Write approximately 400 words on each of the following theological themes found in Matthew’s Gospel (2500 words)

Introduction

The Gospel of Matthew was not written to provide readers with merely biographical data concerning Jesus. It also sought to expound the theological significance of those events in history so that readers would make a personal commitment to follow Him. Recurring theological themes throughout the Gospel call our attention to the author’s overriding concerns in his community’s life settings. The Messianic king, who fulfilled Scripture and commissioned the Church to preach the rule of God, bid readers to follow Him. By looking at these themes afresh, we may see how they address contemporary challenges of the Church in the 21^st century.

How Jesus fulfills the Old Testament story

The Gospel of Matthew is steeped in the Old Testament allusions, narratives and symbols. Different aspects of Israel’s history, institution and religion are seen as finding their eschatological ‘fulfillment’ in His person and ministry, not only futuristic predictions. It’s as if the author was casting Jesus into the protagonist roles of its script. Such New Testament typology springs “from the conviction, that in the coming and work of Jesus, the principles of God’s working, already imperfectly embodied in the Old Testament were more perfectly re-embodied and thus brought to completion[1].”

Evidently, Mathew viewed Israel as in exile until the ‘seventh seven’ generation in his schematic arrangement of Jesus’ genealogy. Eschatological restoration was central to their national hope. Not surprisingly, this motif permeated the Gospel. For example, the massacre in Bethlehem preceded Jesus’ restoration from Egypt was linked to Jeremiah’s passage about “loss as the prelude to a joyful return and restoration of the people of God from exile”[2]. Similarly, Jesus’ return from Egypt was linked to Hosea 11:1, which in its original context, referred to Israel’s exodus from Egypt. This historic national event was taken up as a type of God’s future act of deliverance in the Son of God. Just as Jesus was tested in the wilderness before ministry (Matt. 4:1-11), so was Israel disciplined before entering the Promised Land. Even his third-day resurrection motif may allude to national resurrection of Israel in Hosea 6:2.

Different titles used for Israel have been applied to the Messiah. For example, Servant of Yahweh (Isaiah) and Son of Man (Daniel 7) were originally a representation of the nation. Now Jesus is not only the founder of the new Israel. He is also what Dodd called its “inclusive representative”[3]. Jesus shows corporate solidarity in obeying where Israel has failed in her calling. The Rejected Stone (Psalm 118:22), another figure of the vindication of Israel is understood as having reached its culmination in Jesus himself.

Lastly, Matthew also saw discontinuity as Jesus was understood as greater than critical features of Israel’s life and institutions i.e. temple, kings and prophets. In this individual Jesus, Israel as a corporate entity of the people of God has found its fulfillment. Through instituting the ‘Lord’s Supper’, He enacted a different Passover meal, renewed the covenant and the new Exodus from exile[4]. He is the goal, the convergence-point, of God’s covenant-promise for Israel.

The kingdom of heaven

The kingdom of heaven refers to the eschatological reign of God which has been inaugurated with the coming of the Messianic King[5]. The concept itself was replete with Old Testament motifs of God’s suzerainty-vassal relation to Israel and apocalyptic judgment of human kingdoms via the agency of ‘the Son of Man’ in the book of Daniel. Matthew clearly had an interest to demonstrate Jesus’ legitimacy to the throne by tracing his genealogy back to the lineage of Davidic dynasty. While his kingdom is not advanced by military force, it has profound political implications (Matt 26:52). If Jesus is the King, then Caesar and Herod are not. He would ‘save his people from their sins’ (Matt 1:21), restore Israel from exile and usher in the new age but in a way none could have imagined.

Jesus’ ministry marked the “turning-point in history, the great restoration... as being at hand”^[6] (Matt 4:17). As the Messianic king, he set forth the counterculture ethical praxis that marked out those who live under that reign in the Beatitudes (Matt 5:1-12). His works of miracles did more than meeting physical needs of the sick, ostracized and the poor. N.T. Wright reminded us that Jesus’ praxis had the effect to “reconstitute those healed as members of the people of Israel’s god”[7]. The kingdom is not guaranteed by virtue of physical descent from Abraham (Matt 3:9), but one must consciously enter with dependent humility of a child (Matt 18:3-4).

