Very frequently in conversation about Paul’s theology in
both the “New Perspective,” “Neo-Lutheran Perspective” or simply traditional
readings, much is made of the nature of Paul’s “conversion” experience.[1]
Indeed, much of the “New Perspective” was developed from Stendahl’s argument
that we should not think of Paul’s experience as a “conversion” from one
religion to another, but rather simply a “calling” to a new mission to the
Gentiles. The strength of this argument is a priority of Galatians 1.
Philippians 3 is then read with the understanding of Galatians. The traditional
perspective reads it the opposite way – that Paul’s proclamation that he now
considers his standing within Judaism as skubala
and this insight should govern how we read Galatians 1. In both cases, both
sides are using Philippians 3 as a fundamental text to teach us about Paul’s
conversion. However, a closer look at Philippians 3 seriously questions whether
such a grouping is helpful. Rather, this paper suggests that Philippians 3
should be understood as a missional strategy as expressed in 1 Corinthians
9:19-23. This would not fundamentally change which of the views one holds (New
Perspective or Traditional readings). Rather, I argue we need to look more
carefully at the texts and be careful as to what we they are truly expressing.
The letter to the Philippians is historically confusing, so
much that it has led many to think that it is actually a compilation of 3
letters of Paul to the community. Paul seems to have three separate messages
and settings that do not seem to completely with each other. Without going too
far into this conversation, the letter is divided between Phil. 1:1-3:1; 3:2-4:1;
and 4:1-23. Whether or not the book was actually a compilation of three
different letters or if Paul simply wrote the letter in three sections, for the
purposes of this paper, 3:2-4:1 does seem to have a fundamentally different
circumstance in mind than the other sections. Most commentators – even very
conservative ones who are very opposed to this division of books of the Bible
in practice agree. Very few use any sections of Phil. 1-2 to understand the
context in Philippians 3. Therefore, this paper will focus entirely on
Philippians 3:2-4:1 as a self-enclosed unit that deserves to be studied on its
own.
The use of Philippians 3 for information about Paul’s
conversion is based upon the fact that Paul does discuss his “former” life and
his “current” life. The text, therefore, was quite naturally read as good
information about how he once lived as compared to how he lives now. The text
in full is expressed here:
If anyone else has reason to be confident in the
flesh, I have more: 5circumcised 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; 6as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to
righteousness under the law, blameless.
7 Yet whatever gains I
had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. 8More
than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of
knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all
things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and
be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law,
but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from
God based on faith.[2]
Here, it can be seen why readers of Philippians have seen it
as helpful information as regards to his “conversion.” It presents some kind of
contrast between how he lives now and how he lived in the past. This is
particularly helpful because of how rarely Paul speaks autobiographically and
thus this passage would be very helpful if it was discussing this contrast. The
problem, of course, is that nothing in the text itself says when this former and current life are
contrasted. It is only an interpretative decision that readers take this
autobiographical discussion to be the moment of his “conversion.”
The two different perspectives on Paul consider this same
text and use it quite differently. The traditional “Lutheran” perspective
argues that Paul’s conversion was a shift in his thinking. Smart scholars
recognize that there was no such thing as “Christianity” when Paul lived, but
they argue that he didn’t know what to call this new revelation, but he did see
it as something aggressively different. They argue that Galatians 1 presents
the event while Philippians 3 presents the content. Galatians 1 does clearly
present Paul’s version of what happened:
11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the
gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12for I did
not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it
through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 You have heard, no
doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of
God and was trying to destroy it. 14I advanced in Judaism beyond
many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the
traditions of my ancestors. 15But when God, who had set me apart
before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased 16to
reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the
Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, 17nor did I go up
to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at
once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus.[3]
Paul, therefore, describes the event as a revelation of
God’s son, Jesus Christ, to him and gave him the mission of going to the
Gentiles. The traditional readers then argue that Paul here does not tell us
the content of the revelation. Instead, they argue that he merely discusses the
event as an event. They then use Philippians 3:7-9 as the content:
7 Yet whatever gains I
had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. 8More
than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of
knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all
things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and
be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law,
but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from
God based on faith.[4]
The argument is that the content of Phil. 3 provides the
means by which Paul saw his life radically differently. This was, for the
traditional perspective, what the implications of the revelation of God’s son.
