Readers Reply

002

Paul’s Contradictions

The article by John Gager on Paul prompted many letters; a sampling of readers’ comments follows (see “Paul’s Contradictions,” BR 14:06). A more lengthy response, by BR contributor Ben Witherington III, appears in “Laying Down the Law.”

A Full Plate

The December 1998 BR arrived the week before Thanksgiving and made me very thankful indeed.

First of all, the article on Paul by John Gager (“Paul’s Contradictions—Can They be Resolved?” BR 14:06) was, I think, the best I’ve ever seen in BR and one of the best I’ve read from any source. He clarified some things that I had sensed for years, but had not had the time or skill to track down. I have for years read Romans 11 as connected with Romans 8. That is, if “nothing can separate us” (i.e., Christians) from the love of God, why would we assume that anything could separate “them” (ancient Israel and contemporary Judaism) from the love of God? Apart from plain old un-Christ-like mean-spiritedness, the Christian denial of the validity and efficacy of God’s promise of salvation to Jews has been justified by the desire for economic, political, intellectual or cultural control of a strikingly creative and enduring faith community. Two thousand years of anti-Semitic eisegesis is more than enough. Thank you, John Gager.

Second, the art illustrations in this issue are wonderful. I always enjoy the pictures and comments, but this time the art department (David Fox? others?) has outdone itself. In particular I have returned again and again to the 15th-century Ethiopian icon and the reproduction of the Grünewald altarpiece. Please provide more information on print reproductions and commentaries for all your art. Please consider a whole issue on religion and the visual arts.

We appreciate your comments. Credit for the overall look of the magazine goes to art director David Fox, who designs the magazine under the guidance of design director Rob Sugar. Finding the illustrations for the articles is the responsibility of our editors.—Ed.

A Messiah for All

Thank you for John G. Gager’s helpful article (see “Paul’s Contradictions—Can They be Resolved?” BR 14:06). Recognizing Paul’s two audiences is perfectly in line with the tension, personified by Paul himself, of Christianity’s continuity with Judaism and its radical revision of it.

However, I wonder if Gager has overstated some of his conclusions. He derives from the Pauline texts that Paul doesn’t link salvation for Jews to acceptance of Jesus. Then, borrowing from Lloyd Gaston, he writes, “for Paul, Jesus was not the Messiah of Israel.”

Paul certainly referred to Jesus often as “Christ” and even, occasionally, as “the Christ.” I’d appreciate Gager’s suggestion on how to fit Romans 9:2–5, for example, into the new/old interpretive paradigm he suggests. This seems like a messianic claim to me:

“I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.”

I’m also bothered by that pesky passage at the beginning of Romans 10—a glaring omission from Gager’s opening list of texts—and so would appreciate any insight he can bring to it:

“Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them [Israel] is that they may be saved. I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. For being ignorant of the 004righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.”

Here Paul is not addressing Jews within the Jesus movement but rather is speaking about Jews in general.

The research of Gager and others may offer keys to healing hurtful misunderstandings between Jews and Christians. Please follow up with further reporting and discussion.

John Gager responds:

My claim, relying in part on the work of Lloyd Gaston, is that Paul did not think of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. This seems obvious in that none of the traditional features of Jewish messianic expectation figures in Paul’s Christology. In almost every case, when Paul uses the term “christos,” he employs it as a name. And when he uses it otherwise, it is clear that he has some special definition in mind. Of course, as a Pharisee, he well knew of messianic expectations in Judaism. Thus, in Romans 9:2–5, when he says that “of their race [i.e., Israel] is the Christ, physically speaking,” he is stating what everyone—both Jew and gentile—knew, namely, that Jesus was born a Jew. As for Johnston’s concern about Romans 10, where Paul speaks of Israel’s “unenlightened righteousness” and of “Christ as the telos of the Law,” I would refer him to Gaston’s and Stanley Stowers’s treatments of these crucial texts. In brief, the unenlightened nature of Israel’s pursuit of righteousness must be about the question of the gentiles, that is, Israel’s failure to realize that God’s righteousness means the salvation of the gentiles (though it is all God’s doing in Paul’s thinking and thus not Israel’s fault). The traditional translation of “telos” in Romans 10:4 as “end” or “termination” goes against everything else in the letter but especially against Paul’s basic argument that his gospel to the gentiles—their redemption in Christ—is fully laid out in Scripture. As Stowers puts it (A Rereading of Romans, p. 308), the proper way to render Romans 10:4 is “Christ is the goal of the law with respect to God’s plan to redeem the gentiles.”