Its secrets were now disclosed in parables and explained to the hand-picked disciples (Matt 13:11). Employing lively imagery, Jesus depicted the nature of the kingdom. Like a mustard seed, its small beginnings will grow into a great tree (Matt 13:31-32). It would culminate in eschatological judgment of the wicked like a net that captured both good and bad fish (Matt 13:47-48). It was likened to a wedding banquet for which the invitation was offered to many, but ‘few were chosen’ (Matt 22:1-14)^[8]. The inauguration of the kingdom came to a climax, however, in the passion and resurrection events. As the Danielic Son of Man, he would ‘give his life as a ransom for many’ (Matt 20:28). Having been vindicated in His resurrection, ‘all authority in heaven and on earth’ was given to Christ as the start of a new epoch where the kingdom’s subjects would be reconstituted around Him and His teachings (Matt 28:18).

The life of discipleship

It is not uncommon among the Jews to follow certain teachers like John the Baptist, Shammai, Hillel and the Essenes’ Teacher of Righteousness. Jesus and his relationship to the disciples bear close resemblance in the sense that they were characterized by distinctive praxis based on reinterpretation of being Israel. To hear and obey Jesus’ teachings is the hallmark of true discipleship (7:23-27).

The Gospel of Matthew was likened to a ‘resource on discipleship’ because major discourses are addressed to the disciples, highlighting on their positive understanding and training them to carry out the Great Commission^[9] (28:19). Simon Peter, as an individual, served in the narrative as both a positive and negative example of ‘what it means to be a disciple’. Through this human portrait, other disciples could relate to his experiences that reach heights of faith (16:16) and valleys of failure (26:69-75).

The Great Commission portrayed disciples as people who have ‘a relationship of allegiance to the triune God’ and taken up Jesus’ teaching as basis for their distinctive lifestyle[10]. Following Jesus was also closely paired up with the cost of ‘taking up the cross’ (16:24). Discipleship demands nothing less than surrendering all that we are to find true ‘life’. Loyal commitment to the Master and his teachings must supercede attachment to wealth (6:24) and other social relationships (10:37-39). It involved being members in Jesus’ “surrogate family” (12:46-50), in which all are brothers (23:8).

Within this reconstituted community, the disciples were expected to be different in their humble, servant-leadership patterns. There is no place for “hierarchical (23:8-10) and tyrannical (20:25) patterns of leadership[11].” Love for God and neighbors (22:34-40) would characterize their interaction while strong warning was issued against stumbling the ‘little ones’ (18:5-6). Even as procedure exists for disciplinary action, forgiveness is a frequent teaching for the community (18:15-18). As salt and light of the world, their visible good works would attract others to glorify God (5:16). At the same time, the disciples were commissioned to actively reach out to others in mission (28:19). If they encounter opposition, persecution is a real possibility and love is shown even to the enemies (5:10-12, 10:16-36).

Matthew’s vision of discipleship as a ‘community project’ is a needed counterbalance to the evangelical emphasis on existential encounter with Christ as well as the ‘do-it-yourself’ individualistic religiosity prevalent today. Instead of being preoccupied with expansion and programs, we need to be ‘prepared to commit themselves to meaningful long-term life-sharing relationships with others’[12].

The church

Among the Synoptic gospels, only Matthew used the term ‘ekklesia’ or the church in two passages, namely Matthew 16:18 and 18:17. Even as Israel’s vocation and hopes have been fulfilled in Jesus, a new people of God are redefined around His person and teachings. Perhaps an allusion to Moses and the formation of the Israelite nation, the Twelve who followed Him would sit on thrones in judgment of ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ (19:28). As the narrative develops, we see an emerging pattern that “old Israel is coming under judgment... The implication is that there will be what we may call a new Israel.^[13]”

In the latter passage, Jesus laid out some principles on ‘church discipline’ for those who gather in His name (Matt 18:20). Although it’s relatively informal and unstructured compared to modern churches, the teachings presuppose some degree of organization amongst the disciples. This is not alien to the Jewish context in view of what we know about the Essenes. Even as forgiveness is a hallmark of true disciples, Jesus also preserves the purity of the community by delegating His authority on the church to treat members who persist in sin as they would ‘tax collectors and sinners’.

In the former passage, Peter confessed that Jesus is the Messiah by the revelation of the Father (16:17). Jesus promised to build His church on ‘this rock’, which probably meant Peter as its representative in confessing Christ. Authority in terms of ‘binding and loosing’ was delegated to him, which would be repeated to the community as a whole later. These terms probably refer to the rabbinic sense of ‘declaring what is required or forbidden by law’ (halakhic pronouncements) in a teaching capacity. However, Matthew does not idealize Peter as an infallible saint as indicated by Jesus’ following rebuke for being a ‘stumbling block’ (16:23).

