Reading Paul (& Luther) today New learnings about the apostle and his world boost our understanding Editor's note: Read a response to this article by David J. Lull. It’s a fascinating time to study the letters of Paul. Many of you have no doubt heard about the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some may even have viewed the scrolls at one of the traveling exhibits in various parts of the U.S. Not widely known is the fact that these documents provide remarkable insights to New Testament scholars who seek a deeper and fuller understanding of Pauline theology. Since 1947 when a Bedouin shepherd threw a stone into a cave at Khirbet Qumran alongside the Dead Sea (about a 40-minute ride east of Jerusalem), our understanding of “Judaism” and “Christianity” in the first century has changed dramatically. We can no longer speak about either as unified religions in sharp conflict. Rather, we’ve come to recognize the enormous diversityof Judaism—one so extensive that it unquestionably included Jesus’ earliest followers. The last half of the 20th century saw the publication of the majority of the 900 texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of which—including one of the most significant for understanding Paul’s letters—weren’t published until the 1990s. Now, in the first decade of the 21st century, scholars are rethinking the complex phenomenon known as Second Temple Judaism, which is the religious world in which Jesus and Paul carried out their ministries. But before continuing our story we need to ask: Who wrote these scrolls that are so dramatically altering our perception of the period in which the early church took shape? In selected scrolls the authors describe themselves as the “Community of the New Covenant,” which may well have been part of a broader Essene movement, one of the Jewish groups. This language about a “new covenant” already allows for a startling observation: Among the Jews of this period, only the Essenes, Jesus and the early Jesus movement, including Paul, speak of a “new covenant.” An interesting coincidence. Paul still a Jew? Some of you will quite correctly ask: Is it really accurate to speak of Paul as a Jew? Well, let’s ask him. In Philippians 3:5-6, Paul describes himself as “circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee.” You could argue that this is a description of his past from which he had broken in light of his encounter with the Risen Lord (Galatians 1:15-16). But then how would we make sense of Paul’s remarks in 2 Corinthians and Romans in which he speaks from his present situation as an “apostle of Jesus Christ”? At the same time he poses some argumentative questions: “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I” (2 Corinthians 11:22). And an anguished Paul ponders: “Has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew” (Romans 11:1). Can Paul, the one “called” to a new apostolic mission by Christ (please notice that I have avoided the verb “converted”) ever be understood apart from his Jewish context? “By no means!”—to use a linguistic phrase he favored. Some of the Essenes, the probable authors of many of the Dead Sea Scrolls, relocated from Jerusalem to Qumran sometime in the second half of the second century B.C. They remained there until A.D. 68, when Qumran was destroyed by Romans marching to Masada, fresh from having conquered and burned Jerusalem. Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, together with recent archeological work, remind us that some Essenes lived in Jerusalem. The Essene movement also was spread throughout the land that we today refer to as Israel. And it wasn’t a small movement. Josephus tells us that during his time the Pharisees numbered 6,000 and the Essenes 4,000. What significantly increases the historical value of these scrolls is that they tell us not only about their community but also shed enormous light on the entire shape of the Judaisms of this period, including the Sadducees and Pharisees as well as the developing Jesus movement of which Paul was a part. Did Luther get it right? As many of you know, Paul—particularly his letter to the Romans—is of decisive significance for Lutherans. Paul stands at the center of Martin Luther’s teaching that justification—the reconciliation of the sinful person with God—is a gift of faith through the grace of God in Jesus Christ and can’t be achieved as the result of any human effort. For Luther the “chief part of the New Testament and the very purest Gospel” is found in Romans (Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia Edition, Vol. 6, Muhlenberg). Given his emphasis, we Lutherans will want to pay careful attention to all biblical scholarship making claims about Paul, whether positive or negative, for they all pose a critical question: Did Luther get it right? Over the last few decades, Pauline theology has been at the center of lively and, at times, controversial discussions. My own career illustrates the changing scholarly trends and viewpoints concerning the analysis of Paul’s theology. When I was a graduate student at Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of Heidelberg (Germany) in the 1960s, the reigning paradigm viewed Romans not only as an abstract theological summary of Paul’s teaching on justification but also as the lens through which his other letters were to be interpreted. This model—while arguing that the principal influences on Paul’s thought were the various philosophies of the Graeco-Roman world—was surprisingly inattentive