I’ve been engaged in a dialogue with a Jew named Steve who lives in Israel. Steve is intelligent, well informed, and articulate. I’ve been learning from Steve and perhaps he’s also learning something from me. Most importantly, we’re making an effort to understand where the other is “at”. His last reply to me was in the form of sharing some experiences from recently and in the past which referred to as “reminiscent of the parable of the “Good Samaritan.”” Well worth reading.
Steve, I hope we can continue our dialogue here. Please feel free to start up again in the comments.
Tom,
Nice to see you on your own site. I had a feeling we were “overstaying our welcome” on the other blog site. It’s a shame no one else, but Tim and Meirav, wanted to join our discussion.
I agree, I definitely took the Galatians episode out of context. I should have cited the “rooftop” vision of Peter. Ironically, I think that same chapter, which almost all Christians cite for God annulling the dietary laws, was entirely a metaphor for Gentiles, whom Peter esteemed with the same disgust as he did “unclean” food. I don’t believe that God was telling Peter to change his orientation towards the Jewish dietary laws, nor do I believe Peter abandoned those laws.
With that said, I think it is very important for me to add that the most recent scholarship on 1st century Judaism argues that Judaism was not a “salvation by works” religion. Much of this scholarship falls under the umbrella of what’s called the “New Perspective on Paul.” This perspective was inaugurated with E. P. Sander’s book “Paul and Palestinian Judaism.” Most of the scholars in this “perspective” are Gentile, and have done, in my opinion, outstanding work. Their main premise is that since the Reformation, Protestants have projected “retroactively” their own understanding and conflict with Catholic “works centered” salvation into Paul’s conflict with non-Christian Jews. These scholars are thus trying to liberate Pauline studies from this “rose colored lens.”
One of the scholars who I highly admire is James D.G. Dunn. He belongs to this New Perspective on Paul, but differs from the others in certain nuances. In his commentary to Romans, he maintains that the Jews of Paul’s day didn’t believe so much in “works-salvation,” rather, they believed in a kind of salvation based on their being born Jews “in the flesh.” We see, of course, this sentiment come out when the “Jews” tell Jesus “we have Abraham as our father…we have never been slaves to anyone (What happened to Egypt and Pharaoh?).” This same sentiment is repeated in the opening lines of the Mishnah (the first attempt to write down the “oral traditions” of the Pharisees), which announces, “All Jews have a place in the next world.” So, according to this school of thought, 1st century Jews did not believe they are going to heaven because they are trying to keep six hundred and something commandments…which everyone agrees is an impossibility…but, they did believe that part of the privileges of being ethnically part of the “Chosen People” included eternal life. It is this sentiment that Paul is attacking in Romans chapters 2-4, as well as the earlier book of Galatians. This is very important, because a major part of Christianity’s polemic (this came out in your last post) is the charge that Jews believed they were saved bases on a strict adherence to the Law, and it is very possible that that was not the case. Ethnic privilege yes, “works salvation” no.
Lastly, I do think the purest form of “Christianity” was in the “Jesus Movement” (thanks for reminding me of this term). One of the most fascinating, if not the most fascinating “Christian” personality of the first century was James, Jesus’ bodily brother. No one knew Jesus better than James. Having grown up with him from their youth and thus, observing him more closely than anyone else, James is crucial for our understanding of that “Jesus Movement.” As I said in a previous post, Josephus’ narrative of James’ murder show us that James adhered to a strict “walk” within Judaism. Obviously, if he did, Jesus must have also…and, we can assume that all of Jesus’ followers, Galileans, of whom it was claimed were the most zealous of all the Jews in the country in that time, did also. And yet, they didn’t believe in “works salvation,” because the Jews in general didn’t believe in that either…just ethnic privilege. I know from my own studies that by the 1st century, Jews saw the Law as the Jewish constitution (“politeia” in the Greek of that day), much as the Greeks saw the laws of Solon, or the Spartans the laws of Lycurgus (hence, “Law of Moses”). For this reason, I don’t think the members of the “Jesus Movement” saw a conflict in their being “Law abiding” and their being followers of Jesus. Yet, Paul seems to ruthlessly attack them because of his own interests in spreading the gospel to the Gentile world. In conclusion, I think there were two distinct sects within early Christianity…the “Jesus Movement,” and “Pauline” Christianity. When the Gentiles took over the new faith, demographically, they, of course, identified with “Pauline” Christianity, and the Jesus movement began to slowly die until ultimately disappearing.
Howdy Steve.
Yes, I’ve done some reading of the New Perspective on Paul. It’s been quite informative. Most of my reading has been of N.T. Wright (he’s a very prolific writer, and I highly regard him and his work). I have done a little reading of James D.G. Dunn, but not any that pertains directly to NPP.
