What Paul Meant

by Garry Wills

A synthesis of the apostle's thought and influence evaluates the disparate qualities attributed to his character in the Bible and throughout history, arguing that Paul's intentions were consistent with the teachings of Jesus and sought to manage controversy throughout the early days of Christianity. By the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Lincoln at Gettysburgh. 75,000 first printing.

Genres: Religion, Theology, Nonfiction, Christianity, Christian, History, Faith

208 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Garry Wills is an American author, journalist, political philosopher, and historian, specializing in American history, politics, and religion, especially the history of the Catholic Church. He won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993.
Wills has written over fifty books and, since 1973, has been a frequent reviewer for The New York Review of Books. He became a faculty member of the history department at Northwestern University in 1980, where he is an Emeritus Professor of History.

Reviews

[Donna Craig · Rating 3 out of 5]

I find it tiresome to read books like this. Gary Wills contends that the reason people misunderstand Paul (the author of several letters in the Bible) is that Luke’s two books are fabricated.
There were some interesting points in this book. I particularly enjoyed the explanations of the meanings of several Greek words, such as the one we’ve interpreted as “apostle.”
Then the author would start ranting about Luke again. Why on earth? Too bad.

[Edward · Rating 3 out of 5]

First of all, Wills makes it clear which writings of Paul he’s going to discuss. There are thirteen letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament, but Wills points out that modern scholarship only recognizes seven as genuinely authentic. The others were either not written by Paul or have dubious authorship. The seven in their probable order: Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, and Romans.

Wills addresses what he sees as widespread misinterpretations of Paul’s message, mostly originating in an overly rigid opposition between “the works of the law” and a “covenant of grace.” Critics of Paul, I think Wills is saying, take him too personally and see him as an individual who was unable to follow moral law, represented by the Jews’ external practices. This diffused and distorted Jesus’ teachings. Such a reading led to the self-examinations of such historical figures as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Pascal, and Kierkegaard, all influenced by Paul, and often to a painful sense of an opposition between individual conscience and institutional moral directives

In fact, Wills thinks, Paul didn’t have any such dilemma. Paul believed that the “claims of the prophets had to be fulfilled, making a religion of the heart replace that of external observances .” At the same time, he affirmed the essential values of the Jewish law. It was a question of how it was to be fulfilled, not if it should be fulfilled. Paul’s letters were written decades before the four Gospel writers, and Wills makes it clear that in Paul’s preaching, Jesus founded no new religion. Reading the later gospels, the impression can arise that “Christianity” is replacing “Judaism.”

Context is everything with Wills. Paul’s seven authentic letters were addressed to gatherings of Jews with specific troubles, and to detail some of these troubles means involved and detailed discussions and some arguments with the later writings of Luke. Paul, Wills writes, was dealing with three groups: 1) Jews who didn’t accept Jesus as messiah, 2) Jews who accepted Jesus as messiah, and 3) non-Jews who accepted Jesus. Practices and beliefs sprang up, like weeds, and Paul was constantly trying to clarify and make clear what Jesus meant and what practices would authenticate Christ’s teachings.

Wills quotes one commentator on Paul: “At times he reminds one of a vice-principal of a large urban high school who has to each a daily class in calculus to the college-bound, then, as head of discipline he breaks up a fight in the hall, and next he finds he has to fill in for a shop teache who has gone home with a migraine. . .” Perhaps a trivializing example, but the point is that Paul had to do many things in his letters, minor errors and contradictions occur, so it’s always a mistake to concentrate on a single aspect of one letter.

Paul is the great reconciler, as evidenced in these words from Philippeans, “All you have learned, have taken from tradition, have listened to, have observed in me, act on these, and the God who brings you peace will be yours.”

[GrandpaBooks · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another fascinating book by the prolific Mr. Wills. Just in the introduction you learn that Paul's writings are closest documentation we have to the time of Jesus' life. Scholars believe that Jesus died approximately 30 CE and that Paul began following Jesus within 3-5 years of his death. The letters actually attributable to Paul, there are only 7, were written perhaps 25 years before Mark, the first written gospel, to 50 years before the last written gospel, John. The letters actual "Pauline writings" are: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, and Romans. Mr. Wills attempts to dispel the prevalent belief that Paul was the "Bad News Man." The book also makes clear that there were no "Christians" during the time of Paul; instead, it could be broken down as Jews that didn't accept that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, Jews that accepted that he was the Jewish Messiah, and Gentiles that accepted that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Much, much more is discussed and explored in the book.

