The next question Polhill asks in his discussion of Paul’s conversion concerns Paul’s predisposition to conversion. To what extent did was Paul “prepared” for his encounter on the road to Damascus? Certainly Paul thought that God had prepared him to preach the grace of God (Gal 1:15), but this question usually is more interested in Paul’s psychological state of mind when he met Jesus.
Like the discussion of Paul’s conversion, the New Perspective on Paul has had quite a bit to say here. Typically Paul has been viewed as struggling to keep the Law, perhaps in despair over his inability to do “the whole of the Law.” Usually Romans 7 is cited here; Paul is the “wretched man” who must be delivered from his body of death (Ro 7:25). He has been “kicking against the goads” for some time, according to Acts 26:14.
But this reconstruction has been questioned by the New Perspective, especially by E. P. Sanders, following Krister Stendahl (who is cited by Polhill). Sanders challenged what he saw as the Lutheran domination of Pauline studies on justification. In the twentieth century (primarily Lutheran) scholars have made justification by faith the “center” Pauline theology. This leads to the unfortunate result of anti-Judaism – Jews become proto-Pelagians, Paul is Luther bashing the RCC’s. Judaism is thought to be the antithesis of Paul’s Christianity and Paul’s theology develops out of a struggle against Judaism. Sanders changed the debate by arguing that the questions posed by the protestant / RCC debate have nothing at all to do with Judaism of the Second Temple period. For Sanders, this totally obscures what was actually happening in the first century and how Christianity developed out of Judaism. In addition, Sanders points out that the protestant Paul was never recognized by Jewish scholars (Sandmel, for example), he was incoherent or inconsistent.
So, according to Sanders, Paul was not a guilt-ridden sinner trying to justify himself through the good works of the Law. In fact, that was Luther. He was the guilt-ridden sinner trying to justify himself, and he read all that angst back into Paul. Paul was therefore not converted on the road to Damascus. Obviously this has huge implications, since the theological edifice of the reformation is guilt on Luther’s understanding of Paul, and there have been some fairly strenuous arguments against Sanders and the other more recent New Perspective writers.
Polhill is correct in the end when he states that Paul’ encounter on the road to Damascus was a radical event for which he was totally unprepared (page55). By appearing to Paul in his resurrection glory, Jesus radically changed Paul’s thinking in a way which cannot really be described as “conversion” in the contemporary sense. It was a prophetic call like Isaiah or Ezekiel which resulted in a transformation of Paul’s thinking about who Jesus is.
“Polhill is correct in the end when he states that Paul’ encounter on the road to Damascus was a radical event for which he was totally unprepared (page55). By appearing to Paul in his resurrection glory, Jesus radically changed Paul’s thinking in a way which cannot really be described as “conversion” in the contemporary sense. It was a prophetic call like Isaiah or Ezekiel which resulted in a transformation of Paul’s thinking about who Jesus is.”
I would definitely agree with Polhill here when he talks about Paul’s encounter on the road to Damascus, a radical one. It almost seems as if Paul life was about as extraordinary as you possibly could get. He was the one who persecuted the Jews with the most zeal and intensity [Acts 8 and 9]. Paul met Jesus essentially face to face on the road to Damascus [Acts 9]. He then becomes the chief of sufferers – Christs’ speaks that he will suffer greatly for His name sake [Acts 9:15-16]. Even looking at Paul’s pedigree, it is hard to overlook the fact that God has divinely prepared him for what he was called/annointed [Like the prophets Isaiah or Ezekiel] to do.
I agree with you, Moses, that Paul’s conversion was Radical, and represented a significant break with Judaism in many ways. But I also wonder if we (me, Polhill, preachers and teachers in general) overplay the distinctions and miss the continuity of Paul with Judaism. Paul does not quote the Hebrew Bible and disagree with it, he uses it to make his points! He does not say the law is bad, just the opposite, the law was good and perfect (people are the problem). On alot of issues I see Paul in continuity with the form of Judaism he had always believed.
