What Saint Paul Really Said – Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity
What Saint Paul Really Said Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity
N.T. Wright, a world authority on the life and letters of Paul, responds to A.N. Wilson's claim that it was Paul and not Jesus who founded Christianity. He delivers a devastating critique, contending that Paul was a faithful witness and herald of Jesus Christ.
User Ratings and Reviews
5 Stars A readable treatment of the "New Perspective"
For almost 500 years, Protestants and Catholics have been locked into a debate on "what Paul really said," especially in how it relates to justification. For over 100 years, scholars have been attempting to reinterpret "what Paul really said" with wildly divergent results, most of which have more to do with their personal ideologies than the thought of the Apostle. In this short book, N.T. Wright attempts to show that all of this study and debate doesn't really address "what Paul really said."
N.T. Wright is a prominent proponent of the "New Perspective on Paul" which was pioneered by E.P. Sanders. Those who wish to get an overview of that movement would do well to start with this book. Wright is eminently readable even when discussing finer theological details. What he does extremely well is describe Paul's thoughts before his conversion on the road to Damascus. This is the key to understanding Paul, for if you read him carefully, you will see that he views his newfound belief in Christ as the fulfillment of his previous beliefs, not their complete repudiation. The death and resurrection of Christ, for Paul, is the unexpected way in which God vindicates Israel. Instead of it being a political victory over the world, instead it is a victory of a perfect representative over sin and death. Understanding this background has far-reaching consequences, especially regarding the view that Paul was an over-scrupulous believer in salvation by works before his conversion (a common view coming out of the Protestant Reformation); a view that falls into disarray when one understands Paul's true background.
Wright also goes into some detail regarding Paul's view of the "righteousness of God." Without going into too much detail here, he shows how Paul's Jewish background calls into question the common view that this righteousness of God can be imputed or transmitted to the believer. This is the section in which I wish Wright had gone into more detail. He obviously wanted to keep this book short and accessible, but in this case it would have been worthwhile to go into more depth, as his arguments are not comprehensive.
For any student of St. Paul, this is a must read. Even if you don't agree with his conclusions, Wright forces you to address the issues he raises.
5 Stars Great Explanation and Defense of New Perspective
This book is a well written explanation and defense of the New Perspective on Paul. Wright breaks down Paul's theology in a way that makes sense of his background as a first century Jewish Pharisee. He indeed shows that Paul's theology is not a new faith as a mixture of Judaism with Hellinism, but rather it is Jewish to the core reshaped and redefined around Jesus of Nazareth, who showed himself to be the very face of Israel's God. I think he does a good job of demonstrating that Second Temple 1st century Judaism was not a religion of self-help morality, but rather it's obsession with the Law was more or less an ethnocentric way of keeping the covenant all to themselves.
From all of this stems Wright's view on justification and the righteousness of God. As a North American Protestant/Evangelical, many of the people with whom I have discussed this issue completely reject and condemn it right from the beginning. But I don't see things that way. I believe that Wright's view of justification is a completely valid and biblical view to hold. And honestly I hold almost the same view of justification (I don't know all the intricacies of his view, therefore I say 'almost'). His basic argument is that justification in Paul's law-court language has nothing to do with how a person "gets saved" but rather is the declaration that a person "is already saved". He seems to distinguish between regeneration (the new birth) and justification (and rightfully so), however most Protestants, especially those of the Reformed tradition do not. To sum it up, Wright believes that justification is God's present declaration that someone is part of the covenant family in anticipation of the future declaration of vindication.
From this issue, Wright tackles the issue of the righteousness of God. Most Protestants, especially Reformers hold to the doctrine of imputation. That is the actual righteousness of Jesus is somehow transferred to the believers "account". In light of Wright's defense of his view of justification imputation is simply not needed. It's not only not needed but there does not seem to be ample biblical support for the doctrine, which Wright demonstrates in the classic proof texts of the doctrine. Instead of the righteousness of God being something given to the believer, it is actual God's own righteousness, his justice towards his covenant. Wright defends this notion beautifully from historical 1st century Judaism and the Old Testament itself.
I highly recommend this book.
