I’m taking up a few more considerations this week with the aim of getting to grips with the grammar of the gospel. A misconstrued gospel grammar relies upon setting Judaism over-against Christianity as a religion of legalism wherein God’s grace must be supplemented by works.
Though very common, I don’t think this depiction of Judaism is at all helpful or faithful. That debate won’t be settled to everyone’s satisfaction. Rather than discussing Judaism generally, however, we’re better off focusing on Paul as a Pharisee.
The first thing we need to say about Paul as a Pharisee is that he never stopped being one. Before the Jewish leaders, Paul declares, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead” (Acts 23:6). This shouldn’t surprise careful readers of Acts. Luke notes earlier that many priests, Pharisees, and thousands who were “zealous for the Law” were part of the first generation of Jesus-followers (Acts 6:7; 15:5; 21:20).
Second, we must understand Paul’s aims as a Pharisee. The Pharisees didn’t hold belief in the resurrection as one of their doctrinal points like our churches regard their doctrinal statements. The resurrection was a political, religious, and cosmic hope. It was synonymous with the climactic day of judgment and salvation to which Jews looked forward with great urgency. Pharisees longed for the God of Israel to fulfill his promises to free them from oppression, defeat Israel’s enemies, and restore the nation to its rightful place as the throne from which God ruled over all the earth.
Israel’s desperation to be freed from domination at the hands of Rome set the agenda for the Pharisees. The nation had been sent into exile for unfaithfulness to their God, for idolatry, for neglecting the Law and its practices. If unfaithfulness to the Mosaic Law led to exile, then renewed faithfulness to the Law at the national level would surely move God to pull the lever of salvation and judgment. The resurrection would occur, Israel would be saved, and the nation’s enemies would be wiped out.
“Salvation,” therefore, had national, international, and cosmic dimensions. God would bring about national renewal, sending the Spirit to give life to the nation. This would set Israel in its proper place internationally. Israel would finally take its place as God’s choice nation, teaching, judging, and shepherding the nations on God’s behalf. Finally, God’s salvation was cosmic in scope, because God’s supra-human enemies—Satan, Sin, Death, and the powers and authorities that oppress creation in the present evil age—would finally be defeated and destroyed.
Before his conversion, then, Paul was part of an effort to bring about a renewed nation, to present to God a purified people, zealous, like Paul, for the “traditions of the fathers” (Gal. 1:14). He was likely convinced that once the nation was pure and obedient, God would be moved to send Messiah who would bring God’s salvation.
Further, this was done through violence, coercion, and persecution of sinners among the people. This explains Paul’s persecution of the early Jesus-followers. Because they were worshiping the one whom God had cursed (Gal. 3:13/Deut. 21:23), they were standing in the way of God fulfilling his promises.
After his conversion, of course, Paul’s ultimate aims don’t change. He is still passionate about the resurrection of the dead and God fulfilling his promises to the fathers (Acts 26:6-7). It’s just that now Paul knows that this eschatological orientation involves suffering with the persecuted, multi-national people of God, praying and longing for Christ’s return, and participating with the Spirit’s project of producing cruciform, non-violent love among the people of Jesus.
All this is to say that using the term “legalism” only confuses things. It leaves many with the impression that before his conversion Paul was convinced that he had to produce good works in order to work his way to heaven. And he was traveling around teaching others that they had to work their ways to heaven, too.
But the contrast between pre- and post-conversion Paul is not that he once was a legalist and is no longer. The contrast had to do with the manner in which he conceived of God fulfilling his promises to Israel. How would this come about? Does God act to restore his people by his own grace? Or can you violently coerce conformity to the Law to produce a people that will move God to act?
The contrast is between coercive and manipulative treatment of God and others, on one hand, and self-giving love for God and others, on the other.
Previously, Paul violently coerced others and sought to manipulate God to act. He now loves others, suffering on their behalf and praying for their good. And his posture toward God is one of deference, praying for and longing for the day of Christ, knowing that God in his wisdom will come to save in his own time.
September 19th, 2011 at 11:03 am
Based on my own youthful experience, I would say that coercion played a large part in ‘Christian’ formation. This is in contrast to the binding of kings noted in psalm 149 where it is those who know the covenant mercy who have the honour of binding the rebels of psalm 2. I know this reading is ‘out of time’ perhaps I should say it is not synchronic with respect to your questions. In this post you certainly touch on one aspect of the ethno-centric problem of ruling. May you be fruitful in your approach to these very difficult questions.
