Paul Was Not A Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle [Hardcover]

I'm deeply indebted to HarperOne, division of Harper Collins for providing this book, Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle, by Pamela Eisenbaum, for review.

Catchy title huh? It surely will cause most Christians to pause and pick it up. And pick it up they should. This is simply a new way (for most laypersons at least) of looking at Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, and commonly thought of as the major force in creating Christianity.

Pamela Eisenbaum, a practicing Jew, has all the credentials in the world, and teaches at a Iliff School of Theology in Denver. She is a biblical scholar with degrees from both Harvard Divinity and Columbia. She claims as mentor the acclaimed biblical expert Krister Stendahl.

Her premise here is a startling one for most Christians: Paul, far from renouncing his Jewish faith and "converting" as we are wont to believe on the road to Damascus, remained throughout his life a staunch Jew, follower of the Law. And, he preached the Lord Jesus Christ as savior. How can this be we ask?

Eisenbaum takes us through a long and detailed and clear explanation. Based on the work of what are known as the "new prospective" scholars and building upon that from the now "radical" new prospective scholars, Dr. Eisenbaum paints a convincing picture of Paul as a man thoroughly embedded in his Jewish heritage, and remaining in it to the end. Much of what has gone wrong in Pauline interpretation comes from reading him through a lens of "conversion," a conversion Eisenbaum claims never happened.

Most all scholars today would agree that Jesus certainly never set out to create a church. He if anything, wished to reform Judaism. Dr. Eisenbaum argues that essentially Paul did the same, and for somewhat the same reasons.

In making her case, reference is made to the authentic letters of Paul, those seven that all scholars agree were written by Paul--Romans, Corinthians I, II, Galatians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon. The rest are almost universally or substantially agreed upon as not Pauline in authorship and thus not fruitful for this discussion. This is of course nothing new.

She then traces a history of Second Temple Judaism, the time that Paul was alive, and determines what assumptions would have been his based upon the current belief structure of Pharisees of his day. Contrary to public opinion, Pharisees were not so much sticklers for adherence to the Law as they interpreted it, but rather they often interpreted it in ways that were novel and supported present day problems. IN other words they were opportunists of a sort.

Eisenbaum indicates that independent records show that Jews of this period did not consider Gentiles "unclean" or people to be separated from. They were more tolerant that we might suppose. They believed that Gentiles could follow Torah and such people were known as proselytes.

Her argument is that Paul, steeped in Pharisaic belief of the apocalyptic end times, came to see in his Damascus experience, evidence that the end times were upon them. He viewed his experience as his call from God to take the message to the Gentiles, that Jesus by his faithfulness, had justified the Gentiles in the same way that Torah justified Jews in righteousness.

In other words, time was of the essence. Jews had imputed righteousness through the grace of God in giving them Torah, which, even if badly followed, gave them the way to atone for sins. The Gentiles, having no such covenant, and being outside the covenant, had no means of atonement for the sins that they had accumulated. Following Torah was not enough.

Jesus, by his faithful obedience to God, won for Gentiles (the nations of the world as it were), that righteousness, that Jews received by virtue of the covenant. This explains why Paul was so adamant that such things as circumcision and dietary laws need not apply to Gentiles.

What is of critical importance, is Eisenbaum's claim that Augustine, then Luther and so forth misread Paul, thinking he had condemned Torah as the way, and substituted Jesus as the only means of salvation. In this reading, then all Jews must one day convert to Christianity. This of course is the belief of many, (especially conservative) Christians today.

Eisenbaum makes clear that in order to read Paul correctly, one must keep in mind a number of things. First and foremost among them, is that at no time is Paul speaking to Jews. He is speaking only to Gentiles. Secondly Torah is for Jews, but sets a standard for all peoples.

Perhaps what will most alarm Christians is her claim that Paul did not see Jesus as God, but as God's son, the one sent. Moreover, she would claim that Paul did not call Gentiles to worship Jesus, but rather to have faithfulness as Jesus had faithfulness.

