Hi everyone,
It’s really great that there’s a place where I can discuss these topics. Thanks for being here.
I am reading Bart Ehrman’s Heaven and Hell and I’m at chapter 9, which focuses on Paul’s views. Bart explains his perspective, but I find it somewhat incomplete and in need of further discussion.
Bart says: “For Paul and these converts, only those who believed in Jesus’s death and resurrection and who were then baptized could expect this future salvation. No one else sided with God. Baptized believers in Jesus alone would enjoy the blessings of a happily ever after when the imminent Day of Judgment arrived.”
Essentially, Bart believes Paul is saying that only those who believe in Christ will get salvation, and I find this troubling. Here’s why:
Paul acknowledges that good deeds are important for salvation but emphasizes that no one is inherently good or righteous. He suggests that since no one can fully live according to the Law, a different approach is needed: “because the whole matter is now on a different plane – believing instead of achieving.” However, Paul also insists that the Law is still important: “Are we then undermining the Law by this insistence on faith? Not a bit of it! We put the Law in its proper place.”
In my opinion, Paul is being practical. Since no one can fully adhere to the Law, this doesn’t mean no one can achieve salvation. People who have faith in Christ can still be saved, but this doesn’t guarantee salvation. Paul seems to be saying that to achieve salvation, one must believe in Christ and try to follow the Law. Fully following the Law is impossible, but faith in Christ can guide a person towards salvation. Here’s a simplified version of Paul’s thoughts:
One doesn’t believe in Christ and doesn’t follow the Law.
One doesn’t believe in Christ but follows the Law.
One believes in Christ but doesn’t follow the Law.
One believes in Christ and follows the Law.
Since Paul thinks fully following the Law is impossible, he discards option 2 (i.e., following the Law without faith won’t bring salvation). In his view, only option 4 (faith in Christ and trying to follow the Law) leads to salvation. Trying to follow the Law, even imperfectly, combined with faith, provides a path to salvation.
Bart argues that Paul’s letter to the Romans contrasts with Jesus’s teachings, which emphasize doing good to enter God’s kingdom. However, Paul is interpreting this correctly. If no one is inherently good (as the Gospels suggest), then no one could achieve salvation, which seems impossible. Paul offers faith as a necessary complement to striving to follow the Law.
I’m curious about your thoughts on this. Also, remember that Jesus mentions several times that faith in Him will bring salvation (e.g., John 6:47, John 3:16). If these passages are not later interpolations, then Paul’s interpretation aligns with Jesus’s teachings.
What do you think?
Hey Robert, Thanks so much for answering. Really appreciate it. I have 3 questions for you if you don’t mind.
1. When you say the following: “I don’t think the statements in the gospel of John where Jesus is made to say that belief in him brings salvation go back to the historical Jesus”, what do you mean by “historical jesus” ? Are you saying that statements in John were never said by Jesus and they are interpolation ?
2. Okay, so you seem to agree with me in the fact that Paul also didn’t preach that faith simply in Jesus would bring salvation. In my opinion as well, I think that Paul clearly believes that people will be judged based on their moral law written on their hearts – i.e who is good and does good will be given salvation but Paul also mentions that no one is good which is a fair statement – so he emphesizes that believing in Christ would also help a person to sin less which would give a better chance of salvation. Don’t you agree on all this ? your answer clearly shows that you do.
3. Bart in his book(heaven and hell) though clearly emphasizes that Paul’s view comes in contradiction to Jesus’s view in such that Jesus’s saying (Matthew 25:31-46) clearly shows that good doers will enter the kingdom whereas in Paul’s view, no one is good so that must mean no one will enter the kingdom, so Paul adds an extra layer of “faith”. It’s a matter of choice to decide whether this is a contradiction or not. I don’t agree though with Bart that it’s a definite contradiction – Paul can not have been such simplistic to only require “faith” for salvation. Do you agree with Bart(I guess no ?) ?
Btw, my 4th question would be your opinion: “he is probably speaking of circumcision, eating kosher, and other rites and practices that specifically identify one as Jewish” and I don’t agree with this.
It seems more obvious that Paul must be meaning the “whole law” of Moses.