4 Stars Great View of Paul, Despite the Speck in Wright's Eye
Oxford educated, N.T. Wright became the Anglican Bishop of Durham in 2003. On 4 August 2006 he was appointed to the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved for a period of five years. This is a kind of an Anglican Supreme Court in matters of Church discipline and doctrinal boundary protection. He is a prodigious author, whose sentiments resonate with E.P. Sanders and the New Perspective on Paul. His views on hell and on justification are matters controversial with some. However, he is a writer whose breadth, brilliance, and clarity demand respect and always, a hearing.
Wright sets out not to do a complete study on Paul, but rather "to focus on some key areas of Paul's proclamation and its implications–including some not usually noticed–in an attempt to uncover `what Paul really said' at these vital points" (8). This he does in ten chapters.
Chapter 1 surveys major figures and schools of Pauline studies and situates Wright's perspective with respect to them. In Chapter 2, Wright sees Saul of Tarsus as foundationally a Shammaite Pharisee zealous for the people of Israel, the Land and the Temple in the context of Torah obedience and the progress of a story in search of an ending. For Wright, and for Paul, Judaism is not simply a religion, but a covenantal way of life in service to a divine plan and certainly not a religion of works righteousness (not proto-Pelagian) or a religion for souls in search of heaven. Paul believed in the resurrection of the dead, not the soul's journey to heaven. And for him, justification had to do with the vindication of Israel (See Isa 50:8-9). In Jesus, Paul sees proleptically present the future toward which he has always labored. Chapter 3 begins by exploring the overlay between Paul's conversion and his call, often considered an either/or matter by scholars, but not by Wright. Paul's gospel message is in continuity with expectations he had always known and served. The message is about the end of the Exile (??), the Jewish view of good news (see Isa 52:7 ff.), and the proclamation of the arrival of a victorious King (the Roman view). The gospel is emphatically NOT advertising for a new religious experience. In the cross, God has overcome all that opposed him, the Exile ends (??) and the Gentiles are ushered in. Wright stresses that Jesus is the Lord and King, and the gospel God's means of calling pagans to himself from out of idolatry. However, Wright fails to appreciate Jesus's continuing role as King of Israel and the nations. By this I mean that it seems that for Wright, Jesus' role as Israel's champion is eclipsed and replaced by his role as King of the nations. I cannot agree.
Chapter 4 examines how Paul's encounter with the crucified and risen Messiah reconfigured his view of God from within a thoroughly Jewish monotheism, giving him a redrawn Jewish mission to the pagans, employing available linguistic categories, and configuring his selection and reading of key OT texts. Chapter 5 considers how Paul remains rooted in the Jewish monotheistic project, but with a reconfigured message for the pagan world which overturns pagan idolatry and immorality while also chastening an Israel needing to catch up with what God has done in Messiah. In Chapter 6, "Good News for Israel," Wright examines `the righteousness of God." Principally and foundationally this is God's covenant faithfulness. Israel has failed to understand that in Christ God is fulfilling his faithfulness for Israel and the nations, and proudly seeks to hold on to pride of place and status. (Here, as elsewhere, Wright demonstrates his readiness to think disparagingly of a superseded Israel. It is disappointing). In Chapter 7, "Justification and the Church," Wright calls for a recontextualization of the standard Christian salvation narrative within Paul's gospel. The popular view skews and distorts Paul's theology. A proper view of the Pauline gospel yields a proper view of justification, so that is where we must begin. He examines key passages in Galatians, Romans and Philippians, defending a different definition of the gospel and of justification than is normally discussed. This changes and clarifies how we understand Paul's corpus in general. For Paul, justification language is covenant language concerning God's covenant faithfulness. It is law-court language of the vindication of the accused, and has eschatological content and thrust. Chiefly, justification concerns how one tells someone is part of the people of God prior to the end of all things. It is more about ecclesiology than soteriology. God's righteousness intrinsic to himself is a moral quality, but for us, a verdict of acquittal from the bench. Paul sees people drawn to God by the Spirit through the preaching of the gospel, with faith being the badge God places upon such people indicating that they are His. This verdict is proleptic of the final judgment when the assessment of our lives will indicate if the verdict holds true. The gospel is not the message of justification by faith, but rather the proclamation of who came, why, what happened to him, and the difference it makes.
