covenant. In affiliate 6, Eisenbaum insists that the traditional view that Jews were exclusive and hostile toward Gentiles was wrong and therefore, Paul'south outreach to Gentiles was not to be seen as a radical act. Chapter seven also argues that the traditional image of the Pharisees, who maintained the strictest interpretive rules for the Scriptures, is wrong because in reality they were flexible in terms of interpretation. Paul nonetheless shows many traits as a Pharisee in his exegesis and application of the Scriptures in his letters. The simply difference from a typical Pharisee that Eisenbaum tin detect is Paul'due south perception of the moving forrard "the apocalyptic clock" (149) considering of his experience with the risen Jesus. However, the experience Paul had did non change his theological cadre. He remained a typical Jew.

In chapters 10-13, Eisenbaum argues how Paul'due south radical Jewish monotheism has led him to his mission to the Gentiles as their apostle. Eisenbaum asserts that Paul'south object of faith is not Christ, but God:  Not christocentric only theocentric. Christ was never on the aforementioned level with God for Paul, Eisenbaum argues, because Paul was a monotheist. Paul's urgency comes from his understanding of the eschatological timeline equally a consequence of his encounter with the risen Christ. He received his commission to preach the gospel to the Gentiles who were in danger of imminent judgment. But Paul's commission is limited to Gentiles since Jews were already "in," because they were in the covenant. Paul's seemingly negative statements about the Torah should be understood in the context of his mission to the Gentiles who did non take to observe the Torah. In the urgency of the time, Paul came to realize that Gentiles needed a "brusk-cut" to the covenant of God to be included in the family unit of God. The expiry of Christ was merely for Gentiles just not for Jews because they already have the Torah. This statement is well illustrated past Eisenbaum's paraphrase of Rom 3:30: "Therefore God justifies Israel because of God's faithfulness to the covenant, and God besides justifies the Gentiles past ways of Jesus' faithfulness."

Finally, in chapter 14, Eisenbaum finishes the volume by naming her "radical new prototype" to read Paul as "two-ways salvation" every bit proposed by Krister Stendahl. With this scheme, Eisenbaum envisions a type of universal salvation where in that location is no need for "conversion" from any faith to another.

This is a well-written and edited book. The sentences were succinctly written and difficult concepts well explained and then that lay people can follow the argument of the book. Simply at the same time this feature makes the statement somewhat boring for scholars who could get impatient (e.chiliad., caption of subjective and objective genitives) to become to the centre of the argument. I have plant only 4 instances where certain scribal mistakes are made: on p. 165, "General speaking" should exist "More often than not speaking"; on p. 192 towards the bottom "subjective" should be "objective"; on p. 230, "prosopopeia" should be "prosopopoiia"; and on p. 234 in the third paragraph, ergou nomou should be erga nomou, and the second to the final paragraph, "ex ergon nomou" should exist "ex ergon nomou."

As far as the argument of the book is concerned, there are many aspects that I agree with. Just to name a few I would include the following.  That Paul should be read equally a Jew in a thorough way is something I cannot agree with more. In that location is no reason to deny his Jewish identity even afterwards his encounter with the risen Jesus.  He simply couldn't stop existence Jewish and he did non need to do so.  Jesus was a Jew and all his first disciples were Jews.  I hold with Eisenbaum that Paul's cocky-understanding as Apostle to the Gentiles stemmed from his commitment to Jewish monotheism, and that he understood his apostleship to "bring about the obedience of organized religion among all the Gentiles" (Rom 1:5).  Further, the phrase "the obedience of faith" should be read in terms of the Shema. I am persuaded past the NPP that the Judaism of Paul'south solar day was not a faith of works-righteousness just a religion of grace. I besides concur with Eisenbaum that the phrase pistis Christou should be translated as "the faithfulness of Christ."

At present I have some points of disagreement. First of all, it is difficult to concur with the "2-ways salvation" that Eisenbaum proposes. While Eisenbaum points out that Rom ii:12-13 poses neat difficulty for the traditional interpreters of Paul; she never discusses the second half of Rom 2, vv. 17-29, where Paul argues against Jews who possess the Torah merely disobey it. The rhetorical upshot of this section is and so devastating that Paul had to insert Rom 3:one-8 to reaffirm the advantage of the Jew.  This itself is but a prologue to Rom 9-xi. Also, what about 3:ix? ("… for we take already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the ability of sin") If Jews are already justified and saved because of Torah, how tin can Paul say this? Also in 3:twenty, where Paul says pasa sarx (all flesh) volition non be justified by the works of law, the expression certainly includes Jews. Again, in three:23, "all" sounds like including Jews likewise. Speaking of Romans iii, Eisenbaum's paraphrase of iii:thirty is quite capricious when she translates the Greek ek pisteos as "considering of God's faithfulness to the covenant" and and then dia tes pisteos "by means of Jesus' faithfulness." Where is the warrant that the commencement pistis should refer to God'due south and the 2nd Christ's? Isn't it reasonable to see the definite article in the second phrase referring to the first pistis? And so, information technology is reasonable to think that Paul talks most only 1 way to justify both Jews and Gentiles: through pistis. In iii:22, where Paul says "there is no distinction" information technology is more natural to read "no stardom" between Jews and Gentiles since "all" have sinned and autumn short of the glory of God (v.23).