The primary shift, then, was that Paul radically altered his life and that at
that revelatory moment, he ceased his former life in Judaism and started a new
one completely differently. Some would go even farther and say that he saw the
error in his old life and its impossibility and that he found a new solution to
this crisis. The revelation then, was primarily, and introspective
psychological shift. The mission to the gentiles, then, was secondary. The fact
that he went to the gentiles was really only an extrapolation from the fact
that Paul has abandoned and denigrated the value of the Torah. Therefore, he
can easily go to the gentiles who were, before this moment, excluded as they
didn’t follow Torah.
The New Perspective, by contrast, prioritizes Galatians 1
over against Phil. 3. They interpret Galatians 1’s comment that it was “God,
who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace” which
had contacted him. Paul does not see this as a new god, a new religion, nor a
new understanding of the law. Instead, he sees it as a revelation of God’s son
with the primary purpose of “so that I might proclaim him among the
Gentiles.” The mission to the Gentiles was the primary content of the message.
They prove this by focusing on the same passage from Philippians, merely
emphasizing Phil. 3:6 as the guide for what follows. Phil 3:6 argues that in
Paul’s “former life” he had no problem following Torah: “As to righteousness
under the law, [I was] blameless.” The New Perspective, then, argues that this
shows us what his life was life “before” his conversion – he was someone who
felt that he absolutely was following Torah and had no problem. The primary
argument, of course, is that there was room for forgiveness in Torah. Paul was
quite comfortable saying that both “As to righteousness under the law, [I was]
blameless” and “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I
want, but I do the very thing I hate.”[5]
The New Perspective, then, argues that Philippians shows us clearly that Paul’s
“conversion” was not a shift from following the law legalistically (and
unsuccessfully) to abandoning it as a new covenant. Instead, they argue that
Paul did not see this revelation as a functional change in his religious world,
just that he received a special “calling” to go to the Gentiles. They then
argue that Phil. 3:7-9 which discusses his seeing his previous merits as skubala is merely secondary to that
primary mission. They argue that Paul abandon’s his perfectly good salvation he
already possessed in order to reach the gentiles: “In order that I may gain
Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that
comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on
faith.”[6]
The argument, then, is that at Paul’s “calling” he abandons Torah observation –
which he could well have used for salvation – and now embraces Christ as if he
were a gentile.
I am not particularly interested, in this article, in
arguing for or against either of these previous positions; what I would like to
note is that both sides implicitly
assume that Philippians 3 should be interpreted as conversation about Paul’s
conversion. Both sides feel that anything talking about former Torah
observation with current non-observation must have been at the point of his
“conversion.” That assumption is what I argue needs to be more carefully
considered. First, it is necessary to look carefully at the whole text of
Philippians and ask if this necessarily has anything to do with the
“conversion” scene. Consider the text again with that question in mind:
If
anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised
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; 6as to zeal, a
persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
7 Yet whatever gains I
had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. 8More
than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of
knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all
things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and
be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law,
but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from
God based on faith.[7]
If one reads carefully, he has no conversation about the
point at which, nor the motivation for his abandoning Torah observation. He
certainly does narrative his change in behavior. However, it should be noted
that he doesn’t say that it was at the point of revelation as depicted in
Galatians 1 that he made this shift. Further, while he does say that he
abandoned Torah observation so that he could be in relationship with Christ as
his primary covenant, he does not say that Torah observation is necessarily in
competition. He does suggest that righteousness under the Torah – which it
should be noted he does imply he really did have – was different than
righteousness gained by Christ, however, he never completely says they are mutually
exclusive.
If we do not know when he makes this shift – the assumption
that it was at his “conversion” scene is simply an assumption – then reasonable
question ought to be asked why he made this shift. If he made the shift directly at his conversion, then the combining
of Phil. 3 and Galatians 1 would make good sense. However, neither text
suggests that as something that necessarily occurred. Galatians 1 never says
anything about abandoning Torah just as Philippians 3 does not say anything
about the “conversion” experience.
Further, the problem is complicated given the polemical
challenge of both texts. Galatians 1 is challenging the church in Galatia that
his authority is not from a human source. Philippians 3 is warning those of the
“evil workers” – Jewish Christian missionaries – who are preaching
circumcision. Philippians 3 then is making a strong argument that circumcision
is unnecessary and to do so, he uses
his own example of not following Torah. However, if the primary argument is
that something is unnecessary or extraneous, that is hardly reason to suggest
that it was antithetical to his
gospel.