Hi. If I may comment here,
What I’ve been gleaning so far from reading What is Divine About Divine Law, by Christine Hayes, is the that Paul believed
“membership in the Jewish community was genealogically determined. As the seed of Abraham, Gentiles are members of God’s kingdom and covenant of faith, but they are not the seed of Israel through Isaac according to the flesh, and, on the view of Paul and other “exclusivists” at least, they are not entitled to the privileges and obligations of the covenant of circumcision and the Mosaic Torah any more than an Israelite of the seed of Isaac is entitled to the privileges and obligations of the priestly seed of Aaron.”
and
“God’s kingdom includes Gentiles as the seed of Abraham even as it excludes them from the rights and privilege of the Torah that is the sole patrimony of the seed of Israel through Isaac. Thus, it is not the Torah’s inferiority that motivates Paul’s rejection of the Torah for Gentiles, but precisely its superiority, its assignation as a privilege to the seed of Israel through Isaac only. Paul may wish to include the Gentiles within the end-time kingdom of God, but as a genealogical exclusivist, he includes them only so far– and no further.”
(Rom 2,15 τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν)
———–
Here from James Moffatt’s translation of Rom 2 12 – 15 (he puts v. 16 before v.14)
12 All who sin outside the Law will perish outside the Law; and all who sin under the Law will be condemned by the Law.
13 For it is not the hearers of the Law who are just in the eyes of God, it is those who obey the Law who will be acquitted,
16 on the day when God judges the secret things of men, as my gospel holds, by Jesus Christ.
14 (When Gentiles who have no law obey instinctively the Law’s requirements, they are a law to themselves, even though they have no law;
15 they exhibit the effect of the Law written on their hearts, their conscience bears them witness, as their moral convictions accuse or it may be defend them.)
Okay. Thanks for the details. Yes, I find Rom 2,15 under online Strong’s number G2041 defined as “a course of action demanded by the law. So I see how that can be translated “effect”.
But below is what comes up for the other coordinates, so I’m confused as to what d. Br. and d. Gal., p. 194ff) means. I’m not that familiar with this site so I’m lost.
d. Br. an d. Gal., p. 194ff): Romans 3:20, 28; Romans 9:32 Rec.; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:2, 5, 10; and simply ἔργα: Romans 4:2, 6; Romans 9:12 (11); Romans 9:32
About Romans 14. . .
@ 9 Porphry “have a look at Rom 14, especially Rom 14:13-23.”
I think the key to this is probably at 17
17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Porphry,
I suppose one could debate this. I think though that the faith portion applies to both the Greek and the Jew, if it’s a matter of personal conscience: let your faith determine your works.
(Hey I don’t mind eating Kosher!)
If you really want to throw a wrench in the debate about what Paul means by faith and works, have a look at Rom 14, especially Rom 14:13-23.
Interpolation! Seriously though it would seem that the logic of Paul’s position is that Jews who follow Jesus should abandon Torah observance but at least in the letters that survive he never advises them to do so. Maybe it follows from his apocalypticism. If the kingdom is coming next Tues after lunch then just stay what you are.
I never spend much time with Paul anymore but since we’re here what do you all think of the idea of Paul as a Universalist?
Rom. 5:18
Rom. 11:32
Rom 14:11
1 Cor 15:22
2 Cor 5:14–21
Phil. 2:10–11
I just thought I’d put this out there.
——————-
FOR WORKS in KJV below is Moffatt translation
Rom
2:15 ergon tou nomou
Effect of the law
3:20 ergon nomou
on the score of obedience to the law
3:28 ergon nomou
apart from deeds of the law
4:2 ex ergon edi
score of what he [Abraham] did
9:32 ex ergon
relied on what they could do
Gal
2:16 ex ergon noumou oti
doing what the law commands
3:2 ex ergon nomou to
doing what the law commands
3:5 ex ergon nomou e
doing what the law commands
3:10 ex ergon nomou eistin
obedience to the law
——————–
Pisteos
14:22
ou pistin exeis kata
certainly keep your own conviction on the matter
14:23 ouk eis pisteos pan o ouk ek pisteos estin
it was not faith that induced him to eat, and any action that is not based on faith is a sin
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)