As to Acts 10 and Peter…Certainly God was using the vision to re-align Peter’s attitude toward Gentiles. I don’t think the main purpose of the vision was to change dietary laws, but the linkage between dietary laws and Gentiles is so close as to be inseparable. One of the things that made Gentiles “unclean” was their diets—and just about everything else for that matter. Imagine Simon Tanner’s wife’s shock when Peter invited Cornelius’s servants in to spend the night; “What! They’re gonna sleep on MY SHEETS???!!!!” It would seem to me from the narrative in Galatians that Peter had become somewhat “ambi-dietary” in his habits and drew back when his more rigid brethren from Jerusalem showed up. That is the issue that Paul called him on, “You act and live like a Gentile until some homies show up!”
I don’t think that 1st century Pharisees thought of “salvation” as “going to heaven”. And yes, being a physical descendant of Abraham seemed to them to be a trump card with God as being of most favored persons/nation status. And, as you point out Jesus assaulted their high self-regard by pointing out that his Father could raise up a nation and children out of rocks (plenty of rocks in Palestine even in those days) (the dialogue in John’s account reminds me of “thick-as-a-brick” ;o) ) I agree that “ethnic privilege” certainly played a major part. Moralism/morality was the other side of the coin in their thinking. For instance, in Rom. 2 Paul places ethnic privilege on par with law keeping;
I don’t know if that’s “works righteousness” or not, but there does appear to be a strong connection between reliance upon the law and boasting of relationship with God. Maybe Paul was mistaken, but I don’t think so. I will grant that he was on more than one occasion we have record of inconsistent and perhaps ambivalent about his Judaism.
I agree with you that Jewish followers of Jesus didn’t appear to see an inconsistency in their trust of Jesus as the Messiah and also living in the Law and Traditions. Actually, I don’t think Paul had an issue with that either, unless keeping the Law of Moses (or any attitude of law keeping) was asserted as being necessary to be approved by God. (See Romans chapts. 14 & 15) Paul wasn’t out to destroy Judaism, rather, his aim was to proclaim the good news about the God who is Savior and King – first for the Jew, and also for the Gentile. (As an aside—I’m not sure that most “Christians” [“bless their hearts” as we’d say in the South] understand what the “Gospel” really is and what it is that God calls us to. Most articulations of the Gospel are rooted in the dualistic paradigm of Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy of separation between Deity/spirit and matter. Aquinas also tried to meld it all and we ended up with the same kind of separation between Faith and Nature, thus leading to the “Enlightenment” and Deism. You’ve probably seen Campus Crusade’s “Four Spiritual Laws” presentation—entirely rooted in Neo-Platonism.)
I think that the “Jesus movement” is alive and well today. The Constantinian Christendom model has been crumbling for neigh unto 500 years now, and we’re on the cusp of a new/old form that will (hopefully) take us back/forward into more authentic relational faith. However, it may not look much like we’ve experienced in the past considering that the fastest growth is taking place outside of the West.
Enjoying this conversation. If you have another topic of interest suggest it and let’s run with it.
Tom
Tom,
I too have enjoyed the conversation. The only time I get to speak on this level is with certain folks at school that I study with. The school I attend is a unique place, because it’s the leading Jewish university in the world and thus, one of the few such places where you will hear the Jewish “take” on Christianity from Jewish professors who really know the New Testament. One of my professors, a skull-cap wearing orthodox Jew (yes, you can call us that), shocked the whole class, which included some Evangelical Christians from America, when he recited the whole of Acts 15 in Greek, from memory! Just to see the look on those Christians’ faces was worth the tuition for the semester. I myself was a bit taken back, too, as so few of us even open the New Testament to see what it says.
Our conversation got me interested in the “Jesus Movement” topic again, and I started reading a book I have had on my shelf the past couple of years, but never read: “The Brother of Jesus” by Butz. It’s about James, and looks to be well written, despite a sensational sounding sub-title. I do think James is key to understanding both Jesus and earliest Christianity. I also agree with the author’s premise that the Church has done much to eviscerate him from the historical narrative of Christianity because of what an understanding of him promotes…just how Jewish those first followers of Jesus remained until their deaths. For us Jews who are somewhat familiar with the New Testament through out academic exposure to it, our real beef is with Paul, not Jesus. We blame him for beginning the process of de-judaising the religion. It’s not that we think Gentiles should have been made to keep the Torah, as Judaism never believed that then, nor does it aspire to that now. Rather, it’s Paul’s belligerent tone that he adopts in his polemics, as well as the book of John’s repetitive use of “the Jews”(instead of “Pharisees” and “Sadducees”) in all the showdowns between them and Jesus that we blame (in my opinion, rightfully) for the genesis of Christian “anti-Judaism” which then morphed in the modern age into the anti-Semetism we are all too familiar with in Europe of the last century.
