Loading...In my post yesterday I began talking about Paul’s understanding of salvation coming to gentiles without having to keep the Jewish law. Now I get to the real problem. Doesn’t Paul contradict his own views of the need to keep the law when he talks about the importance of love? Here’s a fairly rough draft of my current thoughts on the matter.
******************************
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I feel like you may be trying to prove that people are ethical and moral apart from Christianity? That’s a tough one.
Paul said that loving one another is the same as not committing adultery, not coveting, not murdering, etc… My thoughts are —that is exactly what we regard as being moral today, so Christianity (God) does play a huge role in our moral code of ethics. Christianity has been so entrenched in our thinking, that even atheists can’t escape it. Doesn’t matter if you think there’s no God or even if a whole country is atheist because Christianity has permeated the modern world on some level.
Just take yourself for instance, you may be far more ethical and moral than a loose living Christian, but someone would say that’s because your life has been wrapped around Christianity since the day you were born, and even more so as a scholar, so it makes perfect sense that your morals and ethics are stronger.
A scientific study can’t prove anything one way or the other even on a biological level because who’s to say that Christianity hasn’t affected us on a cellular level at this point?
I just want to add by saying—for better or worse, I think most of us are mentally trapped by the ethics of Christianity whether we want to be or not. I’m not confident a scientific study can tell us anything since we’re entrenched in Christianity from birth.
I would be more interested in the ethics of indigenous peoples who have no knowledge of Christianity at any point in time, but that may not be possible.
Sure, there are nations not heavily influenced by Christianity, but still, there’s an impact I would think. And if ethics and morals are developed apart from Christianity, how do you prove that?
You prove it by showing there were ethical systems that have been in place in cultures for many centuries prior to the advent of Christianity (e.g., China; India; etc.)
Christianity grew and was formed in Rome & Europe and than USA.
We don’t know what the disciples had to say.
The literate won.
Just look at USA popular Christianity, not emphasizing the moral living that they spewed even 20 years ago.
As for China’s ethical systems- Confucianism and buddhism are dead there. I recall around 1998 in SCMP, HK’s English newspaper printed that Buddhist monks did not know ultimately what their lives were for.
I thought that I knew better since no one could really figure out the anthology and that Andrew Murray & perhaps Watchman Nee deciphered of how to live a life totally worthy of an Overcomer.
the USA moral & ethical code has changed for the worst over the last 25 years.
& my life is at odds with the USA system.
Let me repeat, china does not follow confuscianism, taoism or buddhism. this was a rapidly emerging economy.
As I asked an older academic 2008, what happened to be respectful of all others because one does not know where the next opportunity is at. He responded China has grown at such a phenomenal speed, that no one can grasp it..
Finally predestination was something conjured up long after Jesus time.
Isn’t the answer to this conundrum that Paul believed (i) that mere compliance with the law did not produce salvation but also (ii) that having true faith in God through Christ would inevitably produce fruit that resulted in a life lived out in accordance with the divine law of love?
Yup, that’s pretty much my view.
Thanks Bart for exploring an important tension in Paul’s thinking.
Perhaps a way into this, is to see Paul as having developed his understanding through metaphor. In particular, for understanding how Jewish and non-Jewish followers of Jesus stand in respect of one another, Paul has been guided by his metaphor of the olive tree (Romans 11:17-24). Paul states that the Law of God is to be understood as a cultivated olive; a root-stock that supports, and saves, its branches (God’s people Israel), and sustains them to bring forth good fruits. But now that the strength and wisdom of the Law has been revealed in Jesus; so those Jews who reject Jesus have broken themselves off from the Law.
In their place, through faith in Jesus, wild olive branches (non-Jewish followers of Jesus) can be grafted into the root-stock of the Law, and equally can be sustained by it to bear good fruits. But the grafted branches remain wild olives, their ‘natural’ husbandry and fruits will be those of wild, not cultivated, olives. So non-Jewish followers of Jesus are *not at all* law-free. They are grafted into the Law, but grafted as Gentiles not as Jews.