The discourses in Matthew’s Gospel have a pastoral focus on the “relationship and mutual responsibility of all members in the community[14].” The necessary condition for membership in the kingdom is to assume the status of a child, where everyone is responsible for the ‘little ones’. Matthew’s vision of the church appears to be a mixed body of ‘wheat and weeds,’ which would only be separated ‘at the end of the age’ (13:40-42). There would be false disciples who profess faith and even perform miracles in Jesus’ name but do not obey ‘the will of the Father in heaven’ (7:21). Like Israel, the church cannot be complacent as the parable of the wedding banquet envisions that ‘many are invited, but few are chosen’ (22:14).

The end of the world

Matthew’s treatment of eschatology was concentrated in the Olivet Discourse (24:1-25:46), a hermeneutical minefield occasioned by the question, “What will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age? (24:3)” After surveying early apocalyptic literature in Judaism, N. T. Wright made a bold statement that ‘there is virtually no evidence that Jews were expecting the end of the space-time universe… They believed that the present world order would come to an end – the world in which pagans held power, and Jews, the covenant people of the creator god did not[15].” We need to keep this in mind in view of Schweitzer’s portrait of an eschatological prophet who miscalculated the end-times.

However, it would be more helpful to see Matthew’s vision of eschatological kingdom as already inaugurated in Jesus’ first advent but not yet consummated until His second advent at the end of the age. He had in view the judgment which would befall the Temple and religious establishment in the near future as well as His return at an unspecified date. Describing the siege and fall of Jerusalem, Michael Green wrote, “More than a million Jews died in the operation, and Josephus, who was there, tells us that more than 97,000 Jews were taken captive[16].” The abomination that causes desolation draws on the poignant imagery in Daniel 11:31, which was fulfilled when Antiochus Epiphanes set up his own image and desecrated the temple in 163 BC. History would seem to repeat itself. By employing apocalyptic symbols like ‘the sun is darkened, the moon fails to give its light and the stars fall from heaven’ (24:29), attention is drawn to the ‘earth-shaking’ nature of these events.

The Olivet Discourse served as a warning against false prophets, disasters, complacency and preparation for the impending persecution (24:13). They should flee in haste from the judgment that would fall, presumably in the form of Titus’ army. These events are signs before the coming of the Son of Man. Eschatology is also a reminder of hope as the church is ‘citizens of the coming age’ whose ‘identity was determined by what Jesus had done and what they would be, not by what they had been or by their status in the world’[17]. A note of hope and responsibility was given in the promise that the end will not come until the gospel has been preached as a testimony to all nations (24: 14).

The universality of the gospel

Even before the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, Matthew’s narrative hinted at a universal scope of His gospel in mentioning four Gentile women in the genealogy and by narration of the homage paid by men from the East (Matt 2:1-12). John the Baptist’s rebuke to the Jews’ idea of election pointed out that having Abraham as their forefather does not guarantee salvation (Matt 3:8-10). As Jesus’ mission was directed to the Jews first, He initially restricted the gospel proclamation to the nation (Matt. 10:5-6, 15:24).

However, two closely-paralleled accounts of healing stressed that the faith of a Gentile centurion (Matt. 8:5-13) and Syro-Phoenician woman (Matt 15:21-28) were met with God’s favor. Both cases showed how Jesus’ apparent reluctance tested their attitudes and highlighted the racial barriers which their faith finally overcame. In the latter, Jesus seemed to limit His ministry only to ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (Matt 15:24). However, it should be understood within the narration as the dialogue exchange drew out the woman’s response of faith. Jesus commended her for though she conceded the priority of the Jews, “only the smallest fraction of his power is necessary to heal her daughter.”^[18]

In the former, Jesus expressed astonishment that ‘with no one in Israel” had responded with such faith. The pericope ended with a discussion on membership in the kingdom, in which Gentiles “will come from east and west” and share the messianic banquet with the patriarchs. It was subversive teaching that broke down racial barriers because “for a Jew to sit at table with Gentiles meant ritual defilement[19]”. If that was not enough, the ‘sons of the kingdom’ were to be excluded and assigned to the ‘outer darkness’. Jesus opened up the membership in God’s covenant community to those who would come by faith, not by natural descent.

Anticipation for the universal scope of the gospel and even its inevitability were hinted at various passages in Matthew 24:14 and 26:13. The climax was reached at the ending when Jesus issued the Great Commission to inclusively make disciples of all people groups (Matt 28:18-20). It was a mission ‘spelled out not in terms of the rites and duties of Israel… but in terms related specifically to Jesus himself’[20]. The disciples would indicate their repentance through baptism and taught to obey His countercultural commands. While membership in the covenant is not restricted by ethnicity, obedience is not an optional add-on to preserve the “delicate balance between being distinctively different and winsomely welcoming”[21].