to the Roman political context in which Paul carried out his ministry and also insensitive to the Jewish context of Paul’s life and thought. In 1977, I edited The Romans Debate (Augsburg; available from www.amazon.com), a volume of contributions by a diverse group of internationally recognized Pauline scholars, which marked a significant step forward toward the rethinking of these matters. Now the new knowledge and insights derived from the continuing study of the Dead Sea Scrolls have advanced this process. Among the modifications to interpreting Paul is the recognition that while Romans remains a letter of extraordinary importance, it’s not an abstract theological tract. Romans, rather, is a letter generated by a specific set of historical circumstances in the Roman church and beyond. A coherent Pauline theology also can only be developed from the specific, historical situations that Paul addresses in each of the genuine letters (including 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon). Freed from its captivity to the supremacy of Romans, new research related to the unique and specific context of the other letters, especially 1 Thessalonians, is flourishing. No longer can it be maintained that the core of Paul’s theology is primarily influenced by the philosophical movements of the Graeco-Roman world. Rather it was precisely to Paul as a Jew that the Risen Lord revealed himself. It’s this Jewish Paul who addresses his Graeco-Roman congregations, as 1 Corinthians 10 illustrates. The coherence of Paul’s language and thought patterns with those found at certain points in the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrates the “Jewishness” of his thinking. Conflict with the empire At the same time—and this adds to the complexity of understanding Paul—we are recognizing the importance of the Roman political context for the exercise of Paul’s apostolic activity and the fact that he proclaims a theology that is in fundamental conflict with the political ideologies of that empire. A splendid example is the use of potentially incendiary language throughout 1 Thessalonians. Not without basis, Acts 17:7 reports that Paul and his associates in Thessalonica “are all acting contrary to the decrees of the emperor, saying that there is another king named Jesus.” Paul’s gospel of Jesus Christ as lord is in blatant opposition to the gospel of Caesar Augustus as lord. Together with the emergence of credible re-evaluations of Paul, we must also be alert to readings of the apostle that are blatantly misguided. Some assert that the death of Jesus isn’t essential for our justification. Others argue that a text like Romans 3:22 shouldn’t be translated as “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” but rather as “the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ.” Both of these uncommon contemporary tendencies turn Paul’s theology on its head. Similar criticisms can be made of the so-called “new perspective” on Paul, a term deriving from theologian E.P. Sanders’ highly influential 1977 volume, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Fortress Press). Representative of this approach is N.T. Wright who insists that biblical studies need to use categories to interpret Paul other than “the thin, tired and anachronistic ones of Lutheran polemic” (“The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith,” Tyndale Bulletin 29). Wright, Anglican bishop of Durham, and others insist that first-century Jews didn’t earn their salvation by doing deeds in conformity with the law. They claim Luther took his 16th-century religious context back into the first century and so distorted both Judaism and Paul. As a result, they hold, both are in need of substantial revaluation and must be freed from the Lutheran distortions to which they have been subjected. The “new perspective” is keen on dismissing justification by faith as the central theme of Romans. Proponents have been adamant that Paul’s use of the phrase “works of the law,” as well as his entire interpretation of the law, is a distortion of Judaism. Distortion of Judaism? But the great weakness of Sanders’ position is that in attempting to correct the “Lutheran” distortion of Judaism, he presents a warped view of Judaism. This view respects neither the internal diversification of the Judaisms of the period nor the conflicts and confrontations that existed among the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes with regard to their interpretations of the law. Sanders constructed an illusionary and artificial pattern of so-called Palestinian Judaism in which Rabbinic and Talmudic traditions of the post-second century are illegitimately thrust back upon the far more diverse and mutually antagonistic Judaisms of the first century. In fact, the Community of the New Covenant, inspired by the prophets, takes sharp issue with emerging Pharisaic Judaism, especially concerning the nature of the law itself. For them, not only the Pharisees but all Israel had gone astray. Such criticisms are strikingly evocative of Paul, and they reveal the argumentative milieu in which discussions about the appropriate use of the law took place. It’s imperative to recognize that Paul isn’t involved in a battle between Christians and Jews but rather in disagreements that take place within the Judaisms of the late Second Temple period. The writings of the Qumran community can offer profound insights for a more coherent comprehension of both the structure and logic of Pauline thought. The