Taking a Second Look at Paul

Three years ago, we had a group meeting at our church, mainly men – not that the women were uninterested in Paul, but apparently they were not interested in us! We called the group “Raw Paul” reflecting our method of reading and trusting our intuitions for clues as to how to interpret these texts. At the same time, we looked at some of the new work being done by the next generation of critical scholars and found that we were well advised to be careful as we repeat some of the bigger generalizations that have emerged over the years. Presently, I am focusing my attention on Mark (see link below). I have decided that my next study following Mark, which will probably take another six months at the rate I am going, will be Hebrews particularly because folks are so ready to proof-text from it. Perhaps at that point, I might revisit Paul.

Today, I just wanted to share a couple of comments that I made to a colleague recently as he began to engage in his own study of Paul's letters. I hope this helps you as well. It is popular to speak of Paul as the first Christian missionary. I find that more and more problematic. Instead, I think Paul might be more appropriately called the last Jewish apostle. There really wasn’t a Christian church (gathering) at the time Paul is working with his cadres. Paul’s discussion of Gentiles being grafted to Judaism seems to make this point. While some writers talk of Jewish Christians, it seems to me more correct to speak of Christian Jews.

You will not be surprised that I am hesitant to draw generalizations about “the Law,” especially when it is used to mark a contrast with a Christianity that supersedes traditional Judaism. As you get into seminary, I would suggest that you look up Krister Stendahl’s study of these matters found in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles. Most contemporary scholars trace the new questions about Paul that they are seeking to answer back to Stendahl’s work.

Recently, I attended a public lecture by Julie Galambush, The Reluctant Separation, where she points out that in the Judaism (Judaisms) of the day, most folks found the claim by this new apocalyptic group about Jesus as messiah problematic, especially as they venerated Jesus, who was executed - more accurately lynched as a political subversive. Such a proclamation did not meet the expectations of what the messiah would be (and they were right) but also speaking of such revolutionary matters was dangerous. It is the proclamation that Jesus was the messiah that was a stumbling block to Jews, not the Law.

Galambush pointed out that the sect that I have designated as Christian Jews had two factions – both believed that the time had arrived for Gentiles to gather around Israel as many prophets had longed for, but whether these folks needed to become Jewish split the group. We know this, but don’t spend a lot of time dissecting the implications. Obviously, Paul is in the faction that argued that Gentiles need not (or perhaps could not?) become Jews and therefore they should not be circumcised. Timothy, who indeed was a Jew by birth, was circumcised. The New Testament was written by this anti-circumcising faction. We get hints of the presence of their opponents, but there are no remaining writings. Perhaps, we meet these folks later in the so-called Ebionite movement. Of course, this stand by Paul and others put his Gentile followers in a difficult position. Paul seems to have taken good pagans and turned them into bad pagans. They must turn away from their Gods and their associated civic duty, but since they were not Jews (and according to Paul can not become Jews), they did not have the protections that Jews had won for themselves in relation to Roman worship responsibilities. Paul clearly thought that everything was going to end very soon; I don’t think his counsel to endure could have been sustained without this assumption.

Certainly some folks who want to tell women to shut up in church (most likely translated today as don’t pursue ordination), or tell homosexuals to go away, find some of their justification in texts and writings attributed to Paul. As a “progressive,” I find in Paul a willingness to re-image theological notions in light of current experience. For example, Paul was willing to develop a much broader notion of righteousness that certainly included Jewish participation in the law, but also included a kind of analogous faithfulness for Gentiles and that could also be defined as righteousness. It seems clear to me that this was grounded for Paul in the personal experience that he could not finally deny of genuine hope and love among Gentiles. In that light, orthodoxy can be rethought.

As I read Paul, he thinks that any expression of sex beyond the missionary position is an act of pagan decadence. Not withstanding Paul’s first century viewpoint, I believe that today he might find in the gifts and graces for ministry regularly demonstrated by our GLBT colleagues evidence that some more limited past notions about who should be ordained need to be re-imaged.

I take it that if Paul came back today and saw how a few of his letters had been elevated to Holy Scriptural glory, he would have been absolutely speechless. If he showed up in a seminary library and discovered shelf after shelf of commentary on those same pieces of correspondence…well, I don’t know.

Grace and Peace!

John

Visit my most recent post on 7 Villages about Mark: Bible Study

---------------------------------------------

Photo Used with Permission: TexasMary