In Chapter 8, Wright shows "that Paul held out to hearers, urged upon his converts, and did his best to maintain in his churches, the reality of God's renewed humanity which at every level and in every way proved to be the reality of which paganism was a parody, and at every level and in every way proved to be the fulfillment of Israel's aspirations" (150). Chapter 9 shows how the gospel creates the church, while justification defines it. In this chapter he summarizes Paul's gospel around three foci: The coming of the king, the meaning of justification, and the redefintion of God, suggesting how this could or should impact contemporary life. Such a gospel creates allegiance, not experience per se, although experience will come. Wright says the only experience guaranteed by Jesus is carrying the cross, but in this he forgets John 14:21 which promises the obedient disciple the manifestation of Messiah. And he points out that we are not justified by sound doctrine, and certainly not by believing in justification by faith, but rather by Messiah Jesus. Christians are commanded to bring their bodies into subjection, and if they are not going to live the gospel, they cannot expect that their preaching will be heeded. The Kingdom of God is not a matter of talk, but of power.
In the final chapter, Chapter 10, using A. N. Wilson as his foil, Wright examines whether Paul was the real founder of Christianity. His verdict is "No," refuting Wilson point by point. Ultimately, for Paul the resurrection of Jesus was the beginning of the end, and the cross was the moment when sin and death were defeated. Jesus and Paul are not ethically or spiritually parallel but rather two points on a continuum of God's eschatological purpose.
This book is an indispensable primer in N. T. Wright's views on Paul and his theology. A mere 192 pages, and clearly written, it warrants more than one reading, as it lays out a holistic view of the work of God in Messiah in exciting and compelling terms.
However, all is not well. Although Wright is likeable and worthy of deep respect, he will disappoint most Messianic Jewish readers because of his pervasive supersessionism of which he is himself likely only dimly aware. His views are skewed, and are either unsatisfactory or even objectionable for Jews. For example:
* Wright emphasizes Jesus as King but fails to see or present him as the continuing King of Israel and the nations;
* He sees Israel as elected for service and that is all: "Israel, clinging to her own special status as the covenant-bearer, has betrayed the purpose for which that covenant was made. It is as though the postman were to imagine that all the letters in his bag were intended for him" (108). This is appalling and insults the Jewish people, indicating that Wright sees her election as being solely for service, and showing himself to be a proponent of economic supersessionsm–viewing Israel as having served a now expired purpose, after which she should simply get out of the way. He gives no indication that God chose Israel not simply for his purposes, but out of everlasting love;
* He sees Jesus as the replacement Israelite (127), rather than really as the representative Israelite in whom God's triumphant purposes for Israel go forward;
* He contends that what Judaism expected God to do at the end of things, is done in the middle of things in Christ. Thus, all eschatology about Israel collapses into Christ;
* He offensively parodies Judaism as a religion of blood, soil, race and tribe (137);
* He redefines Israel, with the former definition of Israel expiring (138-139);
* He repeatedly characterizes Judaism as "unbelieving Judaism." This is offensive, implying that Jews without Jesus faith have no valid faith at all;
* He seems to assume that the eschaton will result in an undifferentiated humanity, since he leaves no room for a special destiny for Israel qua Israel.
Despite these glaring blind spots, there is much that Wright does see clearly, helping us to see these matters clearly as well. The blind spots justify the subtraction of one star. This book is well worth reading. I only hope I someday have the opportunity to remove the speck from Bishop Wright's eye.
4 Stars Great Book with Typical Flaw
Until Bishop Wright finishes Volume 4 of his magnum opus, Christian Origins and the Question of God, we will have to do with his shorter monographs on Paul's thought. As always, the trenchant scholarship and sharp writing shines through.
And, as always it seems, the same flaw appears whenever Wright tries to be relevant to the contemporary church: his ideas of Christian social justice are just the most shopwarn cliches of the most warmed over academic leftism imaginable. For example, he decries widespread consumer debt as creating "misery for millions" and profits for a "tiny minority." As if borrowers don't borrow because it is in their interest to do so, and as if lenders would lend without being paid a return for their trouble. To hold opinions like this means being totally ignorant of modern economics. It is one thing to take every thought captive for Christ – another to indulge foolishness. Remember Mark 7 – folly is sin.