[JD Waggy · Rating 2 out of 5]

To be honest, this is 2.5 stars, but it's far less "What Paul Meant" and more "So You Think You Know Luke," which wasn't quite what I was bargaining for. A great deal of who we understand Paul to be we get from Luke's stories of his exploits in Acts, so I understand that Wills had to start there. But the time he spends deconstructing Acts and why very little of it is at all valid overwhelms Paul himself and his letters (which is what people want to get into, anyway). And then, when Wills does get into the letters, he leaves a curious gap in the things he discusses--I, for one, have never really heard anyone talk about the controversy of Paul in Jerusalem. I'm glad to know about it, now, but that wouldn't really have been on my list of top 10 things about which I'd like Paul to explain.

Wills did have a pretty solid chapter on women, though, which was good.

So this is well-researched, as all Wills' books are. And I appreciate that Wills has the endnote on translation with explanation, and that he writes Greek in Latin letters for those of us who don't know the Greek alphabet. But overall, I was underwhelmed by this--What Jesus Meant was much better.

[Drtaxsacto · Rating 3 out of 5]

I first encountered Gary Wills in his books on the founders he is a prolific scholar who is now emeritus at Northwestern. He has written a ton of books and articles. He is an accomplished scholar on religion and the founding. I am not a fan of his work on the founding - I think he is too supportive of Hamilton in his writing on the Federalist and one paper he did on the Second Amendment was down a rabbit hole which I think was the wrong one!

That being said his book on St. Paul was recommended to me by our Priest in San Miguel - after a bang up sermon on the day in the Episcopal calendar which recognizes St. Paul. As Wills points out Paul is a misunderstood figure. Wills tries to separate many of the wrong things about Paul's ministry from his positive contributions to Christianity. Episcopalians tend to value Paul more than Catholics. He serves as an interpreter of the developing religion well before the Gospels were written.

I found his conclusions fascinating . The book is short but worth the time.

[Tricia · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was expecting to learn more about the life of Paul and his influence on Christianity. Instead, the author seemed more intent on discrediting Luke...going so far as to say Luke's Gospel (written decades after Paul's letters) "replaced fact with fiction." ?? Have sought the opinion of my Pastor regarding much of what was written by this author.

[Allison · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dissapointing, oh well. I had not anticipated a work of CHristian apologetics and the author never clearly sets out his plan so as you read, you have to figure out his point. Me meanders quite a bit and the work is poorly organized. It is almost as if you kwalked in on the middle of a conversation and are not ever quite able to get completly clued in. As the author defends Paul as true heir of Jesus's teachings it becomes clear to the reader that the real issue is whether Paul wrote and believed the truth about Jesus. Clearly he did not. He never met Jesus and based all his teachings on his own delusions. He spent a good deal of time opposing James of Jerusalem, the brother of Jesus and the head of the Jerusalem church, those who knew Jesus best.

[Rachael · Rating 5 out of 5]

This little book delivers- that is, it presents an accurate overview of the light modern biblical criticism has to shed on Paul. He rightly takes the obvious step of focusing only on the indisputed letters of Paul (the pastorals are very unlikely to have been written by him). He does a solid job of clearly untangling sticky issues such as the relationship between Christ and the law and the role of the Jews as presented by Paul. Think that Paul was a misogynist? Well he clearly addresses one particular lady, Junia, as a pre-eminent *apostle* of CHrist.

Paul has gotten bad press lately, as some kind of self hating Jew who has perverted the pure religion of Christ. Wills rightly defends Paul against this silliness while maintaining a solid scholarly base for his arguments.

[Rachel Kopel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am greatly appreciating Wills information about the parts of what we think of as *Paul* that are actually from Paul and those that are not his real writings or experiences. The lesser version makes more sense in terms of consistancy and speaks more to my beliefs. I look forward to What the Gospels Meant by the same author.