If his message is simply one that following Torah is not necessary (and given that the time is
short, a general waste of time for the gentiles), then it is far more
challenging for us to ask when he
abandons Torah. If his message is that one can be following Torah and following
Christ – it is just not necessary – there is definitely room for Paul to have
made this shift at some time separate from his “conversion.”
Real question can be raised as to whether this would best be
understood in regard to his missional strategy. He argues that when he tries to
reach a group, he either follows Torah or not depending upon the preference of
the group. Famously he argues thus in 1 Corinthians:
19 For
though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so
that I might win more of them. 20To the Jews I became as a Jew, in
order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though
I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21To
those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free
from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the
law. 22To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I
have become all things to all people, so that I might by any means save some. 23I
do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.[8]
Paul clearly abandons Torah when he functions with the
Gentiles. He further can follow Torah when he is with Jews. Philippians 3 then
could easily be reflecting upon a missional strategy that he could have adopted
at really any time – it would not necessarily have to be at his “conversion.”
Finally, if one considers Acts, there is not good reason at
all to think that Acts argues that Paul abandoned Torah on the road to
Damascus. While Acts is usually seen with great skepticism, one would think
that this book – which traditional perspective authors claim is clearer as far
as Paul changing from one religion to another – would make it clear that Paul
abandons Torah observation. However, in chapter 9 on the road to Damascus,
there is nothing about Torah observation. Further, Ananias makes no mention of
it. In fact, Peter’s revelation that Torah observation was not always necessy
will not occur until the following chapter. The text does say that Paul went in
and out among the believers – and seemingly also the Gentiles, it says nothing
about whether Paul actually abandoned Torah or not. In fact, there is no
indication at all in Acts that Paul even preached a gospel that did not include
Torah observation until Acts 15 when the Jerusalem council comes to that
decision. It is later very clear that Paul does preach that Gentiles do not
need to follow the Torah covenant, as Jews frequently accuse him of doing.
However, when one reads it carefully, it should be noted that he is accused of
telling other people not to follow
Torah, not that he himself does not: “This man is persuading people to worship
God in ways that are contrary to the law.”[9]
Finally, Paul even follows proper temple worship in Jerusalem.[10]
Of course, none of this proves Paul didn’t
abandon Torah in Acts, however, the assumption that Acts agrees that Paul’s
conversion included his abandonment of Torah is simply inaccurate. The conversion
experience in Acts mentions nothing about Torah. In fact, Acts would suggest
that this shift came later (if at all).
All of this does not end with me arguing that Philippians 3 cannot be used to interpret Galatians 1.
When there is so precious little about Paul’s life, it would be a mistake to
discard anything. What I am arguing however, is that the implicit assumption that
these texts must be talking about the same event is incorrect. Any connection
between the two texts must be proven. That
his abandonment of Torah occurred at his “conversion” is a possible hypothesis –
but it is only a hypothesis. I have presented another possible one – that this
could have been a later development based upon his mission to the Gentiles. My
hypothesis is to be viewed simply as that – another possible hypothesis. In
either case, both the New Perspective and the traditional perspective would do
well to be more careful with the combination of these two texts.
[1] Throughout
this essay, I will put the “conversion” in quotes merely because this provides
middle ground. The New Perspective on Paul challenges whether Paul truly
“converted” – i.e. changed from one religion to another whereas the traditional
perspective insists upon the word. Providing the quotation marks is a way of
recognizing that Paul did go through some transformative event – whether it is
better construed as a “call” or a “conversion” is outside the scope of this
essay. I use the term “conversion” simply because it is the most traditional
naming of the event and thus the most recognizable for readers. I am not here
implicitly supporting or denigrating either position.
[2] Phil.
3:4b-9.
[3] Gal.
1:11-17.
[4] Phil.
3:4b-9.
[5] Romans 7:15
[6] Phil. 3:9.
[7] Phil.
3:4b-9.
[8] 1 Cor.
9:19-23
[9] Acts 18:13;
21:21-26.
[10] Acts
24:14-18.
No comments:
Post a Comment