5 Stars A Great Summary of Wright's View of Paul and the Gospel.
Tom Wright is at the forefront of Pauline scholarship as well as studies on Jesus. His historical instincts, engagement with primary sources and 'big picture' exegesis have led him to a fresh reading of Paul in the historical context of the Graeco-Roman-Jewish world of the 1st century. The outcome is a breathtaking view of the Gospel as understood and preached by Paul to a world dominated by the Roman imperial cult, pagan idolatry, Greek wisdoms and Jewish Messianic hopes. It is in such a world, Wright argues, where Paul does his business and his writings can best be understood against this background. This means that the popular, truncated notion of the gospel as a timeless system of salvation that will 'save our souls' and 'get us to heaven after we die' would have to be jettisoned in favour of the gospel that announces God's reign that has been inaugurated here on earth in the person of Jesus the Messiah. This means that the gospel has a much larger scope (indeed cosmic) than the private relationship one has with God or the eternal destiny of the individual souls. Rather, it speaks of God's faithfulness to the world he has made and how through the covenant relationships with his people, he will set the world aright – culminating in the new heavens and the new earth. This way of reading Paul would require a paradigm shift for Christians who have got used to reading the NT through the 'works righteousness vs salvation by grace' debates that have coloured our reading of Paul since Augustine. Hence, the evident unsettling of some readers. Wright's proposal, while we do not have to agree with every fine point of his exegesis , has the huge edge over the traditional reading for taking the historical setting far more seriously and in so doing invites us to hear Paul afresh as he announces the good news in all its ramifications.
I've found this book to be a great primer to Wright's other more extensive treatments of Paul in many of his other works, including 'Paul for Everyone' commentaries, 'Paul in Fresh Perspectives' and 'Climax of the Covenant' – listed in ascending order of profoundity. I recommend it to anyone who is open to letting his reading of Paul be challenged by one of the most respected NT scholars of our day.
Related posts:
- Saint Paul
- Saint Paul – The Foundation of Universalism Cultural Memory in the Present
- Paul In Fresh Perspective
- The First Paul – Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Churchs Conservative Icon
- Paul Apostle of the Heart Set Free
- Exhibit on Pope John Paul II and the Jewish Community to Open in New York
- Apostle of the Crucified Lord – A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters
- Lord of the Cosmos – Mithras, Paul and the Gospel of Mark
- What Did Jesus Really Say – How Christianity Went Astray What To Say To A Born Again Christian Fundamentalist But Never Had The Information
- Paul and His Letters
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
One Response to “What Saint Paul Really Said – Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity”
Leave a Reply
Here in the States, a growing number of people are no longer affiliated with any religion. Yet, there are some Christian groups who continue to insist on blurring the lines of separation between church and state. For the non-churchgoers and freethinkers worldwide, this site features news, reviews and editorials on just about anything regarding religion. Your opinion is always welcome here, either as a columnist or commenter. Hey, this is not church -- you are allowed to speak your mind and think for yourself!
A NOTE ABOUT COMMENTS: While comments are welcomed and get the Do Follow option, they are strictly monitored. That means comments must be on topic and add to the discussion. Submissions from multiple names having the same IP, troll comments, keyphrase users and the like will be deleted. Please see our policies page for more information.
 |
 |
Main Feed | Comments Feed |
|
 |
 |
Tried to post once and got an error, hope this doesn't post twice
From one of the four-star reviews above: "For example, he decries widespread consumer debt…"
That hit home for me because debt (lending) is the industry I work in. On the one hand, it's true that debt wouldn't exist if it wasn't beneficial to both the lender and the borrower. But I've said in my blog that debt is like medicine, the right amount helps, too much is addictive and harmful. If a person would help fellow human beings who were addicted by helping them become drug-free, it seems there's also an obligation to help someone hopelessly in debt. And yet, if you equate all debt or charging of interest with sin, then it ignores both modern economics and the benefits that being able to borrow money can bring, as well as the incentive to loan money.