Paul explores these implications at Romans 11:24 (for which also refer to Galatians 2:15). Jews, as Paul himself and Cephas, are ‘by nature’ law-followers; while non-Jews are ‘by nature’ sinful (in this Paul follows standard rabbinic understanding). So, by being grafted into the Law, non-Jews are being grafted ‘against their nature’. As you say, for Paul the ‘sinful nature’ of Gentiles may be countered through participation in the love of humanity in Jesus; love is the fulfilment of the law, so non-Jews who are ‘in Christ’ may ‘against nature’ nevertheless be grafted into obedience to the Law. But this does not apply to those stipulations of the Law that maintain discrete Jewish identity (kosher, festival observance, circumcision).
Nevertheless Paul applies the grafting metaphor literally; for Paul the knife of circumcision stands for the knife of grafting. So those non-Jews who *are* circumcised can only be grafted (and conform to the husbandry of) cultivated olives. Circumised non-Jewish followers of Jesus must then follow the ‘entire law’ at all times (Galatians 5:3), as Paul himself continues to do.
As for Temple sacrifice, Gentile nations *do* share this obligation; but only as promised in the end-time.
I suppose some behaviors can be boiled down to common decency? Not so much as ritual-type setting apart of persons. The setting apart would not be a necessary component to followers of Jesus?
Apart from circumcision, which Paul is clearly speaking against (although he circumcised Timothy, what a hypocrisy), I don’t see how you can prove Paul preached against sabbath keeping and kashrut. He is speaking, if anything, against vegetarianism (possible targeting ebionites), but not against kosher eating and Sabbath observing. He might be interpreted as speaking against these as well, but he didn’t have the courage to tackle the subject directly.
According to Acts he circumcised Timothy, but I don’t think that can be right. And I’m not saying Paul preached against sabbath or kashrut; he was preaching that gentiles don’t need to observe them.
Thank you for your answer! I would be very interested in finding where Paul is explicitly saying to the gentiles that they can eat unclean animals and disobey Sabbath observance. And I would stress the ‘explicitly’ bit, because I know there are passages that can be interpreted in that way, but they don’t really say those things. I think Paul just hinted at them, but never had the courage to preach it bluntly.
Off topic: I started reading your books and watching your podcasts one year ago and my messianic jewish faith is stronger than ever because of you. A big thank you for everything you do!
Yes, it would be nice if we had explicit statements. Unfortunately, all we ahve are seven letters that are dealing with other issues. But one of the issues is the Gentile believers in Jesus do NOT have to keep the law of the Jews.
Thanks.
.. unless they are circumcised; in which case, they must keep the entire Jewish Law.
The logic for why this should be is not clearly set out; but Paul is adamant on the point.
Through faith in Jesus, Gentile believers are offered salvation through participation in God’s love, without having to take on Jewish identity; but if they have taken on Jewish identity through circumcision, this access to salvation is closed to them.
I’ve been thinking lately about all the healing stories in the gospels. In my younger days, I assumed these were factual; now I find it unbelievable. I’ve been told that in that time other people went about healing, besides Jesus. Do you have a perspective on these stories?
Yup, I think they are all pious but often highly entertaining fictions.
G’day Dr Ehrman
A possibly stupid question for you, I know that 6 of the Paul letters in the Bible are letters we know Paul didn’t write
I also know there are letters claiming to be from Paul that aren’t in the New Testament (3rd Corinthians I’ve heard you mention and I’m sure there are others) however are there any letters of Paul that have been found that are genuine Paul letters but that aren’t in the Bible? Or other letters and books from a James or Peter or other Apostles we think are genuine (as in were written by them) but didn’t make the cut for the Bible but we have copies of that we’ve discovered?
Nope, not stupid at all. But no, no genine letters of Paul survive outside the NT, or by any of the apostles.
“Another explanation is …Paul .. considered some laws of Scripture completely irrelevant to gentile followers of Jesus – “cultic” laws such as circumcision.. but others .. especially the “ethical” laws, which can indeed, in this view, be summarized in the love command.”
Indeed, but there were practical reasons for that.
As stated in the previous article: “Converting posed problems. It meant undergoing the painful operation of circumcision, the adoption of food laws against pork, shellfish, the observance of the Sabbath and the Jewish festivals.. Gentiles were not EXACTLY STANDING IN LINE TO CONVERT.”
On the other hand, the emphasis on “the love command” greatly aided the cohesion of Paul’s churches.
‘Cultic’ laws posed a problem for converting Gentiles (the bulk of Paul’s churches), while ‘ethical’ ones helped keep the congregation appeased.