In a Nutshell

Congratulations for publishing “Paul’s Contradictions,” by John G. Gager. Although many Bible study classes, including my own, are beginning to come to the same conclusion reached by Mr. Gager, he puts the facts into a framework that is rational and easily understood (see “Paul’s Contradictions—Can They be Resolved?” BR 14:06).

If we take all the anti-Israel quotations used by Mr. Gager, we see a common thread: People who think the Law is everything are seriously deluded and their minds are hardened.

On the other hand, we can summarize the pro-Israel quotations this way: The Law is important, even blessed on specific issues, particularly concerning the declaration that Christ will come from among the Israelites.

To the Jews First

In John Gager’s interesting article, he is right in saying that Paul’s primary arguments against the keeping of the Law were directed at Jewish Christians and not to Jews (see “Paul’s Contradictions—Can They be Resolved?” BR 14:06). He is wrong, however, 005in his conclusions that Paul “does not imagine salvation for Jews occurring through their acceptance of Jesus.” Paul began his missionary activities by speaking in Jewish synagogues, not for interfaith dialogue, but to convert Jews (obeying Jesus’ direction to evangelize the Jews first [Acts 1:8]). His message on salvation to the synagogue in Psidian Antioch was consistent with his later epistles: “I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from the law by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38–39). Despite opposition, Paul continued to speak first in the synagogues, as Luke tells us (Acts 17:2).

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

The caption to the first illustration in “Paul’s Contradictions” claims that: “Peter and others…insisted that gentile followers of Jesus could only be redeemed by converting to Judaism.”

Nowhere in the new Testament does Peter require gentiles to convert to Judaism. On the contrary, Peter was the first to admit gentiles through conferring baptism on Cornelius and his household. Peter’s vision on that occasion indicated that the dietary requirements of Mosaic Law had been abolished. Later, at the Council of Jerusalem, he persuaded the authorities not to impose Mosaic Law on gentile converts.

Paul relates how he reprimanded Peter for not eating with gentile converts at Antioch. But this had nothing to do with doctrine, only with prudence. It was a question of keeping peace in the family. Paul did something similar himself when he had Timothy circumcised “because of the Jews,” and not because he thought circumcision was necessary for salvation.

Why Would Paul Bother?

John Gager’s article on Paul is certainly thought-provoking (see “Paul’s Contradictions—Can They be Resolved?” BR 14:06), although David Noel Freedman’s quotation in the Jots and Tittles section, “the larger the claim, the less likely it is to meet the requirements of evidence and argument,” seems to apply. If, for Paul, Jesus wasn’t the Messiah of Israel, why would Paul write to anyone, under any circumstance, that “There is no longer Jew or Greek…for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28)? Why would Paul acknowledge Peter as being entrusted with the gospel for the Jews (Galatians 2:7–8) if there were no gospel for the Jews?

Gager is on more solid footing in asserting that “Paul never speaks of gentiles as replacing Israel.”

Paul’s Sad Legacy

Unfortunately, we will never know Paul’s true feelings about Judaism. What we do know is that his views were interpreted as being anti-Semitic, and reinforced by anti-Semitic writings in the Gospels, the path of the Christian movement led to untold persecutions against the Jewish people. That is the greatest tragedy of the Christian legacy.

Contradicted by the Bible

John G. Gager writes, “Paul never speaks of Israel’s redemption in terms of Jesus (see “Paul’s Contradictions—Can They be Resolved?” BR 14:06). Just as he can no longer think of salvation for gentiles in terms of the Mosaic Covenant, so he does not imagine salvation for Jews occurring through the acceptance of Jesus. For Paul, Jesus was not the Messiah of Israel.”