I have finished ANOTHER book. Continued to really like Wills explanations of Paul. Returning this to my bible study group library. Will recommend it to all in the group, but most dont have time for extra reading.

[Dee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting historical perspective of Paul and his writings. Since he wrote before most if not all of the other new testament writers his is closer to the time of Christ. Wills explores inconsistencies among the gospels and Acts and in Paul's writings. He finds that Paul's insights reflect Jesus' own teachings closely. He defends Paul against critics who label him as misogynistic, for instance. The author also analyzes Paul's work in relation to the times. Overall - an interesting read that is worth a closer look.
The recording is made by the author and is well done.

[Derek Emerson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book by Wills which could easily be kept on the shelf for easy reference. Wills has a conversational style to his writing, and he suffers no fools so he is interesting in what he has to say. He does a good job of laying out some of the basic teachings of Paul and dispelling mis-interpretations (e.g. Paul hates women). The gospel writer Luke takes a near continual beating from Wills because he distorts the history of Paul. Of course, Luke was not writing a historical document but a faith document, but that does not seem to matter to Wills. Still, an excellent quick read.

[MT · Rating 2 out of 5]

As others have reviewed: meandering, not as well organized as What Jesus Meant. I came away from this book feeling less clear about what Paul meant. Perhaps that was the point? I doubt it.

[Heidi · Rating 1 out of 5]

Only for the strong in faith. Aroused more questions than answers. Instead of explaining what Paul meant, this seemed to be more of a put-down of Luke. Did not enjoy it or find much useful except for the appendix that explained some Greek terms.

[Jeremy Sabol · Rating 1 out of 5]

kind of terrible! disappointing. one-dimensional, lackluster defense against widespread critiques of Paul (which are difficult to oppose, but come on!).

[Jack R.]

Garry Wills is the last great American public intellectual. A classicist by training, he wrote on nearly every subject (in the humanities and social sciences, almost primarily) with supreme erudition, from Lucretius to Lincoln. In his later career he turned to popular works in biblical studies (although, popular might be a misnomer as Wills includes scholarly footnotes and does not hold back on specialist language) attempting to discern the true intent behind Jesus, the Gospel writers, the Qu'ran, and, in this case, Paul of Tarsus.

Wills goes through the usual assortment of historical-critical demythologization that appear in any standard treatment of the apostle: Paul only wrote seven letters, he was not a "Christian" nor did he found a new religion, he did not distort Jesus' pure Gospel message, Luke's Paul is contradictory and fictive compared to the apostle's own autobiography, he was not an anti-semite/woman-hater/misanthrope. Bible 101 stuff for those in the mainline tradition, but conservatives will be squirmy reading this book. Additionally, Wills argues that Paul has been misread by various theologians: throughout the centuries, Augustin to Luther to Kierkegaard, have twisted (or did not truly grasp) a semitic, cosmic salvific message for many peoples (wholesale, in his words) with a reductionist, individualistic gospel of justification for single persons (retail).

But beyond this redundant checklist, Wills (continuing an argument he made in What Jesus Meant) contends that Paul, like Christ, was against religion ("They said that the worship of God is a matter of interior love, not based on external observances, on temples or churches, on hierarchies or priesthoods," p. 175). Both figures preached a message of the heart, an internalization of God's loving commands, against the supposed dogmatic, hierarchical, rules-based system of religion. I find this interpretation baseless: while the assemblies Paul wrote to were egalitarian collectives, they affirmed creeds and read from canonical scriptures, performed rituals (baptism and the Lord's Supper) with accompanying hymns, self-distinguished their affirmations and practices with the broader Greco-Roman worldview. While these early assemblies were not identified independently of contemporary Judaism (itself a religion!), they feature a variety of sociological markers that indicate a "religion," or at least a group with religious tendencies. Religion in Paul's day was defined by sacrificial cults and elaborate public rites and obligations-- especially in cities-- but his opposition to such a manifestation does not take away his missional activity: founding assemblies with the above set of attributes. A less problematic reading from Wills is merely: Paul preached a message that allowed for a movement away from aspects that defined religion in his own time, within his Jesus Follower communities. This "opening," along with Paul's inclusion of the Gentiles into his ministry, is the root cause of what he now call Christianity.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very accessible and informative survey of the life and message of the Jewish Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus, who would come to be known as “St. Paul” and be credited with writing half the New Testament.