She bases this conclusion on a lengthy explanation of the phrase pistis iesou christou. Because Christians have so thoroughly seen Paul as "converting" they have almost always translated this as "faith in Jesus Christ" rather than what she contends is the accurate translation, "faith of Jesus Christ." Her claim is that Jesus expressed a faithfulness to God by his perfect obedience, and that Paul calls Gentiles to be "saved" by also following the lead of Jesus, and trying to imitate Jesus faithfulness.

Dr. Eisenbaum of course admits that even among radical new prospective scholars, there is still much argument. Her opinions and conclusions are not universally accepted. It is a new way of looking at Paul, and given Paul's general difficulties, there will be years of new exploration ahead.

But indeed, this work is a must reading for anyone who wishes to understand that there is much yet to do in unpacking Pauline theology. The test will be, does Eisenbaum's theory explain more satisfactorily than do previous paradigms. There have been, and perhaps always will be passages in Paul that are seemingly contradictory. This is in part the result that he no where sets out to put down his theology in any one place. We have letters, written over a fair stretch of time, often addressed to quite disparate problems. The theory that "solves" the most problems will be the one that finds most favor no doubt.

This is an important book in current biblical studies of Pauline theology. It is one that all, both scholars and laypersons can benefit from.

**As noted, this book was sent to me free of charge for purposes of review. No agreements as to contents of the review were discussed. The opinions here are strictly my own.

This review is for Evangelical readers who want to learn more about the Jewish context of Jesus and of the first generation Church. Prof. Eisenbaum's book is well researched, tightly reasoned, well-written and in places thought-provoking. Her point that Paul did not stop being an observant Jew when he came to believe that Jesus is Messiah is well stated. She also calls to account interpretations of Paul that have led to antisemitism in the Church, and for that Christians should thank her. She dispels the misperception that Judaism is a faith of salvation by works but by the grace of God. I also admire her effort to find a Paul, whom she doesn't like at all points, but whom she can reconcile to as an observant Jew rather than the Paul who's the source of persecution of Jews throughout history.

However, here are just some examples of problems I have with the book:

1) She follows the typical contemporary pattern of choosing which books of the New Testament she allows to be "authentic", hurls around the "majority view" language, while ignoring that there are many fine scholars who would not lop off the Book of Acts and other Pauline epistles as authentic sources for Pauline studies. As has happened since the search for the historical Jesus started, people pick and choose from the canon and come up with a Jesus, and now a Paul, made in their own image rather than an historically convincing portrait.

2) Her impressive effort to deal with Paul's attitude toward Jesus the Lord just doesn't line up with important verses even in her canon within the canon. She says that Paul uses the term "Lord", simply to mean an exalted being rather than an equal with God. Yet, Philippians 2:6 refers to Jesus being in very nature God and equal to Him. She says that Paul is theocentric, but not Christo-centric, but again in Philippians Paul says that for him to live is Christ and that he has given up all to become like Christ. Her concern is to steer Paul away from the dangerous rocks of polytheism that the doctrine of the Trinity creates, but she created a Paul that doesn't line up with his writings. The Trinity continues to be a mysterious doctrine for Christians and an offensive one for Jews and Muslims.

3) She slaughters the true Reformed view of the faith vs. works issue. She says that, according to the Reformers, moral behavior is at least extraneous and even detrimental to salvation. The Reformers taught the entire counsel of Scripture, which clearly teaches repentance from sin as an expression of sincerity and gratitude for the salvation that is theirs through faith in the work of Christ on their behalf. One wonders how she can misread or misrepresent the Reformers so much on this point.

4) She makes a big point that Paul writes to Gentiles and thus all his anti-Torah talk is for them because they were never meant to observe Torah. According to Prof. Eisenbaum, Paul teaches that Jews continue to look to faithfulness to Torah for grace and Gentiles look to Jesus. This is perhaps the weakest point of the book. For example, Paul obviously addresses both communities when he says, "I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is the power for God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." (Romans 1:16, NIV) That's hardly a picture of Torah for Jews and Jesus for Gentiles. In the midst of this effort, she tries to strip Paul of the message of salvation from the wrath of God, and so tips her hand that she is driven by the modern ideology of universalism. Like it or not, that universalism is foreign to Paul, and she shouldn't try to use Paul to advocate her modern ideology.

