I'm reading through a review copy of Michael Bird's
Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission and His Message (IVP, 2008), and I'd like to solicit your thoughts on this quote:
Bird writes,
While it has been fashionable in recent decades to say that Paul was 'called' rather than 'converted', we might remember that Paul's gut-wrenching and decisive transformation meant he was indeed swung around 180 degrees. This conversion, however, was not a conversion from one religion to another or from Judaism to Christianity. Paul was converted from the Pharisaic sect to a messianic sect within Judaism. (35)
What do you make of these last two sentences?
Paul, "Called" or "Converted"?
Bird writes,
I agree with Bird. In fact, I was just reading the intro to Leon Morris' work on the atonement and he said something very similar. There was not envisioned a distinct movement that was separate from Judaism and its tradition.
ReplyDeleteThe conversion of Paul is not a typical conversion partly because Paul had all the theological "stuff" in place, and once Jesus became the true Messiah, it was a matter of reconfiguring the paradigm with Christ at the center. This type of conversion is not the same as one by a pagan.
Just my thoughts...JHG
There's a high-falutin' theological word for that:
ReplyDeleteBALONEY!!!!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
James,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reference to Morris' comments. I found the intro at Amazon and browsed through it. I've been thinking about this since last night and here are my thoughts.
I am prone to forget or overlook the Jewishness of the Bible and the biblical characters, so the remark by Bird is helpful in that it reminds me of the continuity between Judaism and Christianity.
What bothers me about the way this is put, is that while attempting to emphasize the continuity, Bird overstates the discontinuity. Bird's statement, "not...from one religion to another or from Judaism to Christianity," goes beyond the NT presentation of the matter. Yes, Paul retained much of his Jewishness, but his former Judaism was indeed another religion.
I've been browsing through some of my books on Paul (F. F. Bruce, L. Morris, R. N. Longenecker and a new one by Larry Helyer) and all address this issue, but none seem to go as far as Bird has in this regard.
Fellas,
ReplyDeleteI would point out that this is a very common and uncontroversial remark in Pauline studies. At 33 AD there was no such thing as "Christianity" as a religion separate and completely distinguishable from Judaism. The parting of the ways had not yet occured. The early Jerusalem church was still attending the temple, obeying the law, but did so with a Christ-faith as well. To think of Paul as converting to Christianity at this point in time is as anachronistic as saying that he converted to Presbyterianism!
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your clarification.
I confess that I had not heard or read this put the way that you did. It caught my attention because of a topic I am considering elsewhere.
I understand that "Christianity" as you ably described above, was in its infancy and the term was not yet in use. As you well know, the NT initially speaks of this splinter group as "the disciples of Jesus" and those "belonging to the Way" (Ac 9:2; cf 19:9, 23; 24:14, 22). I see more clearly now that the NT is assuming the readers understand that the disciples and subsequent converts were Jews and, at first, worshiped and practiced their faith in the context of Judaism. It is also worth mentioning—and I think that this is where I got confused in my thinking—that it was not very long afterwards that Judaism would not tolerate those who were following Jesus. They quickly became apostates in the eyes of the Jewish leaders.
I just pulled out my copy of Bruce’s Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free and began reading through chapter 7, “The Beginning of ‘The Way’”. This was very helpful and I see your point more clearly, although Bruce uses different terminology.
"The immediate effect of this outpouring [the “Easter event”] was an urge to bear public and personal witness that Jesus, the crucified one, had been vindicated by God, and to proclaim forgiveness and the blessings of the new age thus inaugurated for all who yielded their allegiance to him. They soon won an impressively large body of adherents, who formed with them a new religious fellowship in Jerusalem – the fellowship of disciples of Jesus, knit together in unity by the newly imparted Spirit. They followed what they called the Way – the way of faith and life initiated by Jesus. …
"It is convenient to refer to the fellowship as the church of Jerusalem, even if the term “church” is strictly an anachronism when used of the earliest period of its existence. In addition to being called disciples, its members were variously described as the believers, the saints or the poor. …
"Many Pharisees soon recognized that the revived “Jesus movement” was not such a menace to pure religion as they had feared. Jesus’ disciples appeared to be much less radical in their attitude to the law and sacred tradition than he himself had been. Their leaders attended the temple services and conducted themselves in general as observant Jews, enjoying popular good will. …
"Some Pharisees, indeed, joined the disciples; if they were persuaded by the apostles’ witness that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead and was therefore the Messiah, they could add this belief to what they already held, without giving up their essential Pharisaism with its devotion to the law." (pp. 63-64)
In Paul: Apostle of Liberty, Longenecker expands upon what you stated in brief:
"To the more noble and tolerant of the Pharisees, however, the Jerusalem Christians were yet within the scope of Judaism and not to be treated as heretics. The divine claims for Jesus the Christ as yet lay in the subconsciousness of the Church, and the Jewish Christians gave no evidence of laxness in the observance of the Law because of their new beliefs. Other sects were tolerated within Judaism. Deluded Messianic followers could be countenanced as well….But between Gamaliel’s advice and Paul’s action there appeared from the substrata of Christian conviction an ominous element of Jewish apostasy.” (p. 34)
Thanks for the help. I’ll keep reading on.
the argument begets assumtion with the notion of varying shades of gray withing the scope of partial fulfillment of salvation. paul was lost spiritually yet had a knowledge of God that resided in the mind. like anyone, the facts can be had by anyone, lost or saved. it's in the application of those facts that set apart the two. paul's application germinated when the seed of his knowledge died on the road with Christ's appearance. he didn't move from one sect to another. his reality was ripped apart by Christ only to be restored to its proper context.
ReplyDelete