commonalities between Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls include an expectation of the imminent final consummation of history, the theme of God’s election and the use of holiness/sanctification language. They also have a remarkably similar interpretation of the Jewish Bible: The Qumran used a contemporizing form of biblical interpretation in which the prophetic texts are understood as referring to present events in the life of their community. Paul reveals a similar method in his interpretation of the prophets, as well as a comparable use of introductions in citing texts from the Jewish Bible. Qumran influences In addition, it’s likely that Pauline thought may have been influenced by the Qumran community in at least three other areas: • Use of the terms “justification” and “the righteousness of God.” • Criticism of the “works of the law.” • Use of “purity” and “sanctification/holiness” language. Let’s look at the first of these, justification. For Paul, like the Qumran community, the theme of election is foundational and is in all of his letters from the earliest, 1 Thessalonians, to the last, Romans. In Romans 8:30 we read: “And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.” Here it’s election/predestination that precedes the reference to “justification,” and it’s the theme of election/predestination that provides the appropriate context for understanding the function of “justification.” Even more astonishing than this broad conceptual parallel is the remarkably similar language and concepts employed with regard to the conversation about justification and the righteousness of God. It’s indeed possible that the Community of the New Covenant prepared the way for Paul to reformulate these emphases in light of his encounter with the Risen Christ. The following text from The Community Rule at Qumran (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Geza Vermes, Penguin) reveals a close likeness to Romans at several points. (The italics are mine.) “As for me, I belong to wicked mankind, to the company of perverse flesh. My iniquities, rebellions, and sins, together with the perversity of my heart, belong to the assembly of wormy rot and to those who walk in darkness. For mankind has no way, and man is unable to establish his steps since justification is with God and perfection of way is out of His hand. As for me, if I stumble, the mercies of God shall be my eternal salvation. If I stagger because of the sin of flesh, my justification shall be by the righteousness of God which endures for ever. When my distress is unleashed He will deliver my soul from the Pit and will direct my steps to the way. He will draw me near by His grace, and by His mercy will He bring my justification.” The theme of human sinfulness and wickedness, the assertion that “judgment shall be by the righteousness of God” and the prominence given to the mercy of a gracious God in whom human righteousness is rooted are analogous—but not identical—to Paul’s teaching about justification by grace. Paul draws on the theme “the righteousness of God,” a phrase that occurs in the Dead Sea Scrolls but not in the Old Testament, often and in close connection with his comments on justification (Romans 1:17; 3:5, 21-22; 10:3; and 2 Corinthians 5:21). Although this phrase didn’t originate with Paul, the conviction that the righteousness of God has now been revealed through Jesus Christ is uniquely his. There is proximity between the Dead Sea Scrolls and Paul’s theological formulations not only with regard to “justification/righteousness” but also in relationship to the expression “works of the law.” Previously, unable to find a parallel to this term, many asserted that Paul created this language and that he fundamentally misunderstood “Judaism.” But in Some Observances of the Law, a Dead Sea Scrolls text published in the early 1990s, the precise parallel to Paul’s expression “works of the law” appears: “some works of the law.” And the emphasis falls on the correct practice of these deeds: “in your deed you may be reckoned as righteous.” Here the phrase “some works of the law” is explicitly related to the pursuit of righteousness: The one who does “works of the law” is reckoned as righteous. It’s against such an interpretation that Paul dissents. “What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works” (Romans 9:30-32). Although Paul sharply censures those who do “the works of the law,” particularly in Galatians and Romans, this doesn’t justify the conclusion that Paul categorically rejects the law as a consequence of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. Paul’s disparaging remarks about the “works of the law” are often found within a broader context as in Romans 3:31: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” Also in Romans 7:12: “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.” An important text for comprehending how Paul understands the law now that Christ has come is Romans 8:3-4: “For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” Critical for the proper understanding of Paul’s intention is the correct interpretation of the phrases “just requirement” and that “the law might be fulfilled.” While “works of the law” aren’t the basis for righteousness—only Christ is—Paul’s rebuke of such a severe misunderstanding doesn’t nullify a transformed function of the law for those who are “in Christ” and who have received the indwelling Spirit of God. Turning to the theme of purity, we must remember that the community