Conclusion

As we study these themes, their relevance emerges in how we are to be a faith community of the risen Christ, living in the already-not yet tension of the inaugurated Kingdom. Heralding His reign would involve a critique of competing ideologies, dehumanizing lifestyles and oppressive dictators. Positively, our praxis and ethics should provide an alternative way of being human under God. At the same time, we do not become disillusioned if our efforts fail for we look ahead for its consummation. Our gospel proclamation should consciously seek to make disciples from diverse ethnic and linguistic groups that reflect the universal nature of Jesus’ commission.

Bibliography

1. Dowsett, R., The Thinking Clearly Series: The Great Commission, Monarch: London, 2001.
2. France, R.T., Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.
3. France, R.T., Jesus and the Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1971.
4. Green, M. The Bible Speaks Today: The Message of Matthew, Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
5. I. H. Marshall (ed.), New Testament Interpretation. Exeter: Paternoster, 1977.
6. J.B. Green, S. McKnight, & I. H. Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, 1992.
7. Keener, C. S. A Commentary on the gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1999.
8. Keener, C.S., The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, 1993.
9. Ladd, G.E., A Theology of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
10. Ryken, L., et al, Dictionary of biblical imagery (electronic ed.), InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, 2000.
11. R. N. Longenecker ed., Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
12. Wood, D. R. W. ed., New Bible Dictionary, InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, 1996.
13. Wright, N. T., Jesus and the Victory of God. London: SPCK, 2001.
14. Wright, N.T., The New Testament and the People of God. London: SPCK, 1992.

posted by Dave at 10:30 PM

Is the Damascus Christophany an account of Paul's conversion or the call of his apostleship to Gentile Mission? Include in your discussion an evaluation of the New Perspective on Paul.

Introduction

Although reputed to be of small stature and unattractive appearance, Paul of Tarsus was an exceptional man by any count. His writings which formed a sizeable portion of the New Testament had such pervading influence on Christianity that some had labeled him its 'real founder'? Since the groundbreaking work in E. P. Sanders' monograph, "Paul and Palestinian Judaism" a paradigm shift had taken place within New Testament academia with regards to the “center?of Pauline theology. The quest for historical Paul's life and thought continued unabated with intense probing from sociological, contextual, psychological, political and eschatological angles.

The purpose of this paper is to attempt a survey of scholarly views which had been put forth in the ongoing debate on the interface between Paul the Pharisee and Paul the Christian. Could the Damascus Christophany best be described as Paul's conversion or vocation? Although the issue is intricately tied with other controversial issues like Pauline view of law, justification and divine righteousness, my evaluation on the New Perspective would only discuss them so far as they fall within this limited scope. There are five New Testament accounts of Paul's conversion/call - his own account of the experience in Galatians 1:11- 17 and Philippians 3:4-17 and Luke's account in Acts 9:1-20, 22:1-21 and 26:2 ?23. Luke's likely redactional purpose to defend the Gentile mission does not necessarily detract from its historical reliability . As Paul's missionary partner and travel companion, he almost certainly had access to first hand testimony.

It is crucial to start this investigation with a proper definition of the term "conversion" or at least, what criteria should the Damascus Christophany meet in order to merit that label. J. M. Everts suggested a sociological approach, in which the tell-tale description of a convert is the tendency to reinterpret his past through the lens of his new community . Along the same line, Alan Segal defines conversion as "a decision to change commitments from one religious community to another '', not merely an individualistic communion with deity. Although helpful, I doubt this sociological definition is sufficiently precise to settle the issue. Most proponents of the New Perspective would have no qualms accepting a conversion of sorts that Paul the Pharisee had reoriented himself to a new community whom he had previously persecuted. However, was there a change in his pattern of religion? Did Paul change his mind about the means of getting in God's covenant community? It seemed to me that if it could be shown that the Damascus Christophany involved a shift in Paul's soteriology, then it would be legitimate to call it a conversion. Was there a radical, salvific discontinuity between the post-Damascus, Pauline doctrines of justification by faith and the tradition of his fathers? To risk a definition, conversion is primarily a profound change in soteriology, or getting a right relationship with God, resulting in a psychological reinterpretation of the past through the lens of newfound faith and socialization with the new community. Other nuances of conversion which include the political and eschatological hope of Israel could be mentioned but conversion could not be something less than this .

