Book Review – Paula Fredriksen – Paul the Pagans’ Apostle
The author has obviously put a tremendous amount of time and effort into researching the topic of this book, as the bibliography clearly shows. She shows she is well read in current Pauline studies and interacts with all the major opinions of Paul, particularly his relationship with the Law.
In the first chapter she gives some Old Testament/Tanach background to Israel and the nations. She rightly says that there was more than one opinion as to how the gentiles would fit in. On location 587 in the Kindle edition she says that Isaiah 66:21 mentions gentiles, in the end times, serving as priests and Levites. Fascinating stuff! This actually works against her thesis though in the book that Jews and Gentiles will remain distinct groups! On location 615 she seemed to not be aware of the numerous references in the Gospels of Jesus alluding to the nations’ turning to him.
In Chapter 2 she talks about what the word “gentile” would mean to someone who was Jewish. She also goes into how the culture back then connected with religion. Using common words we here so often in church “faith” “piety” “glory” “worship” she really goes into depth explaining the significance of them breathing new life into Scripture in the process. She helpfully explains how most Jews would consider a Gentile “pagan” to Judaize in a variety of ways, some of which would be considered very minor. For instance, Jews did not insist that pagans let go of their other gods, but allowed them to add Israel’s God as another. Whereas she explains, Paul on the other hand (loc 736) said in order for pagans to turn from their ways they had to let go of all other gods. In Chapter 2 she also begins to unfold the idea that language used of Judaizing in Pauline literature assumed the Judaizer would be pagan.
In Chapter 3 she begins to explain how Rome would view Judaism versus how they would view this new branch of it, where pagans would have to give up their other gods. She argues convincingly that Christianity would present more of a threat to the order of the Roman empire due to its demand to rid itself of more pagan things. She also convincingly argues that most likely Jews did not have a strong mission to Gentiles at the time.
I also liked her taking the time to explain how a person who was crucified was not then cursed as a result of the method of execution. She is referring to Galatians 3:13. What she might not realize is that the verse would better interpreted to say that anyone who died that kind of death must have had done something previously in their life to deserve that kind of death and so be cursed ahead of time. The idea in Gal 3:13 is that Jesus takes sin upon himself and acts as a sacrifice (2 Cor 5:21).
In chapter 4 she explains Paul’s relation to the Law. She talks about how Galatians 2 is more about Jews having issues with eating in Gentiles’ houses because of household idols, and food offered to idols. It had nothing to do with Jews and Gentiles eating together in general. Again she convincingly argues this point and argues very well for both an exclusively Gentile audience in pretty much every letter of Paul’s, even those where Paul sounds like he is talking to Jews. She also gives plausible theories as to how Paul’s opponents might have seen the reason for Gentiles to be circumcised. She says that it had to all do with what both Paul and the Christian Jews and Gentiles would have seen as the end times. They expected Jesus to come back very soon within their lifetimes. Many of the things Paul wrote (about singlehood, his overall urgency) had to do with the urgent expectation of the end.
She argues on loc 2074 that Gentiles, being Spirit filled would be able to fulfill the demands of the Law. Here is where it gets interesting, however because Paul never mentioned anything about Gentiles keeping the Sabbath. She wants to say Paul would have wanted them circumcised as well, if it weren’t for the fact that the majority would have been more than 8 days old and thus circumcision would not have done any good. She again also argues Scripture never speaks of Jew and Gentile becoming one. She obviously then rejects Colossians and Ephesians as written by Paul.
It is unclear to me how, if Gentiles are unable to fulfill the law without the Spirit then, how are Jews able to if all are sinners, as in a footnote she readily admits to (footnote 64). She might say that the Jews had the Spirit already. But then how does one explain Acts 2 where there was no one BUT Jews in the place where the Spirit came down?
Overall her argument about the law in Paul was that he was speaking negatively about the Law only to Gentiles not Jews. In her opinion it seems Paul was saying Gentiles, as opposed to Jews, were the only ones sinners by nature (loc 2318). But her footnote mentioned above seems to contradict this.
Chapter 5 talks about Christ and the Kingdom in Paul. Strangely she says that the only time Jesus was publicly associated with messianism is the last week of his earthly life (loc 2491). But in the birth narratives there are messianic themes, known by Herod. How much more public does she want? John the Baptist’s stories in Jesus’ baptism where it says that people heard from heaven “This is my beloved Son” Astonishingly she says that Jesus’ followers did not see his resurrection meaningful in and of itself, full stop (2705). But this flies in the face of many Scripture passages including Acts 2:33-36, Romans 6:11, I Cor 6:15, 2 Cor 4:11, 5:17, Gal 2:19,20. Many of these passages fall under the idea of Christosis where we are united with Christ in his resurrection to be able to live this life in power.
The rest of the book summarizes her research and nicely ties it all together. Such an important book to read. Definitely required reading if trying to interpret Paul’s writings.
I want to rate how persuasive one of her major themes that the Law was still in force and that Gentiles should follow it as well at least in part, and that even though Jews were considered sinful, they were not being compared on the same level to make a particular point on Romans were points I don’t think she was persuasive on. Even if she is right that Paul was writing to Gentiles, this would not prevent him from speaking about Jews and the Law and how that then affects Gentiles as well. There are places where Paul seems to clearly speak about Jews and the Law being not in force anymore. How is that pagans would have been “in the custody of the law” in Galatians 3:19-25? How does one be cursed by the law if they as pagans did not fall under the Law? In 2 Cor 3:8 Paul says that Moses’ ministry brought condemnation. Romans 2:12 clearly shows that Gentiles cannot be the ones under the law. They will be judged outside of the Law because they did not fall under it. In Romans 3 Jews have an advantage not because they were less sinners, but because God has made promises on their behalf, whereas he did not with pagans. In Rom 3:9 we see that Jews are actually not better off, for they are also under the power of sin. In the flesh then all are the same, as far as God’s promises go Jews have the advantage. So I agree that Paul keeps Jew and Gentiles separate throughout Romans. And yes, Paul does not accuse Jews of the gross sins that pagans do which deserve greater punishment. However Jews have the law which speaks of Christ Jesus and so are judged by their stubbornness. All need Christ as their Passover sacrifice, as their ransom. Jesus predicted the temple being destroyed and his body being the temple (Mark 14:58, John 2:19-21).
I also have never understood how is it that Paul is the definite author of Romans, Galatians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and 1 Thessalonians and Philemon, but not the others. Why is it not possible the other way around that he really is the only true author of Ephesians and Colossians and 2 Thessalonians? After all, she argues Acts presents a slightly different Paul then his letters, so who is to really say for sure? Scholars paint themselves into a corner when they argue the theology is so different in Ephesians and Colossians that it must be someone else. Why cannot for instance Paul have changed his thinking later on in life? Because Jesus did not come back maybe he second guessed himself, and was actually more right in the beginning than at the end? Who really can say?
Nevertheless, she makes so many good points and raises so many interesting and plausible theories in this book about Paul and the circumstances behind his letters that this is a book not to be missed.
Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
Discover the latest buzz-worthy books, from mysteries and romance to humor and nonfiction. Explore more
Frequently bought together
$24.00
Get it as soon as Sunday, May 19
In Stock
+
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
Similar items that may deliver to you quickly
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
