Paul Problems

I am frequently bothered by what looks like contradictions between Jesus' words in the gospels and Paul's words in his epistles. At one point I read Reinventing Paul by John G. Gager, which seemed like it might address this conflict in a new way. In the book, Gager describes his version of the New Perspectives on Paul (NPP). The NPP presents a new interpretation (in contrast to the traditional Reformation interpretation) of the writings of Paul that (among other things) seeks to explain the contradictions that can be found when reading Paul's letters.While there were a lot of interesting ideas in this book that I'll comment on in separate posts, Gager did a good job of summarizing the problems one encounters when reading Paul at a surface level.

If we look at Paul's letters, it is not difficult to pull out what on the surface appear to be directly opposing views, anti- and pro-Israel:

Anti-Israel set:

"All who rely on works of the law are under a curse" (Galatians 3:10).

"No one is justified before God by the law" (Galatians 3:11).

"For [some manuscripts add 'in Christ Jesus'] neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation is everything!" (Galatians 6:15).

"No human being will be justified in his [God's] sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20).

"Israel, who pursued righteousness based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law" (Romans 9:31).

"But their minds were hardened. Indeed, for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil is still there, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day, whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds" (2 Corinthians 3:14-15).

Pro-Israel set:

"What is the advantage of the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way" (Romans 3:1).

"Do we not overthrow the Law by this notion of faith? By no means. On the contrary, we uphold the Law" (Romans 3:31).

"What shall we say? That the Law is sin? By no means" (Romans 7:7).

"Thus the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good" (Romans 7:12).

"To the Israelites belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the Temple, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ" (Romans 9:4).

"Has God rejected his people? By no means" (Romans 11:1).

"All Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:26).

"Is the Law then opposed to the promises of God. Certainly not!" (Galatians 3:21).

Will the real Paul please stand up?

On the surface, Paul seems to be speaking (or writing, rather) out of both sides of his mouth. He seems to be brewing up a big bubbling broiling pot of contradictions. Now throw in a little of Jesus' parables on salvation, and a bit of the book of James (how about chapter 2 for starters) and the pot boils over.

I won't address the Jesus-Paul-James conflict here, but Gager (and the rest of the NPP writers) proposes something that seems to be pretty novel for some christians: Let's try and read Paul's letters in their context.

In short, Gager suggests that Paul, the "apostle to the gentiles" was speaking to (you guessed it) gentiles. What seems like Paul's embracing of the law in one breath while denouncing it in the next is actually Paul speaking about the law in two contexts. In one context he condemns "judiazing gentiles" who were insisting that other gentiles must follow the law. In another context, he talks of the wonder and beauty of the law for Jews.

It's pretty simple, really:

Jews: Law=Good

Gentiles: Law=Bad

Now, if your red heresy light isn't flashing by now, you might want to get it checked. Didn't Jesus say:

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

Is Gager suggesting there are now two ways, one for the Jews through the old covenant and one for the gentiles through Jesus? Gager addresses this concern by saying, unequivocally, "Maybe." He points to 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, where Paul reveals "his real eschatological beliefs":

Then the end will come, when [Christ] hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power... When [God] has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all me."

So the two ways collapse into one in the end, or something like that.

For a good summary of the book, see The Paul Page.

I think Gager's approach has a lot of merit. The traditional reading of Paul's epistles really doesn't make much sense to me; Paul comes across looking really confused. Either he was bipolar, or something else is going on that we aren't picking up on. I've learned that the former is most likely true.