Furthermore, Rom 9-xi is the discussion of the so-chosen Israelfrage that raised the fundamental question about the trustworthiness or faithfulness of God. The root crusade of it is of form Israel'due south rejection of Christ. If this is the problem that causes "swell sorrow and unceasing anguish" in Paul'south center, how can we say that Jews are safe and audio in the covenant and that they are already justified? Why does Paul then pray for their conservancy in 10:1? If Jews have a special fashion (Sonderweg) for their own salvation, why does Paul say that Peter was entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised (Gal ii:7)? Why do they demand the gospel? Paul argues that Israel stumbled and did not attain righteousness because she pursues it "not past faithfulness but equally if by works" (ouk ek pisteos all hos ex ergon). I interpret this phrase as "not based on Christ's faithfulness but on their indigenous privileges." Israel needs to pursue righteousness past the faithfulness of Christ also. Paul's argument in Rom xi:eleven-24 shows that he understands that Israel's unbelief is only temporary but they will eventually catch upward – (Rom 11:14) "in club to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them."

Concerning the pistis Christou interpretation, I already mentioned that I agree with Eisenbaum that the phrase should be translated as "the faithfulness of Christ." It does not mean, however, that Paul does not talk virtually one's need to "believe" in Christ. For example, in Gal 2:16, right after Paul says "a human being (anthropos) is non justified past works of the law except through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ," he adds, "and nosotros (hemeis) believed in Christ Jesus." Paul talks about both the faithfulness of Christ and "believing" in Christ in those verses where the expression pistis Christou occurs. Likewise, here in Gal ii:16 the "we" is the same "we" where Paul says "we ourselves are Jews by birth not Gentiles sinners" (2:15). Paul believed that Jews as well needed to put their trust in Christ for their conservancy. When Paul uses the phrase pistis Christou in his letters, he uses information technology to indicate what kind of Christ both Jews and Gentiles put their trust in. Information technology is the crucified Son of God who was willing to suffer and dice for their sins that they should have faith in. There is a narrative sub-structure in the expression which culminates in God'south raising him upwards from the dead.

Eisenbaum argues that the Trinitarian theology was a much subsequently development in the fourth century, and that Paul never perceived Jesus as God. Even confessing Jesus as Lord (kyrios) poses no problem because the term can be used of humans too every bit God; just every bit doxa can be used for God equally "glory" and at the same as "laurels" when used for a homo. In discussing Phil two:6-11, Eisenbaum argues that the high exaltation of Jesus in vv. 9-11 is not problematic because information technology was done for the glory of God. However, she does non discuss verse vi where Paul equates Jesus with God ("in the same course [morphe] of God… equality with God"). Along with Hurtado and others I meet the pre-real Christ here. Farther, doctrine of Trinity cannot be considered equally a later formulation simply had an early on evolution.

I final matter I would like to mention is that if nosotros desire to view Paul as a faithful Jew, why don't we take his commitment to his Messiah Jesus more seriously? In other words, what is "the significance of Christ," not only to him, but as well to other Jews? Can we actually limit the role of Jesus to the salvation of Gentiles in his thinking? Doesn't he mean annihilation to Jews? In my own reading of Paul, the decease and resurrection of Jesus are the foundations for his theology and the meaning of them is understood by Paul in a thoroughly Jewish way. To me the Christian Paul and the Jewish Paul are the one and the aforementioned. We don't accept to carve up them. He was a Jewish apostle to the Gentiles for his Jewish Messiah, who was sent by one God.

I believe that this book is an important contribution to ongoing discussion on Paul, particularly his Jewish earth. At that place is much to exist learned from the volume, especially about Judaism in the ancient earth, about Jewish covenant theology and monotheism.

Johann D. Kim, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament
Colorado Christian University
August 2010

championdecrespignyglaten.blogspot.com

Source: https://denverseminary.edu/the-denver-journal-article/paul-was-not-a-christian-the-original-message-of-a-misunderstood-apostle/