Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle

by Pamela Eisenbaum

leveraging the remnant to expand membership in God’s people.

to overcome the chasm between God and the nations that characterized the old age.

Paul likens Abraham to his Gentile followers, but in ways that are easily overlooked by the casual reader. For example, Paul alludes to the image of Abraham as former idolater and polytheist when in Romans 4:5 he calls the patriarch “ungodly,” the same word he uses to describe idolatrous Gentiles in Romans 1:18.14

By contrast, I think the similar descriptions of Abraham and Gentile believers are there precisely to reinforce the kindred connection that Paul argues Gentiles have in Abraham.

their existing relatedness to him, which they are now entitled to claim because of Christ. Once they recognize their relatedness, they will in fact display similar characteristics to their father Abraham; they will renounce idolatry and become monotheists.

To paraphrase Paul in v. 7: the descendants “of faith” are the true heirs of Abraham. (I

If Paul meant to say “those who believe” are the children of Abraham, surely he wouldn’t have used the obtuse phrase hoi ek pisteos when there are so many common alternatives, which he uses whenever that is what he means.

Like hoi pisteuontes

he is not here speaking of the personal belief of individuals but of an external source of faith from which others derive benefit. It is not the believers’ own faith to which Paul refers in this passage but most likely Abraham’s faith. Being a descendant of Abraham entitles one to certain benefits, namely, receiving the blessings God promised to Abraham and his descendants,

What does Paul mean when he speaks of people descended from the faith of Abraham? He means that Abraham’s descendants possess membership in the lineage of Israel by virtue of the great patriarch’s indefatigable trust in God’s promise for a multitude of progeny,

Scripture foretold that Abraham would be the father of many nations and that the nations would be blessed through him. That means that ultimately the nations have to become part of the family of Abraham before the end of the world in order for God to fulfill God’s promises.

Paul did not convert from Judaism to Christianity;

There is no denying that Paul had some sort of profound religious experience through which he became a believer in Jesus (whereas previously he had been a skeptic) and, simultaneously, received a divine commission to become an apostle to the Gentiles. But this experience did not cause him to turn away from Judaism.

My own work builds on the work of new-perspective scholars,

The first proposed solution is to say that Paul is a phony. Put in other words, Paul really was ignorant of Jewish law. In this scenario, Paul is disingenuous about his claims to being a Pharisee;

This is Hyam Maccoby's view in the mythmaker

This proposal is a cynical one.

E. P. Sanders, who understands Paul’s perspective on the law to be completely out of keeping with the typical understanding evident in the mass of Jewish literature contemporary with Paul. Sanders finds no rational way to explain this disconnect, and, as a result, he concludes that Paul’s logic works backward, “from solution to plight.” In other words, Paul’s experience of the risen Jesus causes the apostle to invent a “problem with Mosaic law” so as to rationalize his transformation.

Dunn explains that Paul’s negative comments about law reflect not a critique of Torah per se but rather a particular abuse of the law. Dunn argues that the issue Paul is addressing is rooted in ethnic nationalism, a kind of Jewish arrogance that diminishes and excludes non-Jews.

Because the historical evidence points to the vast majority of Hellenistic Jews being well integrated into the larger society, it seems to me very unlikely that an extreme form of ethnic nationalism was the problem. That this was the issue seems even less likely if we consider that Paul’s mission is out in the Diaspora.

the vast majority of Paul’s negative statements about the law are easily explained by the fact that Paul is addressing a Gentile audience.

As John Gager says, “If you miss Paul’s rhetorical strategies, you will get him wrong.”

in general, awareness of the Gentile audience makes all the difference.

when Paul rails against circumcision, as he does in Galatians, it is not because circumcision is inherently bad. It is because he does not want Gentiles to get circumcised.

when he says that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Gal 3:13), he means that Christ has removed the curse that Gentiles suffered under because, to paraphrase Deuteronomy, those who do not do what the Torah requires are cursed (27:26).

Nope. See Romans 2:17-24 and Galatians 3:10-12

his point is that Jews always stood righteous before God because of God’s faithfulness to the covenant, not because Israel observed the law in perfect obedience.

Nope Romans 9:6

there was any conversion for Paul, it was a conversion about what time it was in history.