The Quest for the Historical Paul

Traditional Luther-Calvin perspective has painted a portrait of Paul as a Pharisee who strived to merit his salvation by observing the law and amass good works with his own effort. This form of legalism was characteristic of the Judaism of his day. After the Damascus event, Paul came to understand that one's legal or forensic standing before God was not based on works, but justified freely through faith alone. The Law-Gospel antithesis described the function of the Law as a means to terrify the sinner with God's justice so as to seek refuge in the imputed righteousness of Christ sola gratia (Luther) or primarily a revelation of the perfect, divine will (Calvin) . Previously regarded as the orthodox article of faith on which the Church either stands or falls, the doctrine of justification sola fide was the material cause of the Reformation movement.

However, this consensus among Paul's interpreters has been steadily eroded in the past thirty years. Perhaps the herald of the new interpretive paradigm was Swedish Lutheran theologian, Krister Stendahl. In his essay, "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West?, Stendahl argued that since Augustine's Confessions, Christians have misunderstood Paul through the lens of the inward-looking, individualistic mindset of Western culture. Thus, the apostle's original concerns about the law and communitarian relationships between Jews and Gentiles were obscured. As a substitute, the introspective, guilt-ridden conscience in search for a gracious God was read into the Pauline corpus.

On the contrary, Stendahl argued, the psychological profile of Paul in the New Testament seemed to have a "robust conscience." In Philippians 3:6, Paul could claim, "As to righteousness, under the law (I was) blameless." Attempts to point out any preparation towards his conversion prior to the Damascus event seemed unconvincing. For example, the Christophanic saying that it was hard for him to “kick against the goads?was probably a proverbial indication of the futility of opposing God's will, rather than evidence of a tortured soul resisting the Spirit's wooing . When Paul spoke of his pre-Christian status in Galatians 1:14, he could confidently claim that he was “advancing in Judaism?beyond his contemporaries and “extremely zealous?for the ancestral traditions as proven in his persecution of the church (Philippians 3:6). He was driven by the belief that his action against the subversive claims about a crucified Messiah was pious service to God in line with the model of Phinehas, Elijah and the Maccabeans. For Paul the Shammaite inquisitor, guilt and sorrow were not foremost in his mind.

If Stendahl heralded the impending paradigm by exposing the presuppositions of traditional paradigm, the floodgates were opened with the publication of Sanders?influential “Paul and Palestinian Judaism.?In the preface, Sanders spoke of his attempt to “compare Judaism, understood on its own terms, with Paul, understood on his own terms.?Based on his research on ancient literature on Palestinian Judaism (as in non-Diaspora), Sanders argued that the caricature of Judaism as a legalistic religion was a historically false straw man? He proposed that within the pattern of religion found in Second Temple Judaism he dubbed covenantal nomism, "obedience maintains one's position in the covenant, but it does not earn God's grace as such." Obedience is required to "stay in" God's covenant but 'getting in' was always based on God's electing grace. In His mercy, God has chosen Israel and given them the law. Transgression is punished. However, the law has provided means of atonement for the restoration of covenant relationship. Salvation is therefore not earned but solely by grace alone. While qualifying the drawbacks of using the term 'soteriology'. Sanders wrote that:

"When a man is concerned to be 'in' rather than 'out' we may consider him to have a soteriological concern, even though he may have no view concerning an afterlife at all -covenantal nomism is the view that one's place in God's plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man, his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression ."

If Sander’s thesis is correct, how then shall we understand the polemics of Paul that “a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law? If Paul was interacting with covenantal nomism, a religion of grace, what do we make of his Damascus experience? Here, Sanders argued that Paul began with a prior conviction that Jesus is the universal Savior of all, and any reference to human plight is the necessary, rhetorical outworking from that dogmatic conviction. He didn’t start with any plight of humanity or a pre-conversion dissatisfaction with the Law . The only problem Paul had with Judaism was: It is not Christianity. Building on this theory, Raisanen went even further to argue that Paul had no consistent theology of the Law at all. However, many New Perspective scholars have critiqued Sanders?reinterpretation of the historical Paul as a let-down despite his revolutionary analysis of historic Judaism.

The New Perspective, while not a monolithic movement, tends to emphasize a positive continuity between Paul and Second Temple Judaism, rather than a Lutheran Law-Gospel antithesis. Dissatisfied with Sanders?solution, James D.G. Dunn, argued that the Pauline phrase “works of the law?refers to nationalistic “boundary markers?like circumcision, Sabbaths and food laws that serve as evidence of people ‘staying in?God’s covenant. They already “got in?by being part of God’s chosen covenant community. The fiery polemics of Paul could then be recast in the role of the apostle to the Gentiles, on a crusade to remove such culture-specific badges that separate Jews and Gentiles. Dunn also spent considerable effort to argue that the Damascus Christophany was primarily Paul’s calling to the Gentile mission while remaining within covenantal nomism . In his view, Paul saw Christ’s death as breaking the barrier between Jews and Gentiles, abolishing the boundary-marking roles of the Law. It was only later, during the controversies in Antioch and Galatia arising from his missionary activities, that Paul developed the gospel of justification by faith alone, apart from the works of the law. It was a tactical maneuver arising later in his life. Evangelical New Testament scholar, Tom Wright, put it delightfully that we should not look at Paul’s Damascus experience as “lost and found? but “found and founder?