5) I was disappointed that she didn't describe in more detail just what Paul's continued Jewish observances were. She spends her time dissecting Paul's doctrine expressed in seven of his letters so the book is very heavy in theological examination. That's certainly valuable, but I would vey much like to have heard more about what she thinks Paul's ongoing practice of Judaism entailed.

6) Finally, her final sentence makes it clear what her ultimate agenda is: religious pluralism. Unfortunately, her historical research seems to be a tool to advance her ideology rather than to present a truly accurate portrait of Paul.

All that being said, if you are interested in the Hebrew roots of the first generation of Christians, I encourage you to read this book. Prof. Eisenbaum's book is a valuable contribution to the effort to recover the Jewishness of the first century Christians. She reminds us of information that we should already have firmly in mind and she challenges us to think about some other issues. That process is valuable, and, while in the end her portrait of Paul is unconvincing, nevertheless I'm a better student of the New Testament for it. Thanks, Prof. Eisenbaum, for a provocative read.

This is perhaps the best book about Paul from a Jewish perpective that I have ever read. I have always wanted to know Paul from the Jewish perspective, untainted by the theology of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Most Jewish portrayals are critical but fair and are worth reading; ie Daniel Boyarin, Samuel Sandmel, and Alan Segal. I have found only two which are not worthy; Hyam Maccoby's biased account and the absolutely absurd portrayal by Robert Eisenman. Pamela Eisenbaum's book rises above most of the others and is well worth reading.

Eisenbaum focuses solely on the authentic letters of Paul and gives us an understanding of the apostle which is untainted by the doctrines of Augustine and Luther.

Eisenbaum refutes the common notion among many Christians that Judaism is a legalistic religion in which salvation has to be earned. The Mosaic covenant, with its provision of atonement, was never merited by the Israelites who were saved by it. To Paul, salvation was never a problem for Jews who lived under the covenant, but it was a problem for gentiles who lived outside the covenant with no means of atoning for their sins. Thus Paul felt that the Law which was a blessing for Israel, was a curse for gentiles. Paul never condemned the Law as it applied to Jews. Israel was a chosen nation of priests. Therefore, Jewish ritual laws such as circumcision, and food laws only applied to Jews. Paul felt that it was inappropriate for gentiles to abide by Jewish ritual laws. Gentiles had to be included in God's kingdom according to prophecy, but as gentiles, not as Jews. Eisenbaum sresses that Paul's letters were addressed to gentiles and not to Jews.

Paul was proud of his Jewish heritage and his schooling as a Pharisee. His experience of the risen Christ was not a conversion away from Judaism. The resurrection of Jesus convinced Paul that the final judgement was imminent and that the prophecies of gentile nations being gathered into the Kingdom of God had to be fulfilled. Paul felt a prophetic calling to preach the gospel to the gentiles. He never preached a "replacement theology" and chastises gentiles for their idolatry and moral failings. Paul was not obsessed with individual salvation but with gentile nations on a large scale. Eisenbaum places Paul in the mold of a first century apocalyptic Jew, not a Baptist preacher.

Eisenbaum demonstrates that Paul never taught a doctrine of faith without works. This is so blatantly clear in Romans 2:13 which so any of Paul's detractors seem to overlook. Eisenbaum explains how gentile salvation by "faith in Jesus Christ" should be read as salvation by the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ". To Paul, the problem of atonement for gentiles, who lived outside the covenant, was solved by the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. Gentiles were saved by the faithful obedience of Jesus just as Jews were saved by the faithfulness of Abraham and the Patriarchs. Paul stresses that it was the power of God which raised Jesus and exalted him in Heaven. While Jesus is the heavenly mediator, it is the God of Israel which gentiles must worship.

This book should be required reading for anyone who truly wants to understand the enigma of Paul the Apostle.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 15 reviews  3.7 out of 5 stars