at Qumran—given the utter corruption of the Jerusalem temple from which they felt compelled to separate—understood themselves as a replacement temple, as a virtual temple. The presence of multiple ritual baths discovered at Qumran indicates the great importance of cultic and moral purity for this community. Paul, too, viewed his congregations as replacements for the temple, and is therefore deeply concerned with issues related to purity. Most striking is the reference that “we are the temple of the living God” within the broader context of 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, as is the conclusion of this text: “beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God.” Almost identical is the use of “temple” language in 1 Corinthians 3:16 and 6:19, particularly with the plural “you” references that point to the community rather than the individual. The first text is especially instructive: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.” Be pure—or perish The specific application of such basic presuppositions is evident in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13. God’s presence in this sacred community demands purity lest the entire community perish, much like a cancerous growth that needs to be excised from the human body to prevent the spread of the disease. Since “our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed,” the “festival” (the Lord’s Supper), must be celebrated not with the old yeast of malice and evil but “with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” If this is not the case, then Paul invokes Deuteronomy 17:7 to support his ethical conclusion: “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” So we who read and study Paul today benefit from also being able to read the Dead Sea Scrolls. They provide us with a richly enhanced Jewish context in which many Pauline themes receive a sharper profile, allowing a deeper penetration of their meaning. This allows many Pauline texts to speak to the contemporary church with renewed cogency. Contrary to the “new perspective” (perhaps, now, more appropriately the “old perspective”), Paul, given his new life in Christ, insists that the pervasiveness of sin has not only radically affected the human condition but has also infected the law. Thus, what is “holy, just and true” now works “death in me” (Romans 7:12-13). The righteousness that God expects can’t be achieved by the law. It comes only from the justifying activity of God as a result of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, received as a gift through faith. Since the human, enslaved to sin, can’t do the work of the law, such activity can’t accomplish God’s will. The law is fulfilled by God in Christ (Romans 8:4), and the person who believes in Christ, freed from the bondage to sin, is now enabled to discern and to do God’s will through the indwelling of the Spirit. What about justification? The renewed emphasis on the importance of taking seriously all of Paul’s letters raises one more question: Should we continue to emphasize the overriding significance of justification in Pauline theology, even though the explicit and detailed language used by Paul with regard to this theme in Romans and Galatians is, in fact, not as fully present in his other letters? Here’s my response: Paul used meticulously precise terminology because of the particular and unusual situations in Galatia and Rome. But we shouldn’t conclude that the essence of what he meant is absent from his other letters. Quite thecontrary. God’s initiative in rescuing sinners worthy of condemnation, calling them into the kingdom and granting them the gifts of salvation because they have believed in Jesus Christ is present throughout even Paul’s first letter—1 Thessalonians. Although the explicit phrase “by faith” may not be used, there is simply no other way for Paul that God’s grace can be received. Such explicit faith results in a new life shaped by being “in Christ” and enabling one to do the righteous deeds that God expects. The language agreed to in 1998 by the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification represents Paul’s theological intention in each of his letters: “Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.” This powerfully succinct statement doesn’t represent the “Lutheran” Paul nor the “Roman Catholic” Paul, but rather the theology of the apostle himself. Luther, of course, loved Romans above all for it was there that Paul’s theology of justification was most compellingly articulated. It contains for him “the very purest Gospel” and “the whole Christian and evangelical doctrine,” as well as proclaiming “all things that a Christian ought to know; namely, what is law, gospel, sin, punishment, grace, faith, righteousness, Christ, God, good works, love, hope, the cross and how we are to conduct ourselves toward everyone, whether righteous or sinner, strong or weak friend or foe” (Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia Edition, Vol. 6, Muhlenberg). Luther’s reading of Paul, in the midst of enormously turbulent times, provided him with a divine source of peace and power confirmed by the conviction that “God does not lie.” Yes, Luther got Paul’s theology right—indeed, very right. |
thumb.jpg)
Join the discussion
Type your comments in the form below and click [add comments]
Please keep your comments brief and on-topic. We reserve the right to edit or remove inappropriate entries. E-mail lutheran@thelutheran.org with any problems or questions.