The Case for Paul, the Apostle of Faith

If the New Perspective on Paul is right, then the article of faith upon which the Church stands or falls is shaken to the core. ‘Atlas?on whose shoulder was the whole world has shrugged and collapsed. But it is still much too premature to panic and we shall evaluate their views in light of history and Paul’s self-consciousness.

Dr Paul F.M. Zahl pointed out that the real “straw man?being raised in the debate was ironically, Luther’s Reformation perspective. To start with, Roman Catholicism was never a Pelagian system that teaches man could earn his way to salvation by good works and sacraments. NT Wright’s characterization of his previous traditional understanding of Paul as a “proto-Pelagian, who thought he could pull himself up by his own moral bootstraps ?showed this common misunderstanding. In reality both Romanism and past/present Judaism could be more accurately categorized as “semi-Pelagianism? Both patterns of religion teach that man and God are “co-operators in salvation, that grace could complement and supplement human nature ? The issue is never whether grace or faith is involved, but ever hinges on the little word “sola?in sola fide and sola gratia.

According to Friedrich Avemarie, rabbinic Judaism tends to hold the emphasis of “electing grace?and “works?in tension without any neat, unified system as what Sanders proposed. In light of this correction, we cannot readily dismiss Paul’s admission that his pre-conversion status before God was not only based on electing grace, but also his zealousness for the law, circumcision, ancestry and legalistic righteousness (Galatians 1:14, Philippians 3:5-6). More recently, scholarly research into the soteriological pattern found in diverse Jewish literature from apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other rabbinical traditions had cast doubt on whether “covenantal nomism?was an adequate description of Palestinian Judaism. In volume 1 of “Justification and Variegated Nomism? the contributors?findings seemed to suggest that Second Temple Judaism was much more complex and lack uniformity . In a review, Craig Blomberg listed some texts especially 2 Enoch, 4 Ezra, Testament of Abraham and 2 Baruch that seem to favor a more legalistic theology. The data gathered by Sanders?study can also be interpreted in support for a legalistic Judaism ?for instance, the sheer number and minute detail of laws in Mishnah, that the covenant is not even mentioned in Tannaitic writings and the rabbinic explanation of God’s election on the basis of Israel’s choice to accept the covenant or on the merits of their forefathers .
We also need to question Stendahl’s thesis on whether a robust conscience necessarily precludes an acute, introspective awareness of sin as a peculiarly Western idea . Jesus?parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18 seems to suggest that a contrite spirit is the requirement for being “justified? David, the Eastern Psalmist, may have a robust conscience (Psalm 17: 1 ?5) but he is also known for struggling with inward guilt in Psalm 51. These two themes seem to interplay in tension throughout the Old Testament until they find a resolution and harmony at the event of Jesus?crucifixion. Colin Kruse expressed doubt that Philippians 3:6 could be a proof-text that Paul considered himself to have kept the law perfectly. He wrote:
“This verse is found in a context in which Paul deals with externals, the evidences of his Jewish pedigree and piety?It is better then to understand Philippians 3:6 in terms of misplaced pride in which the apostle indulged in pre-Christian days. It does not reflect his views about the possibility of perfect obedience??
In a significant contribution, Frank Thielman proposed that ancient Jewish literature, canonical or otherwise, contained a common pattern in which Israel’s inability to keep the law (the plight) will be cured in the eschatological future where God will free Israel to obey His commands (the solution). This pattern, he argued, is reflected in the Pauline corpus, especially Galatians and Romans, even if the overall picture of Judaism is not legalistic. The bone of contention lies in whether Israel’s hope of restoration is fulfilled or yet to come. From analyzing each epistle in its own context, Thielman argued that there are some Jews (Paul included) who believed in a synergistic relation between human effort and divine grace as the means of eschatological vindication. Paul wrestled with such beliefs in Philippians 3: 2-11 and Colossians 2:13 -14. This correction paves the way for understanding Paul’s conversion as moving “from plight to solution?
Contra Dunn, Stephen Westerholm has reasoned convincingly that Paul could use the phrase “works of the law?and “the law?interchangeably in Galatians 2:16 with Galatians 2:21 . Israel did indeed pursue “the righteousness which is based on the law?in the context of one’s righteous status before God (Romans 9:30-31). Westerholm wrote:
“That Paul supports his rejection of the “works of the law?in Romans 3:20, 28 by showing that Abraham was justified by faith, not works (4:1-5) is positively fatal to Dunn’s proposal?For the ‘works? by which Abraham could conceivably have been justified and of which he might have boasted, were certainly not observances of the peculiarly Jewish parts of Mosaic code .?