The big difference Jesus (and what a difference that is), and what to do with Gentiles — how do they “get into” the new covenant? Not by Law, Paul says, and that teaching starts riots often as not.
As many, I also agree with Moses and P. Long about Paul’s conversion being such a radical one. The way that he seems to all of a sudden be able to not only follow Jesus but begin to preach almost immediately with as much zeal as he previously had shown against the followers of Jesus.
“Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. 20At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. 21All those who heard him were astonished and asked, “Isn’t he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn’t he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 22Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.[a]” (Acts 9:20-22)
I can also see where you are coming from on the issue of continuity P. Long. The differece was Jesus and Paul was going to do whatever he had to do, or say whatever he had to say, or get thrown in jail as many times as he needed to in order to get the point across.
Paul’s conversion on the road to Damacus is one that I do not think Paul could have every really prepared for. Paulss teaching that he was a Jew of Jews, fulfilling his duties as a Jew, seems to imply (atleast to me) that he he was not seeking a different kind of life. It would seem that meeting Jesus Christ in Resurrected form, had the same power it did on the disciples (who did not expect Jesus to act in the way that he did) a change that led to becoming the leaders of the Church. Paul was converted that a Jewish messiah had come, in the form of a Preist, and would come back as the warrior to free Israel.
P. Long, your comment “Polhill is correct in the end when he states that Paul’s encounter on the road to Damascus was a radical event for which he was totally unprepared (55) definitely concerns a radical conversion, as seen by the gusto in which Saul persecuted christians in the earlier accounts of Luke in Acts 8 and 9, and the difference in him after, but would you say that it is almost a metamorphosis in Paul’s life? In Acts 9 the account at Ananias’ house where “Immediately something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes and he could see again. He got up, was baptized, and after taking food he regained his strength” (9:18-19). Its almost as if he becomes a new man, like the one he talks of in Ephesians 4. Just a thought…
Also, the Law being fulfilled through a man that Israel rejected would be a touchy subject. It would be hard to listen to a man espousing that the death of Jesus who was slain by the Hebrews and now is the only way to be in right relationship with the Father would not be an easy thing to accept to a Hebrew, but in my opinion even harder to preach. This new Covenant taught by Paul to humanity is the pinnacle of importance to Christianity and the rock on which the Church is built.
>as seen by the gusto in which Saul persecuted christians
Zakk – I think that perhaps there is something in Paul’s personality that drives him to defend the truth with, as you say, gusto. He is just as zealous for Jesus as he was against him! At the very least, we can think of Paul as an extremely passionate man.
“But I also wonder if we (me, Polhill, preachers and teachers in general) overplay the distinctions and miss the continuity of Paul with Judaism.” (Prof. Long)
This is the same issue the Church has in Acts 15, where everyone is kind like, “What just happened?” Is Christianity a continuation of Judaism or is it something new born from the ashes of the old- or a third option would be if it is something new entirely! The same is true with Paul- is it a continuation, renewal, or creation? Prof. Long, you are leaning strong to the continuation side, while my gut reaction is to lean to the renewal side, with a bit of new creation. However, every time I read about this debate I find that a continuation view makes more sense and works in the overarching biblical story.
I am beginning to think that all the Jews were missing was faith and that is what this is all really about. Jesus came to restore faith for the Jews so that the Jews could spread that message to the Gentiles. When it comes to Paul, all that really needed to change was faith. The only reason it was such a big step is because of how far gone the Jews where in there law-mongering. It wasn’t a rebirth or a new creation, it was all part of the flow of God’s plan- a continuation.
>This is the same issue the Church has in Acts 15,
>where everyone is kind like, “What just happened?”
Do you have the impression that the two or three (or more!) sides in the debate left the Jerusalem council satisfied that they won? Paul went off and told Gentiles they did not have to keep the Law, but James could also tell the Jews they ought to keep the Law.
If Gal 2:11ff is after Acts 15, then perhaps that explains Peter’s confusion – maybe less was decided in Acts 15 than we might have thought.