Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul and the Jews (was: THi ELEUQERIAi in Gal 5:1)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Antonio Jerez <antonio.jerez AT privat.utfors.se>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul and the Jews (was: THi ELEUQERIAi in Gal 5:1)
  • Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 17:50:00 +0200


Antonio Jerez wrote:

> >Carlton Winbery wrote:
> >
> >> While Paul did not allow (re: Titus, not Timothy) gentiles to be made
> >> Jewish converts, he did maintain his own Jewishness (see Stendahl, Paul
> >> among Jews and Gentiles). He apparently thought it ok himself to continue
> >> participating in the Jewish ritual practices and even in Rom. 11 says,
> >> "I'm
> >> a Jew."

Antonio Jerez replied:
> >The problem is that Paul never says in Rom. 11 that "I'm a Jew". What
> >he actually says is that "I'm myself an Israelite". This is an interesting
> >distinction that should not be overlooked or glossed over. As far as I
> >recall Paul never calls himself a Jew. Why? Because the designation
> >appears to have had bad associations for him. In this he is in good
> >company with the author of GJohn. Paul preferred to call himself an
> >Israelite or a Hebrew (just like "John" - if GJohn 1:47 is any good
> >indication).

Carlton Winbery replied:
> He identified himself very closely with his "brothers and kinsmen." I see
> no reason to think he made a distinction between Jews and Israelites. I
> fear that is more a modern way of dealing with history.

I don't know which passage you refer to where Paul calls non-Christian
Jews "brothers and kinsmen". And maybe Paul didn't make a semantic
distinction between Jews and Israelites. But I do notice that when Paul
wants to talk negatively about his ethnic kinfolk he uses the term "Jew".
One prominent example being 1 Thess 2:14-15: "For you brothers, have
become followers of the churches of God in Jesus Christ in Judea; because
you have also suffered at the hands of your countrymen just as they
suffered from the Jews, who put to death the Lord Jesus...". Also 2 Cor.
11:24: "five times I received from the Jews forty lashes minus one...".
Interestingly enough in verse 22 he reserves the terms "Hebrews" and
"Israelites" for his Jewish-Christian opponents.
Be it as it may with Paul's use of Jew and Israelite it is still quite
clear in my opinion that Paul makes a sharp distinction between
Israelite and Israelite (or Jew and Jew). According to Paul he himself
is a TRUE Israelite while other Israelites (or Jews or Hebrews) who
refuse to believe in Jesus Christ are not real Israelites. They may
belong to the fleshly Israel but they are not part of the true "spiritual"
Israel, the Church. Or am I totally misreading Paul's own words in
Romans 9:6 "It is not as if God's message had failed, for by no means
all who descend from Israel belong to Israel; neither are all Abraham's
children because they are his offspring....".
I think the rest of Romans (and Paul's other authentic letters) show that
Paul saw the Church (gentiles+Jewish-Christians) as being the true
Israel of God. Jews or Israelites who didn't believe in Christ belonged
to apostate Israel - the Israel of the flesh. This view fits quite nicely
with the biblical idea about the Holy Remnant - a small remnant of
Israelites who are true to God while the big majority live in apostasy.
The same idea about the Holy Remnant appear to have existed in
another Jewish sect - the Qumran community.

> I am well aware that Acts is secondary, but I do use Acts to study certain
> events and seek to use details in that account critically, but I think the
> picture of Paul in the speeches of Acts 22 & 24 is essentially accurate
> even if composed in the final form by the writer of Luke/Acts. Having said
> that I think that the writer certainly saw Paul as Jewish. (See 21:39;
> 22:3, etc.) Paul also went to the Temple to worship, took a vow of
> purification and paid for four others to do the same - a perfectly Jewish
> thing to do. Was it entirely a pretense?

We should be very careful about using Acts to get the real picture
about the historical Paul's own ideas. Who could have guessed
why Paul got flogged in the synagogues if we only had access to
the version of events in Acts and not Paul's letters? If we are to
believe Luke Paul was a good Jew who was persecuted just
because he preached the resurrection of the dead and the Messiah
Jesus. This is pure apologetic hogwash. Luke may have his reasons
for painting this portrait of Paul, but he is hiding things and fortunately
Paul himself gives us the real reasons for his problems.
I wonder how many Jews would have agreed that Paul is a true
Jew when he says things like "Although I am free from every one,
I have enslaved myself to all of them in order to win a larger number.
To the Jews I behave as a Jew to win Jews; to those under the Law
as one who is under the Law - although I am not under the Law
- to gain those who are under the Law. To those who are without a
law I am without law - although not lawless toward God but committed
to Christ's Law - in order to win those who are without law" (1 Cor. 9:19-21).
And 1 Cor. 11:33 "...just as I myself please everyone in every way, not
seeking my own advantage but that of the many, in order that they
may be saved".
Sounds like Paul is some kind of chameleon to me? When with Jews
he stays kosher for convenience sake, and when with gentiles forget
about kosher. I doubt that many Jews would be happy about Paul's
redefinition of how the Law works in the Messianic Age. And I doubt
even more that they would applaud Paul's assertion that gentile-Christians
who do not keep the Law are part of the true Israel of God with full
citizenship among the Holy (Eph. 2:11-16). Given what Paul tell us
himself I don't find it the least surprising that he got flogged in synagogue
after synagogue. And what reason do we have to doubt Paul himself
and put our trust in Luke's version of events? So my answer to your
rhetorical question, "was it entirely a pretence?", would be that in a
sense it certainly was.

> >As for Krister Stendahl (fellow countryman) and his book "Paul among
> >Jews and gentiles" I must admit that his efforts to make Paul more
> >"Jewish" than he actually was are not totally convincing. Among other
> >things
> >I think his idea that Paul believed in an equally valid convenant for Jews
> >and Christians (Jewish-Christians+Gentile-Christians) has absolutely no
> >support in the texts. I seem to recall that Lloyd Gaston has influenced
> >him in this direction.
>
> And the position that Paul considered that he had ceased being a Jew is
> equally without support in the text.

Is it really? What do we make of verses like Philippians 3:4-11? Sounds
like Paul put on a new coat when he became a Christian. Semantically
Paul may not have considered himself to have ceased to be a Jew or
an Israelite but I think he would have agreed with me that after "meeting"
Jesus he was a new kind of Jew or Israelite - so new indeed that few
of his fellow Jews would have recognised him as one.


Best wishes

Antonio Jerez
Goteborg University, Sweden





  • Re: Paul and the Jews (was: THi ELEUQERIAi in Gal 5:1), Antonio Jerez, 06/13/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page