Beneath the social function of the law lies a deeper soteriological issue such that Paul’s polemics cannot be limited to the boundary marking roles of the law. We could note that New Perspective is itself not based on presupposition-less exegesis. The new Paul has become a self-reflection of the post-Holocaust inclusivist with an ecumenical bend. Isn’t it tempting to construct a Paul who could easily evade charges of anti-Semitism by opposing mere boundary markers yet essentially in agreement with Judaism? He has become a product of the spirit of the age . In any case, every responsible exegete needs to be aware, at least, of the lens with which he interprets data.

Evidently, Paul understood himself as “formerly in Judaism?(Galatians 1:13), which imply that he was no longer in Judaism. Thomas Schreiner noted the term Judaism was used only twice in NT to depict his pre-conversion days in which he was devoted to “the ancestral traditions?(Galatians 1:14). The expression was never used to describe his post-conversion faith, which he described as “not living Jewishly?(Galatians 2:14). Dunn’s response is to restrict “Judaism?in this text as the sectarian practice of distinctive national markers founded by the Maccabeans to keep out Gentiles and Hellenist Jews, rather than generically “the religion of the Jews? However such a neat dichotomy between the Judaisms - Hellenist and Palestinian - cannot be sustained because Hellenism has intermingled and influenced Judaism significantly by the time of Paul .

Conversely, a good case can be put forth to trace Paul’s development of his gospel back to the Christophany. While it may be an overstatement to claim that every aspect of his kerygma springs from that experience, Seyoon Kim pointed out that Paul himself interpreted the Christophany as the pleasure of God “to reveal his Son in me?(the gospel) “so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles?(the commission) . If Paul developed the gospel of justification by faith later during the Antioch controversies, as Dunn suggests , then the polemical context in Galatians 1 and 2 would make little sense. Here, Paul defended his gospel, apostleship and the Gentile mission as having an inseparable and divine origin in the Christophany. If he came to realize the gospel sola fide or the Gentile mission only much later, the argument would inevitably fall apart . In this context, Paul’s sojourn to Arabia “immediately after?his conversion could more naturally refer to his missionary activities for which king Aretas would later pursue him in Damascus. If so, Paul embarked on his Gentile mission shortly after his conversion and probably understood his calling as parallel to that of Isaiah and Jeremiah . One can justly question what kind of “good news?he could possibly have preached if justification by faith was a later tactical development.

Kim’s thesis is remarkably compatible with Luke’s account that the commission Paul received from Christ to both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 1:16) is primarily salvific - “to open their eyes from darkness to light? “from the power of Satan to God so that they may receive forgiveness of sins ?(Acts 22:16-18). The notion that Jews have an equally valid and different system of salvation, apart from Christ, is therefore excluded. Genuine tolerance in Jewish-Christian relation should be upheld by the doctrine that man has the image of God, not by downplaying the central doctrine of justification sola fide.

Conclusion

In summary, the Damascus Christophany can best be understood as both Paul’s soteriological conversion and missiological calling. The New Perspective proponents were right in what they affirm ?that it is a vocational call to Gentile mission ?but they were mistaken in what they deny because Paul’s conversion provided its impetus and theological basis. His experience could serve as a model for us in the sense that global mission is the outworking of a personal conversion from sin to Christ. The New Testament knows nothing of conversion without a corollary calling to the lost also. As someone put it, evangelism is merely a beggar telling another beggar where to find bread. Indeed, Sanders put us all in his debt by refuting a simplistic portrait of Judaism and Dunn brought to our attention much-neglected sociological aspects of Pauline theology. However, if we are to understand the life and thought of the historical Paul himself, we would do well to heed Westerholm’s call to return and read exegetical masters like Luther once again.

Footnotes:

1 That Romans 7 is an autobiographical account is highly debatable. Kümmel’s view that it was mainly rhetorical in nature became widely held among NT scholars. However Mark Siefrid qualified that although Kümmel was primarily correct, the identity of ‘I?cannot be divorced from Paul’s experience. In any case, it seemed prudent not to be sidetracked by this debate here. 1 Timothy 1: 12-15 clearly indicated that Paul saw his experience in “the vocabulary of repentance?(a phrase by Segal), as in having received mercy for his past of ignorance and unbelief. But it has been largely left out from most discussions in view of the lack of unanimity among NT scholars about its authenticity.