I am no Bible scholar so this book was revelatory to me in a variety of ways. Gary Will’s gets very meticulous in breaking down the Greek words used by Paul that were often misread or incorrectly translated in later texts. He uses both recent and ancient scholars and secular contemporaries of Paul to correct errors in chronology. But most importantly he uses Paul’s own words and personal experiences to inform the version of faith and the revelation he did his best to impart to the nations (ie The Gentiles).

I learned a lot about Paul’s difficult relationships with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. Heck, I didn’t even realize that Jesus had 4 documented brothers who were all well known in Judaea ( incl. one named Judas). I learned how Paul had as many as two scribes at a time helping him write letters from prison and making copies to distribute to the gatherings. I learned there Were lots of women and married couples (incl. Peter) who were a big part of the early Christian gatherings. I also learned how Luke was sort of an assistant of Paul’s who ended up writing his version of the gospel 20 years later and that he wrote all of Acts of the apostles and intentionally left out or altered anything that made anyone look bad (like the arguments between Peter and Paul).

This is just a small part of the great stuff in this relatively short book. Highly recommend it as a primer for people like me who lack deep knowledge of how the New Testament came about and what it means.

[Zane Akers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Picked up at the ReUzit store, this is a pretty solid four star book. The amount of reading and cross-referencing required to write a book like this is staggering to imagine, and, for the most part Wills manages to infuse the facts with a sense of urgency and direction that read like a detective story. A couple of sticky points:
First, Wills jettisons (rightly, in my opinion) the Pseudopauline letters, which, though it simplifies the task of limning a portrait of the real Paul's beliefs, is a total non-starter for many believers. Without the Pastorals, for instance, it becomes much harder (though sadly not impossible) to use Paul to justify the subjugation of women, and the men in charge of things won't countenance that kind of thing.
Second, according to the blurbs, Wills taught Greek for many years, and he brings that knowledge to bear in frequent and lengthy block text excerpts from Paul's letters in which he has retranslated freighted churchy words and anachronistic terms. The appendix contains his rationale and gives examples of many of the terms he has rendered differently from tradition. Personally I like this approach (I bought David Bentley Hart's New Testament for his similar attempts at escaping the baggage carried by words like "justified" or "apostle") but he may have gone a little overboard with the sheer amount of text he presents.
Third, Wills seems hung up on the fact that Luke's account of Paul's deeds in Acts is wrong at just about every turn. He brings it up a lot. Like, a lot.
Finally a big shoutout to whoever it was at Penguin that decided not to proofread this book. Literally dozens of typos.

[Bryan Whitehead · Rating 3 out of 5]

When Garry Wills sticks to the theme promised by the title of his book, this is an interesting study of the intent of Paul’s letters (or at least the ones Wills and other like-minded scholars consider authentic). However, such analysis doesn’t even begin in earnest until more than halfway through the text. Instead, Wills devotes a ton of space to a nit-picking consideration of perceived conflicts between Paul and Luke (particularly the latter’s account of the former’s life in Acts). Even in the worthwhile parts, Wills employs weak logic. In at least one spot he identifies an inconsistency in Paul’s writing and resolves it by concluding that the passage that seems wrong by 21st century American standards must be inauthentic. He avoids several rough spots that would be quite a challenge to explain; for example, I was particularly disappointed that he wrote nothing at all about the beginning of Romans 13. Wills also tends to employ questions as evidence, asking why Paul would have given a particular meaning to a passage, failing to answer his own question, and then using the lack of an answer as evidence against the interpretation. This last fault in particular (combined with the hair-splitting nature of much of the discourse) gives the book the distinct flavor of a conspiracy theorist picking over the Zapruder film frame by frame in hopes of discovering a great truth. Given that this particular Zapruder film is nearly 2000 years old, the enterprise ultimately doesn’t bear much fruit (or at least nothing worth eating).