September 19th, 2011 at 11:38 am
In Church History we have currently been discussing this distinction and reading through some first and second century works to understand how this distinction improperly developed.
September 19th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
[...] – Tim Gombis shares some thoughts on Paul the Pharisee. [...]
September 19th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Tim,
I’m curious if you think there is a role in the present day to address legalism as we understand. In other words, is the heart inclined to works-righteousness as say Jonathan Edwards proposes and does the gospel speak into works-righteousness via grace?
I don’t disagree that this wasn’t what Paul was confronting, but can we tip our hats off to Luther and say that all though he read his context into the text, he also read the text in a helpful way to address his context?
September 19th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Yes, indeed! I think the human heart, because of sin, is inclined to all sorts of idolatries, not just one. Some people may indeed be inclined to a kind of works-righteousness that some in the Reformed tradition note. I think there are resources in Paul–and throughout Scripture–to address that. And Luther did indeed find resources in Paul to address the perversions of his day. That’s why I do think we’ve got to give Luther his due as a theological reader of Paul–drawing upon Romans and Galatians as Scripture to speak in power to his context.
One of my reservations about a narrowed neo-Calvinist reading of Paul and his gospel is that it limits Paul’s gospel, preventing it from speaking in power to a range of other perversions of the heart that are embodied through perverted social practice.
September 19th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
What do you think are some of the other idolatries that the NPP speaks into where the Neo-Calvinist perspective may be lacking?
September 19th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
I think the advent of the NPP was valuable in that it provoked readers of Paul’s texts out of ruts. So, I’m not necessarily advocating a NPP reading or NPP readings. I think Reformed readings are valuable, as are any and all readings that seek to hear the word of the Lord, expose idolatries, and point out redemptive pathways. When any one theological camp demands hegemony over Paul’s gospel, that’s trouble.
September 19th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Tim, I find myself in total agreement with you. I have been wondering why it is difficult for some evangelicals to read the NT this way. Maybe one main reason is that we tend to read the Bible through the lens of a well-constructed theological framework, and neglect the fact that the narratives in the Scripture actually speak a lot more than our Western training allows us to realize. If we come to the NT with the awareness that it has much to do with the re-telling the OT stories in light of the life, suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, much of what you said in this post makes sense.
(Of course I don’t mean that theological frameworks are bad. They have their roles in helping us frame our theology. But the narrative dynamics of the Scripture are crucial to our understanding of God and his purposes for humanity and his creation.)
September 19th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
I hear you. Theological frameworks guide us, but when they reign in the text, limit it, or muffle the life-giving voice of God speaking to the church, that is no good.
September 19th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
The maxim that comes to mind is “I believe all the same things. I just understand them differently.”
September 28th, 2011 at 7:53 am
Tim,
I stumbled upon your blog via a post on BibleGateway.com.
I have been enjoying the reading so far, and I’m glad to see more people wrestling with these same issues. Having been exposed to Judaism both academically and through the experience of living in Israel four years, I find so much of the evangelical conceptions of Judaism in Paul’s day to be misunderstandings, which we conveniently use to puff up our own egos – i.e. – “Those Jews back then misunderstood, but we understand correctly.” Except that maybe we don’t.
I teach in a Christian school and while working on a handout about Judaism for the class, I was reading from an article in Encyclopedia Britannica discussing how Jewish monotheism is and has been understood by Jews. Reading what the author of that article said, I find myself in complete agreement, and I think that Paul would also be in complete agreement. The only difference is that I think Jesus has re-oriented the fulfillment of all Hope around himself and the Israel that will follow Him, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. (Grafted in.)
I think that Paul found himself in the interesting place of trying to explain re-oriented Jewish hopes and dreams to Jews who weren’t always ready to re-orient their hopes, and to Gentiles who found some of it attractive and some of it weird.
I think we need to find a way, as Paul strove to do, to tell gospel to a world that needs to know that all of creation is what God is going to redeem, and that every kingdom power and authority will fall.
And I would definitely agree with the comment made by athansius96.
Anyway, this is turning into a longer comment than I intended. But, I wanted to let you know that I am enjoying this site and the ideas you are raising. At least I don’t feel like the only “weirdo” for having some of these views.
Grace and Peace