Anyway, shortly before I sat down to write this, I heard that things are deteriorating in such a way next-door in Syria, that this country may imminently attack that country’s chemical weapons depots to prevent them from falling into the hands of Hizbollah. If that isn’t enough, things are falling apart next-door in Egypt as well. Never a dull moment in the Middle East. This vulnerability was something I tried to communicate on the other blog site, but to no avail. Young Americans Aubry’s age have no idea what it’s like to constantly fight for their survival. Here, everyone does the army and have been baptized in the baptism of blood and fire (as opposed to water and fire). Israel is a modern day Sparta, in that sense.
Steve,
Yes, I’m sure that would be an “interesting” experience for American Christians to have a Jewish professor recite Acts 15 in Koine from memory! Love it.
One of my daughters is a Classics major. Her Greek teacher was a skull cap wearing Jew.
I’m looking into the Butz book right now on Amazon. Looks like a good recommendation. Thanks.
Yep, I can see what you mean by “Paul’s belligerent tone” toward Judaism—Galatians 5:1-12 is probably a good example (“As for those agitators I wish they’d go so far as to castrate themselves” – certainly hyperbole combined with biting sarcasm). Actually, I don’t understand that tone as being against Judaism, but against Jewish Christ followers who insisted that Gentiles must adopt Judaism in order to have the full-fledged benefits of the Anointed One. Even if Paul did have some antipathy toward Judaism I find it understandable in view of the constant harassment, death threats, and fisticuffs he received from Jews in many of the cities in which he evangelized. I’m sure you noticed that in your reading of Acts. Perhaps the greatest problem of Paul’s was the reality that he was something of an old Jewish uncle who never held his peace and always said exactly what he thought. Infuriating.
There does ostensibly seem to be certain contradictory statements made by Paul and James. In Romans 4 Paul writes;
In James 2 is written;
This contradiction continues to vex Christians. You are probably aware that Martin Luther called James’ letter “that strawie epistle” and did not include it in his translation.
In the Acts narrative, especially in chapt. 15, I sense a high tone of respect and cooperation between Paul, Peter, and James. James actually influenced the outcome in favor of Paul’s position (Peter’s also). But then perhaps we don’t have an unbiased recounting in Luke’s perspective—Luke being a fellow traveler with Paul(??) Was it not Paul who organized a relief effort among the ekklesias in Asia and Greece on behalf of poor Judeans and Galileans during an extended drought?
The reality of the time was that Jews and Gentiles never had a comfortable coexistence. Rome tolerated Judaism, as it did with all other religions, as long as fealty was made to Rome and the Emperor. I’m not surprised that in time something of the same prejudice/bigotry was exemplified in Gentile organized Christianity. Inexcusable, though not surprising. Such is not of the Spirit of Christ.
I was taught from childhood that when John used the term “Jews” he was speaking of the religious and political establishment, particularly the Pharisee and Sadducee parties.
The US and Europe have been foot dragging way too long relative to Syria. Because of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s been difficult to act without being perceived as “Crusaders” by the Moslem world. As is all too common, Israel becomes our “proxy” in the region. I’m sure it’ll make us look and feel better to the world if Israel takes out the Syrian chemical weapons stores. After all, you have more to lose if Hezbollah gets their grubby fingers on that stuff ;o/
What would you think about a dialogue on Hab. 1:13? I’m thinking about a post on how Evangelicals misuse/misinterpret that text.
Tom
Sorry, I won’t be able to help you with Habakkuk. I haven’t read it in years. I am currently studying Isaiah with a locally published commentary…the best commentary on Isaiah I have ever come across. Where does your daughter study Classics? I was required to learn Greek and Latin, as my field overlaps classics.
She finished her bachelors degree about 4 years ago at the U of Arkansas, then went to work in an art museum. Probably won’t go into graduate studies–intends to have a passel of kids instead ;o)
Steve, a technical approach to the Habakkuk passage isn’t necessary, just a good read and contextual interpretation. I know you can targum it just fine.
T
Steve,
I’m a new reader to the Aubry blog and your dialogue with Tom & Tim. I have to say a load of what you guys are writing I don’t have the capacity to get my head around but I was struck by your last post about Isaiah.
My life changed about 17 years ago when a New Zealand pastor spoke to a bunch of youth workers (I was a trainee youth worker at the time) about the “vision” of Jesus. I’d never heard such a term before and he spoke on luke 4 and Isaiah 61. I’ve read Isaiah 61 possibly hundreds of times since and have been really struck by the vengeance of God being comforting those who mourn and providing for those who grieve. Given the accuser of the bretheren likes to steal, kill & destroy and – at the root of it all – accuse. It is paradoxical that God would want to provide and comfort. The fruit of this is a transformation of individuals who would look good rather than look dead, be joyful rather than wail, and praise rather than despair. Such a people will reveal his splendor as they are revealed to be magnificent – oaks of splendour.
My question to you is what is your take on Isaiah 58 and the breaking of yokes and 61 and the restoration of others (by those who own yokes appear to have been broken.