[Doctor Science · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent concise summary of the "New Perspective on Paul", an ecumenical scholarly approach of recent decades emphasizing:

1. Only 7 of the Epistles are probably actually by Paul
2. These are the oldest Christian texts, closer to Jesus' time than any of the Gospels
3. Acts of the Apostles purports to be about Paul, but is actually fiction that includes no reliable facts about Paul's life
4. Paul was a Diaspora Jew who never stopped thinking of himself as Jewish

Wills is extremely careful not to use anachronistic terms such as "Christian", "church", "Gospel", "conversion", etc. All of these are later concepts that have been read back into Paul by later (or much later) readers. Or, as Wills says, "misreaders."

I strongly recommend this book for Jewish and nonreligious readers as well as Christians: it's a work of *history*, not an interpretation cut to fit a particular creed. For instance, though Wills is Catholic, his study of the sources leads him to conclude that "Peter was never the bishop of Rome."

[Nate · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow! This book provided so much insight into the New Testament and specifically Paul's writings. It brings into suspect some of what is accredited to Paul, and even more suspect much of Luke's account as recorded in the book of Acts. There's so much history involved in how the New Testament became accepted canon by Western Christianity, and this book sheds some much needed light on the issue. I now see Paul in a much different light, one that makes me admire him more for the tenuous work he did. From the beginning, the Brotherhood (I will refrain from using the word church since Paul didn't know what that was) had divisions, and Paul tirelessly focused on trying to eliminate them. If Western churches want to be doctrinal sound, they should heed the words of this book, and of Paul.

[Meagan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was excited to read this book because I loved What Jesus Meant and have always struggled to accept much of what I believed Paul said, so I figured this book would help me finally understand Paul. I DO think I learned some really important historical factors that put Paul's words (and supposed words) in context, but I was quite disappointed with the second half of the book, from which I felt I gained no useful insights. I would recommend the introduction, chapters 1-2 (which discuss Paul's writings on Jesus and Luke's distortion of them), and chapters 4-5 (which discuss Paul's relations with Peter and women) , but would not recommend the rest.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't think this book holds up well against, Paul a Biography by N.T. Wright. Wills puts his own thoughts on what Paul and the apostles meant without using sources to back up his thoughts. Having an author do this is fine and I welcome it but there has to be a little bit more written on why Wills thinks this or that. Other points in the book were informative like the execution of Paul and Peter, the blame game by the Roman Emperors, and the fear Paul felt going to Jerusalem with the tithe.

I am giving it a 3 because I think Wills is pushing his agenda and his personal views. I want to know what I can about Paul in the most accurate way and I didn't get that from this book.

[GollyRojer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is not for those with only a cursory knowledge of new testament theology and history. To best appreciate its contents, the reader should be familiar with the gospels, Paul's letters, and in particular, the book of Acts.
The book was for me a interesting and informative read. There were places when I temporarily lost track of what we were examining, but on the whole the material is clear and well-presented.

[Pete · Rating 5 out of 5]

you know i suspect that paul may have been a hair on fire maniac IRL, kind of like a living bill plympton cartoon with psychedelic ideas about god climbing out of his mouth all the time and then wielding their ladder like a goad. the kind of person who in the middle of a plane crash would bang on the cockpit door to scold the pilots. but also i kind of wish he was my best friend.

[Rob Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This clarifies and puts in context much of Paul's writings. Vilified as "ruining" Christianity this book points out how Paul's intent and mission have been misunderstood over the centuries. Enlightening reading.

[Teri · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book as a companion to New Testament study. I enjoyed the additional insights and perspectives. While I don’t agree with some of them it was good to have knowledge of what others have thought about Paul and his works.

[Christopher Johnston · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book - heterodox Christian thinkers are always a trip. Not sure I agree with his characterization of Luke but he definitely painted a compelling picture of Paul as a true emissary of Christ

[Richard Worden · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well written with adequate notations. The author pulls back the curtain that reveals the nature of Paul. The use of Paul's and Luke's writings make pieces of a puzzle once put together offer a view of the early church that is very different from the usual understanding.

[Tim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very rosy picture of Paul, but information/perspective that’s new to me and that seems to be accepted by at least some scholars.

[Arthur O'dell · Rating 2 out of 5]

At least it’s short.