It’s beyond my comprehension why a Christian would make such a statement and also why BR would print such an article.

In Romans 1:16, 17 (with 3:21–23), Paul writes, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is God’s power for salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. For in it God’s righteousness is revealed.” Also note Romans 11:19, 20, 23, “Because of unbelief they [the Jews] were broken off—. They [the Jews)] also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in.”

Insight

Jesus as Divine Judge

As Hershel Shanks notes (“Why Did Jesus Write on the Ground?” Insight, BR 14:06), Jesus’ writing on the ground, as recorded in John 8, has long puzzled interpreters. Most have wondered about 006the content of Jesus’ writing, which the evangelist did not bother to preserve. Others have questioned why Jesus chose to use the ground for his writing. Shanks suggests that perhaps Jesus sought to comply with traditional Jewish Sabbath law, which prohibits any writing that would leave a lasting mark. Accordingly, Shanks surmises that “Jesus was demonstrating to his attackers both that he was well versed in the [oral] law and that he was a good Jew.” Given other examples where Jesus shows little regard for traditional Jewish law, even at the risk of offense (see, for example, Luke 11:38, where Jesus offended his host by failing to wash before a meal), Shanks’s suggestion appears unlikely.

An alternative possibility is that the text of John does not record the content of Jesus’ writing precisely because what is significant is not what he wrote, but how he wrote it: “But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.” In the immediate context of a challenge to apply the Law of Moses to the woman caught in adultery, and in the wider context of John 6–10, which is rife with Exodus typology (see Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII, Anchor Bible 29 [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966]), perhaps Jesus intended his action as a prophetic sign. Just as Jesus had pointed to himself as the fulfillment of the manna and water that had sustained Israel in the wilderness (John 6:35; 7:37f.) and of the theophanic light that had led them (John 8:12, 9:5), so here, in response to his inquisitors, Jesus implies that he is not merely one who can interpret the law, he is the One who wrote it! “When the Lord finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18; see also Deuteronomy 9:10). In John 8 an allusion to these texts is made more likely because, apart from Daniel 5:5, which also refers to divine writing, no other passage in the Greek Old Testament or the New Testament combines “write” (grapho or any of its cognates) and “finger” (daktulos). Accordingly, although only God has the right to forgive offenses against His law (Matthew 9:1–9), Jesus’s saying “neither do I condemn you” it is nothing less than a word of absolution from a merciful God to this sinful woman.

Such a high Christology, where Jesus equates himself with God, may not make Jesus a “good Jew,” as Shanks proposes, but it is entirely at home in the gospel of John. This is the gospel where Jesus said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9) and “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and where Jesus accepts the appellation of Thomas, “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

Insights from Troubled Youths

I thought you might enjoy some of the comments provided by a group of young men in the San Diego County Juvenile Hall as they worked their way through this text of Scripture, describing Jesus writing on the ground, for the first time.

One offered, “Jesus wrote on the ground ‘He who is without sin, cast the first stone,’ so he could have the religious leaders hear the message and read it at the same time and get the message across twice.” A second speculated that “Jesus probably wrote the names of the group’s leaders and then began listing their sins under their names. That was probably why it was the old guys who left first.”

Another young man piped up and said he knew why Jesus had crouched down to write: “In case some jerk started throwing rocks.” Everyone burst out laughing because they knew such a scenario was certainly possible in the world from which they came, and they had no doubts that it could easily have happened in Jesus’ time as well.

As many sermons as I have heard preached from this text, seldom have such refreshing and plausible insights been offered. Sometimes it takes the perspective of someone outside the religious community to shed light on aspects of Scripture we have failed to consider.

Naming Names?

