What Saint Paul Really Said: Review, Part 1

Summary/Discussion of the First Two Chapters

Chapter 1 -- History of Scholarship
Wright introduces us to some of the key players in twentieth century interpretation of Paul:

1. Albert Schweitzer -- Being in Christ central to Paul's thought, not justification by faith; Paul to be understood against the backdrop of Jewish, apocalyptic thought; Paul expected the end of the world to come at any moment

2. Rudolph Bultmann -- An individual's justification by faith central to Paul's thought; the truth behind this concept is existentialist, even though Paul himself would not have fully understood that truth. Paul's thought to be understood against a Hellenistic (Greek) context.

3. W. D. Davies -- Things that Bultmann and others thought were Greek can be explained against a Jewish context. More a rabbinic Jewish backdrop rather than an apocalyptic one, however.

4. Ernst Käsemann -- Paul's background Jewish apocalyptic, but the center of his thought still justification by faith; Paul's critique a critique within Judaism, one in a long history of such inner critiques

5. E. P. Sanders -- Judaism was not a religion of works righteousness; Jews kept the law to "stay in" not "get in"; participation in Christ and justification by faith two sides of the same coin, but participation in Christ Paul's more natural language

Chapter 2 -- Paul's Background
1. Paul was perhaps a Shammaite Pharisee. This was the stricter of the two Pharisee sects (the schools of Hillel and Shammai) and the one more likely to include militants. Tension between this conclusion and the idea that Paul studied with Gamaliel, a Hillelite (perhaps even the grandson of Hillel). Note: Judas Maccabee may be the best model for understanding "zeal for the law" at this time in history.

2. Cardinal points of Jewish theology at this time: monotheism, election, and eschatology (James Dunn has, by contrast, spoken of monotheism, election, covenant, and land as the "four pillars" of Judaism at this time. Several things to debate here: 1) this really seems to apply more to Judaism in Palestine than in the Diaspora and 2) I'm a little uncomfortable with the word "eschatology," but I think what Wright meant was the idea that Israel was destined to be restored politically. Many key Jewish groups of the time certainly held such views, and they are reflected in the NT in passages like Acts 1:6, "Are you now going to restore the kingdom to Israel" and perhaps Romans 11:26, "and so all Israel will be saved."

Wright makes a claim that I have long found intriguing, but unsure what to make of it. He makes the claim that Paul grew up with and thus "lived on passages like Daniel 2, 7, and 9, believing that they promised the coming kingdom of God very soon" (30; see also 34). But the evidence he mentions is 4 Ezra, which dates from about AD100. I might also add a document called the "Parables of Enoch." But you might argue that both of these documents are Essene and do not necessarily reflect mainstream Judaism. I continue to believe that Jesus' references to himself as "son of man" were probably deeply ambiguous to those who heard it. "Is he saying he's the Son of Man from Daniel that the Essenes speculate about or is he saying, 'I'm just a guy, a "son of man" like you all?'"

I am also unsure how many Jews at this time would have agreed with this statement: "The call of Abraham was designed to undo the sin of Adam" (33). In fact, does Paul himself ever bring Abraham and Adam together in this way? My initial impression is rather that Adam and Abraham serve unconnected purposes in Paul's argumentation and that Wright is connecting logical dots that Paul himself never did. I will admit that I have not thought this claim through completely.

Another point of great interest is when Wright suggests that "'Justification' thus describes the coming great act of redemption and salvation, seen from the point of view of the covenant (Israel is God's people) on the one hand and the law court on the other (God's final judgment will be like a great law-court scene, with Israel winning the case). I resist the idea that Israel wins the case, since they are also subject to God's judgment. Perhaps Wright is correct to think of the judgment being rendered to some extent collectively, as the ancient world was a group culture. On the other hand, "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ" (2 Cor. 5:10) means "each of us" (5:11), so there is an individual judgment involved as well regardless of Jew or Gentile.

In the tradition of his great mentor, G. B. Caird, Wright does not believe that Jews meant "end of the world" language literally (34). This allows him to see things like the destruction of Jerusalem as the fulfillment of prophecies on "the coming/going of Christ." I agree that this is true of OT literature and probably some Jewish literature from the time of Christ. But is it true of Jesus and the New Testament authors? I just find it hard to believe that Paul didn't mean for us to take statements like "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" literally (1 Cor. 15:50).

Summary of section (34-35): 1) The pre-believing Paul was zealous for Israel's God and Torah, 2) people like Paul kept the Torah zealously expecting to be "marked out already" as one to be vindicated on the coming day, and 3) Paul's zeal and power actions towards others intended to hasten that day. Definitely #1; number two, yes, but would like to hear specifics; number 3, sounds good but not completely sure.

3. "Conversion" and Significance
There is of course debate over whether we should refer to Paul's Damascus road experience as a conversion. If we keep in mind that he was not converting to Christianity from Judaism -- if we think of him converting to a particular Jewish sect away from the Pharisees, or perhaps from more mainstream Judaism to a smaller Jewish sect (no denigration in the term, it's a sociological description) -- then I'm OK with the term.

Wright believes that once he believed in Jesus' resurrection, it would have followed that he would believe that the great eschatological beliefs he had were in motion, that the Age to Come had already begun. I like it.