2 D. A. Carson, D. Moo and L. Morris, Introduction to New Testament, (Leicester: Apollos, 1992) pages 206 ?211

3 G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin, eds. Dictionary of Paul and His letters, (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 993), Article entitled “Conversion and Call of Paul?

4 A. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee, (New Haven: Yale, 1990) page 117.

5 Tom Wright is an example of a scholar who emphasized Paul’s hard line political stance and eschatological vindication of God’s covenant community.

6 F. Thielman, A Contextual Approach: Paul and the Law, (Illinois: InterVarsity, 1994) pages 14-27.

7 The article was first published in English in Harvard Theological Review in 1963.

8 D. A. Carson, D. Moo and L. Morris, Introduction to New Testament, (Leicester: Apollos, 1992) page 218

9 J. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, (London: SCM Press, 1977), page 420

10 For example, Sanders noted that Rabbinic Judaism is not primarily other-worldly. “What must I do to be saved??is not a prominent query for them.
J. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, page 75.

11 F. Thielman, A Contextual Approach: Paul and the Law, pages 35 ?37.

12 J. D. G. Dunn, ‘A Light to the Gentiles?or ‘The End of the Law??The Significance of the Damascus Road Christophany for Paul?in the monograph Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians, (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990), pages 98 ?99. Quoted in S. Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), page 22.

13 T. Wright, Saint Paul really said: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity? (Oxford: Lion, 1997) page 32.

14 P. F. M. Zahl, Mistakes of the New Perspective, Themelios Vol 27:1, page 7.

15 In Summary and Conclusions, Don Carson wrote that “Sanders is not wrong everywhere?he is wrong when he tries to establish his category is right everywhere?

16 T. Shreiner, The Law & Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993) pages 114 ?117.

17 S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), page 53. Kim cited the Thanksgiving Hymns of Qumran as suggesting the possibility for rigorous Jews to sometimes doubt their ability to keep the law perfectly.

18 C. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification, (Leicester: Apollos, 1996), page 83.

19 Frank Thielman, From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans (Leiden: Brill, 1989) page 45. Quote was from Kruse, op. cit., page 45.

20 S. Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His recent Interpreters, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), page 118. Also, compare Romans 3:28 with Romans 3:31.

21 S. Westerholm, ibid., page 119.

22 Kirster Stendahl, for example, is actively involved in ecumenical dialogue with Jewish scholars via the International Council of Christians and Jews. The perceived advantage of improving post-Holocaust Jewish-Christian relation may be done at the expense of silencing Paul’s exclusivistic gospel.

23 J.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), page 347-348.

24 Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, 2 volumes (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974)

25 S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, page 57. The text was taken from Galatians 2:16.

26 J. D. G. Dunn, “Paul and Justification by Faith?in The Road from Damascus edited by R. Longenecker, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), page 99. Quoted in Kim, Paul and the New Perspective, page 27.

27 S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, pages 58 ?60.

28 S. Kim, Paul and the New Perspective, pages 101 ?104.

29 S. Kim, Paul and the New Perspective, page 49. Kim also pointed out the “problematic implication of Dunn’s minimalistic view?it makes the gospel practically irrelevant to the Jews? A Messiah who does not save Israel is a contradiction of terms!



Bibliography

1. Carson, D.A., et. al., Introduction to New Testament. Leicester: Apollos, 1992.
2. Dunn, J. D. G., ed. Paul and the Mosaic Law. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
3. Dunn, J. D. G. “Paul and Justification by Faith?in The Road from Damascus edited by R. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Quoted in Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
4. Dunn, J. D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
5. Hawthorne, G.F. and Martin, R.P., eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993
6. Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.
7. Kim, Seyoon. Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
8. Kruse, C. Paul, the Law and Justification. Leicester: Apollos, 1996.
9. Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, 2 volumes. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Quoted in Shreiner, T. The Law & Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993.
10. Murphy-O’Connor, J. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
11. Polhill, J. Paul and His Letters, Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999.
12. Sanders, E.P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. London: SCM Press, 1977.
13. Segal, A. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Paul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale, 1990.
14. Shreiner, T. Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
15. Shreiner, T. The Law & Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993.
16. Thielman, F. A Contextual Approach: Paul and the Law. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
17. Westerholm, S. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
18. Wright, T. What Saint Paul really said: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity? Oxford: Lion Publishing, 1997.




posted by Dave at 1:59 AM