Paul’s comments about law come out of Paul’s understanding of himself as a prophetic figure whose particular prophetic message is directed to the Gentiles.

Paul is first and foremost the Apostle to the Gentiles, and this identity is the critical key to understanding virtually everything Paul says about law.

expressed by 2 Maccabees: For in the case of the other nations the Lord waits patiently to punish them until they have reached the full measure of their sins; but he does not deal in this way with us,

Since Israel had the Torah but Gentiles did not, it is the latter who have suffered the accumulation of sin.

In Galatians 2:15 Paul says, “We are Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners.” Paul implies that it is Gentiles who hold the status of sinner, and not Jews.

This covenanted status meant that Israel’s sin was kept in check. Sin did not accumulate because the covenant enabled her to make atonement for sin.

Whatever the sins that Israel committed, God would always ensure that she righted herself so as to stay bound to God.

Except what ahout Hosea? Habakkuk?

Paul is Apostle to the Gentiles, and this means he is particularly focused on the Gentile question: how does God relate to Gentiles?

Gentiles in general are sinners because they worship other gods.

Ironically, the traditional view of Paul portrays him as favoring Gentiles or at least seeing no difference between Gentiles and Jews. In my view, Paul reflects the various and sometimes contradictory aspects reflected among other Hellenistic Jewish authors. Gentiles, generally speaking, are considered inferior in Jewish eyes.

most of those envisioned the condemnation of the nations, not their salvation.

What makes Paul stand out is that his apocalyptic orientation leads him to view Gentiles inclusively.

It is at this point that Paul’s Christology comes in. Christ is the sacrifice that atones for all those sins that have accumulated on all those Gentiles. For Gentiles to take up Torah observance now would be an act of faithlessness.

So Jesus didn't atone for Israel too?

justification by faith” refers to the divine “fix” for the problem that Gentiles suffer because of their accumulation of sin. Paul does not have a problem with Jewish law; the problem he is trying to solve entails the relationship of Gentiles—specifically Gentiles—to the law.

Paul understands Torah to be God’s provision for humanity to be in relationship with God.

But Paul includes himself in those who have died to the law, for whom the law was a curse

This view of the law is rooted in the idea that human nature is totally depraved. Everyone is by nature a sinner. But Paul does not share this cynical view of human nature in spite of the fact that Paul is credited with first developing this idea. According to ancient Jewish literature,

Romans 3:11-12, 21-24

Both sin, but only the wicked hold the status of “sinner” in the sense of being morally irredeemable.

But that's the point of Jesus: to redeem sinners!

Neither biblical tradition in general nor Paul in particular understands human beings in general as depraved, unable on their own to do anything good.

Psalm 14:1-3 quoted at Romans 3:11-12. She's really trying to wrestle her interpretation onto unruly data!

it sounds as if he is saying exactly what Augustine and Luther thought he was saying: that the law only makes things worse. It is more likely that Paul means simply that when the Torah was given on Mount Sinai, there was accountability that there had not been before. One cannot transgress the law if no law is in place.

Same thing. Paul argues tha law augments awareness of sin and consequently the felt need for grace and Jesus

the giving of the law to Moses exacerbated sin, then God caused the exacerbation of sin! This would be a most bizarre theology to attribute to Paul (or any other Jew in antiquity or, for that matter, at any other time), especially since Paul is famous for his proclamations of the “righteousness of God.”

Paul answers this himself at Galatians 3:19-22

But, so the theory goes, the very imposition of these rules causes the child to want to break them.

Romans 7:7-13

This psychological assumption is grounded in an extremely pessimistic anthropology. It holds that human nature is essentially bad. To be human is to be a sinner.

Original sin!!!!!

Luther and the Reformers believed that human beings desire to do evil,

Genesis 8:21!

Reading the text this way is reinforced by 7:12, where Paul says emphatically that the law is holy, just, and good. Paul did not know he was doing anything wrong until there was a law to teach right from wrong. One may not live up to the standards of the law, but that does not make the law the cause of one’s failure.

In order to understand Romans 7, and thus understand how the law serves as teacher, it is essential that we consider the identity of the speaker in this passage. Paul shifts from speaking in the first common plural voice of “we” (7:7a) to speaking in the first singular voice of “I.”