There is an interesting passage in Jeremiah 17:13 that may be relevant to Jesus’ writing on the ground: “O Lord, the Hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth.” The Pharisees and scribes evidently were ashamed when they heard Jesus say “He 007that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her,” for “they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out, one by one.” Is it possible that Jesus was thinking of this verse in Jeremiah and therefore might have written in the earth the names of those accusers who secretly were guilty of the same offense?

Santa Spoof

High Scholarship

I wish to protest your use of the words “dilettante” and “spoof” to describe the scholar William Proop’s important essay on the Canaanite origins of American winter celebrations (“Santa and His Asherah,” BR 14:06).

Dr. Proop’s discovery of the Hebraic roots of terms such as “caribou,” “holly” and “mistletoe” are singular contributions to his field. If a scholar deigns to present the results of his research in simple language for the lay reader and receives such a sneering reception, how will this encourage others to bridge the gap between the professional researcher and the public?

Please cancel my subscription, forthwith!

P.S. I’m joking (in case you weren’t sure).

Potpourri

More Garden Imagery

Ronald Hendel’s column “Getting Back to the Garden of Eden,” BR 14:06, neglected some of the most blatant sanctuary imagery in Genesis. The first is the cherubim guarding the east gate of the Garden of Eden itself (Genesis 3:24), an image reminiscent of the cherubim embroidered on the veils of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:31) and carved on the doors of the Temple (1 Kings 6:31–35), entrances that also faced east. The second is Abram’s altar between Bethel and Ai, with Bethel (meaning “House of God”) to the west of the altar and Ai (“Ruins”) to the east (Genesis 12:8). In the next chapter, Lot leaves Abram at this location and chooses to go east because he finds the land of Sodom to be “like the Garden of the Lord” (Genesis 13:10–11). So he turns his back on Bethel and heads in the direction of Ai, towards a false garden that will soon be a ruin. If we go back to the original Eden, we find Cain leaving the presence of the Lord for the land of Nod, “eastward from Eden,” and there building the first city (Genesis 4:16–17). It would seem that in Genesis cities are anti-Edens, false gardens approached by turning one’s back on God’s presence in the true garden (or its cultic equivalent). These cities seem to be attempts to attain access to Eden apart from the divine presence.

The identification of Eden and the sanctuary is also important in Ezekiel 28:13–14. I have developed these images at length in the appendix to my book The Western Paradise (International Scholars Publications, 1996).

044

Doing Love

I very much liked columnist Anthony J. Saldarini’s distinction between feeling love and doing love (“Feeling Love and Doing Love,” BR 14:06). It reminded me of Martin Buber’s comments in Two Types of Faith (Harper & Row, 1961), p. 69, on “love your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:18), which still remains a controversial point of translation. Buber’s point was that in the original Hebrew, the text does not say “love your neighbor” with “your neighbor” as the direct object of the verb. It says “love to your neighbor,” making “neighbor” an indirect object. Leviticus 19:18 does not command the feeling of love, but the actions of love.

Reminding Us of the Path

As I read Anthony J. Saldarini’s column, I felt a sense of guilt rising in my soul (see “Feeling Love and Doing Love,” BR 14:06). What Saldarini has to say about us Evangelicals is so true that it hurts. The word “Christian” implies that we are followers of Christ, that we are walking in His footsteps and living by His values.

Yes, I am an Evangelical and believe that we must be “born again.” But Saldarini is right. If we don’t truly follow Jesus, then our claim to be born again means nothing.

Thanks, Saldarini, for reminding us.

Great Performances

Your review of David Rhoads’s video (Bible Books, BR 14:06) reminded me that many years ago, on our anniversary, my wife and I attended his one-man dramatization of the Gospel of Mark, based on his own translation. We had seen Alec McGowan’s famous presentation of St. Mark’s Gospel on the A&E Network, but we much preferred Rhoads’s—not just because it was “in person” but also because of the freshness and vividness of the language of his translation. His ending the gospel at Mark 16:8 was startling and wonderful—it left us hungry for more. I hope Dr. Rhoads is still performing the gospel before live audiences.

He is. He gave a presentation at the 1998 meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature.—Ed.