Paul was a genius at adapting his ‘theology’ to circumstances. When the Thessalonians became worried about those who died before Jesus’ return, he explained:
‘ACCORDING TO THE LORD’S WORD, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.’ (1 Thess 4:15)
Did Jesus really say that? Come on.
One way to take this argument further is to claim that the “justification” interpretation of (say) Romans and Galatians is incoherent. This is the step of Douglas Campbell and (in a different way) Brigette Kahl (Galatians Re-Imagined). Not exactly currently mainstream, but interesting nonetheless.
Galatians 5:18-21
“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
I assume at least some of the bad behaviors mentioned in these verses are prohibited under the Law of Moses. Sexual immorality and jealousy might be covered, implicitly at least, by the 7th and 10th commandments themselves. Could Paul’s thinking have been that although Christians were not subject to the Law per se, and that adherence to the Law could not in itself earn eternal life, that in order for one’s faith in Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection to be effective for salvation, following the spirit of the law, e.g., loving your neighbor as yourself, and behaving properly were necessary?
I wouldn’t say that Paul thought someone had to do these things to make faith effective for salvatoin, but rather than those who are doing these things do not really have faith in Christ.
Romans 11:22
“Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen but God’s kindness toward you, if you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.”
What does Paul mean by “if you continue in his kindness?” Maintaining one’s faith in Jesus’ death and resurrection? By “cut off” does he mean losing salvation?
Kindness in this verse refers to God’s gracious gift made available to gentiles, not originally his chosen people, who have now been “grafted” in as a new branch into the “tree” of his chosen people; it’s a metaphor. If you continue living in his grace by remaining faithful to Christ you remain on the tree. If you abandon his grace (decide to move away from following Christ) you will be lopped off the tree.
Indeed Bart; but (specifically by the time Paul was writing to the Romans) he appears no longer to be teaching that those *Jews* who have rejected Jesus, and who have consequently been lopped off the ‘Tree’ of the Covenant, have thereby altogether lost salvation. Instead , it would appear that – contrary to the metaphor of gafting – they will continue to be supported and sustained through obedience otherwise to the Law; as detached but not fuĺly excluded. So when the full number of faithful Gentiles have been united in Christ, “all of Israel will be saved”, including those who formerly rejected Jesus.
Paul states that Christ is the “culmination” of the Law (Romans 10:4); but by this date, that culmination – for most Jews -seems to have been deferred by Paul until Christ’s return in glory. In the meantime, the Jewish Law implicitly continues.
.
Thank you for pointing out this inconsistency in Galatians. I missed it though I’d been in Christian ministry more 40 years! But I couldn’t miss the inconsistencies and contradictions in the first 3 chapters of Romans in spite of reading it no fewer than 30 times, studying numerous commentaries, and listening to numerous sermons by eminent evangelical preachers including the highly regarded Martyn LLoyd-Jones. This is more subtle.
This blog gets to the heart of what I have recently been focused on. I think you (and most if not all scholars) are really missing something. Paul’s theology of the Messiah had to totally flipped after his conversion if he was a Pharisee or Saducee. However if Paul were an Essene, then his theology of a messiah would fit his letters. I’m not saying that Paul was an Essene, but that somewhere between before his vision/conversion and his evangelizing, his view of the Messiah and coming kingdom changed from that of a Pharasee to one of an Essene.
Pharisee view was warrior King in line of David, with re-establishing Kingdom of Israel.
Essene view was Suffering Servant type of messiah and a heavenly kingdom.
Saducees “No Messiah”
Paul does not seem to believe all of the Essene teachings, but he does seem to have been influenced by Essene teachings..
Paul says he went to Arabia at first then back to Damascus. Damascus scroll suggests origin of Essene in Babylon (Arabia?) Philo of Alexandria places them in Syria. So if Paul says he was not “taught” by any person, The Essenes may have influenced his understanding.
Continuation of my previous comment of the influence of the Essenes on Paul
Acts places Pauls home in the province of Syria. If indeed Philo is correct, then Paul may have had Essene exposure growing up. Paul was zealous in his beliefs and was said to have been taught by Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). At minimum, he sought out as much teaching as he could get. He was really deep into it. So it would stand to reason he possibly could have first been taught by the Essenes. I think I heard from someone suggesting Paul learned teachings of multiple Jewish sects.(but I could be mistaken).
Paul seems never to have married, and claims not being married is a “gift” (1 Cor 7-7). That also seems to fit an influence of the Essene, which is opposite of the Pharisees. Such influence may be what makes Pauls views of women so confusing
I think you need to dig deeper into the Essenes to compare their theology to Pauls on these subjects..
Rom 3:20 (nobody justified by deeds prescribed by the law) contradicts Rom 2:13 (doers of the law will be justified). It seems Paul was not very precise in defining what he means by “law”. He was basically a politician, not a theologian.
My first question is: what does fulfill (i.e. the Greek word used) actually mean? Does replacing detailed laws with a principal-based framework both remove the law and fulfill (the purpose of) it?
This framework would sufficiently refute claims of lawlessness if that strictly meant moral laws only.
Some Jews today teach that there is no underlying meaning to cultic laws, they must be followed only out of obedience.
So, my second question is: did other second temple Jews distinguish between moral and cultic laws? Did Hillel the elder? Paul seems to, and I think the Gospels do, at least implicitly. Did Jewish views change over centuries as they digested Greek and Roman philosophy and this distinction became obvious and something they needed to resolve?
I work in tax policy and often see 19th century black and white laws replaced with principle-based laws, is this a good analogy?
Fulfill can mean a variety of things. It can mean that something that has happened correspondes to what was predicted (a ‘fulfilled’ prophecy); it can mean that it fills something full of meaning (by showing it has a deeper dimension that is now realized), or .. probably other things.
And no, second temple Jews so far as we know did not make this distinction. Paul and Matthew appear to do so, imo, but only because of their Christian commitments. I doubt if they did before converting (assuming Matthew tartd as a Jews0>
i have a question. would paul get naked in roman baths to share his gospel ?
quote:
Ancient Romans bathed in public at bathhouses called balnea or thermae, which were open to the public for a fee. Balnea were smaller, private or public facilities, while thermae were larger, state-owned complexes that could cover several city blocks. The largest thermae, the Baths of Diocletian, could accommodate up to 3,000 people
/
20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to gain Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might gain those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not outside God’s law but am within Christ’s law) so that I might gain those outside the law.
since the law did not apply to the gentiles when it came to bathing, would paul have bathed with naked romans?
I”d love to know the answer to *that* one!
I’m always scratching my head about the relationship between faith and “works” (of love). Usually I just end up accepting that (for Christians) there are two essential requirements rather than just one basic principle from which the rest can be deduced.
To me this is the “pragmatic” solution rather than the ideal or perfect solution—and allows us to get on with life. Ideas and reality are not seamless entities but “chunks” of approximate truths. “Balancing” two essential requirements is better than trying to integrate them into one basic requirement or into some kind of priority or hierarchy. It allows for “pluralism.”
I feel more and more this way toward many things, especially politics. Ideologues spend too much time trying to be “pure.” And it ends up being divisive.
I’m not sure I mean this as a criticism of what you’re doing. You’re a specialist and it’s your job. Any sort of solution, even just the analysis, will be fascinating.
I just feel personally like I’ve spent way too much of my life spinning my wheels about things like this.
Dr. Ehrman,
Thanks for these great posts! So it’s pretty clear that Paul taught that the law could not bring salvation. Does he or any other NT author indicate how salvation was achieved before the cross?
I was once part of an evangelical church that taught that Old Testament salvation was the same as in the New Testament – by grace through faith in Christ. But how we could expect an Old Testament believer to understand that is beyond me. I know of Genesis 15:6 – Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. But is there anything else in the Old Testament that hints at salvation by faith?
Lastly – were Old Testament folks even concerned about future salvation? Or were they focused on a righteous life here and now?
Thank you!
1. No, not explicitly; later Christians began wrestling with it, already with the Gospel of Peter. I discuss these interesting texts in my book Journeys to Heaven and Hell, in a chapter on The Harrowing of Hell (the view that Christ went to the realm of the dead to save those who lived before)
2. It’s a difficult questoin because Paul means something by “faith” different from how the term gets used in the OT, but trusting God’s promises is very important throughout the entire Bible
3. The OT does not have a view that one dies and goes either to heaven or hell. You may want to see my book called Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife. Life in the present was the principal concern for the authors of the OT and most everyone else in that world.
Is it mentioned in any other book in the Bible than Acts that Paul also was called Saul?
He is named both in the book of Acts (and only there). But it’s not becaue his name was changed when he converted. His Hebrew name is Saul and his Greek name is Paul. (He’s called Saul even after his conversion)