Pauls Conversion from Judaism to Christianity - Essay Example

Pauls conversion took place within Judaism and he did not intend to become the founder of a new religion. Paul’s Conversion from Judaism to Christianity: Conversion Does not Entail “Foundation” The Bible and Self-Accounts The New International Version of the Bible gives account to an executioner who is a zealous Jew, a Pharisee (Gager, 2002) and a Roman citizen who is called Saul. Saul admitted to having killed men and women and others who professed to believe in a resurrected Jesus, as well as Jesus’ growing discipleship. Saul, in a mission travel, was met by an overwhelming bright light, and heard the voice, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me.” Saul was then temporarily blinded and led to a house that was awaiting for his arrival, and after listening to the accounts of the house owner, came to believe of the man called Jesus. Saul was adamant at first but with the miraculous things that happened to him, have come to accept his calling and thus, the conversion. From his old name Saul, he embraced the name Paul and accepted the task of spreading the good news to the “Gentiles” from Rome to Italy and elsewhere. Early Contention Friedrich Nietzsche (as quoted by Gager, 2002) expressed a typical hatred and sentiments that contrasted Paul to Jesus, as “The glad tidings of Jesus were followed closely by the absolutely worst tidings – those of St. Paul. Paul is the incarnation of a type which is the reverse of that of the Saviour, he is the genius in hatred, in the standpoint of hatred, and in the relentless logic of hatred. And alas what did this dysevangelist not sacrifice to his hatred… He did more: he once more falsified the history of Israel, so as to make it appear as a prologue to his mission.” Here, another kind of Paul is revealed to the common reader which is a farfetched image as that in the NIV Bible that helped propagate early Christianity, which, then at that time, was neither called Christianity nor whatever else. Modern Contention Gager (2002) wrote that “Paul has long been regarded as the source for Christian hatred of Jews and Judaism. Second, among Jews he has been the most hatred of all Christians. And third, the issue of Paul’s conversion – for Nietzsche, his hallucination – lies at the center of all debates about the apostle. Little wonder that Paul has raised vexing questions across almost twenty centuries. How did this zealous Jew, Saul the Pharisee, who by his own admission had been an active persecutor, a hater, of the early Jesus-movement, suddenly emerge as a fervent follower of the risen Jesus? How are we to understand his role as the apostle of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles in relation to this dramatic transformation?” Gager (2002) would like to be ascertained as to how we would label him as a convert: from what to what? And the most probable answer as based on the Bible itself is from Judaism to Christianity, although Christianity as we all know may not be very apparent at that time at all. The next questioned posed by Gager (2002) is that, “Did the apostle to the Gentiles turn his back on his former life as a Jew and become the spokesman for early Christian anti-Judaism? Did he carry forward his hatred and transfer it to his former faith?” These questions were already answered as Paul wrote and spoke about the “divine” love that Jesus made apparent to us all through his (Jesus’) death and resurrection. Although more profound is Jesus’ own definition of what love is as that which transcends love for the self and God towards the “neighbor” and enemy. Paul, as any other “human” writer of the Bible did not preach “perfect” teachings that went near to Jesus’ own, although much of his writings were included in the Christian Bible and much emphasis was actually given to his “interpretations” of Jesus’ own teachings. This may be one of the flaws of the Bible as it is already an open knowledge that much of the Bible’s “teachings” as well as perceived flaws were “human” in nature, so, there permits a “divine inspiration” as “written by humans”. Contrasting Views and Preachings Gager (2002) presented several peoples’ contrasting views regarding Paul as follows: He was a convert from Judaism to Christianity His role as apostle to the Gentiles caused him to turn against his former life As a Christian apostle he repudiated the law of Moses, the Torah, and circumcision not just for Gentiles but for Jews as well The law had never been intended by God as the path to salvation, for Gentiles or Jews The Jews having turned their back on Jesus as their Messiah, had now been rejected by God as a disobedient people and been replaced by Gentiles as the new people of God. Israel has stumbled and failed by virtue of its refusal to accept Paul’s gospel Paul was installed at the center o the New Testament precisely because he, like the later Christian communities that shaped these Christian scriptures and produced the New Testament, shared their rejection-replacement view of Judaism. All of these are clearly laid out in his letters. Gager (2002) also showed contrary views that Paul have written as Anti-Israel:“For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse,” (Galatians 3:10), “Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law,” (Galatians 3:11), “For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision but a new creation,” (Galatians 6:15), “For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes the knowledge of sin,” (Romans 3:20), “Israel who pursued righteousness which is based on the law did not succeed in fulfilling that law,” (Romans 9:31), “As regards to the gospel, they are enemies of God, for your sake,” (Romans 11:28), “But their minds were hardened for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their mind; but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed,” (2 Corinthians, 3:14f). And the Pro-Israel set as “What is the advantage of the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way,” (Romans 3:1), “Do we oerthrow the law through faith? By no means. On the contrary, we uphold the law,” Romans 3:31), “What shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means,” (Romans: 7:7), “Thus the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good,” (Romans 7:12), “To the Israelites belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the Temple, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs and of their race, according to the flesh, is Christ,” (Romans 9: 4), “Has God rejected his people? By no means,” (Romans 11:1), “All Israel will be saved,” (Romans 11:26), “Is the law against the promises of God? Certainly not!,” (Galatians 3:21). Gager (2002) laid four basic techniques to resolving the tensions as psychology, resignation, radical elimination and subordination. This means that Paul himself is under confusion for where he is suddenly thrown, from being an ardent Judaism advocate to its enemy, which is not exactly an enemy but of someone transformed from one level of the stage to another level. Meanings and Reasons for the Contrasting Views There definitely are a lot of contradictions in the Bible, in general, of which Paul’s case were just a part. The writers, if ever it would come to an absolute conviction that all the contents of the Bible were “not” chosen by people but of a “being” above all else, were not exactly as they were acknowledged, for studies (Coogan, 2001) have also shown the writings although unearthed and uncovered from one historical phase to another, were written much later than the actual Biblical accounts. These were oral traditions passed down from one generation to another and were acknowledged accordingly as it is now acknowledged on the Bible depending on the “believed” source of the writings. Gager (2002) acknowledged that , “One consequence of this technique, and thus a significant handicap for most Christians, is that his thought is held to be of little theological value for Christians in their relations to Jews. Pauls thinking is so muddled that it yields no useful guidelines,” which is a valuable observation. The contradictory writings of Paul had been quite dangerous, to both spectrums of readers. It has caused rifts, great divide, up to this time even that Christians themselves are subdivided into various sects depending on how they would interpret the vindictive as well salvation-promising writings that were questionably included in the Bible. In fact, Gager (2002) noted another New Testament writing traced to 2 Peter that tells of Paul’s letters as “dusnoeta” which is associated with difficulties and inconsistencies. Esler (1998) have another view as he presents interpretations regarding the narrations of Paul in his letters to the Galatians. In defense of Paul, Esler (1998) wrote “Yet one of the striking features of the letter is that in a continuous section—of 28 verses out of a total of 149— Paul speaks of events in the past (1.11-2.14). Beginning with a statement that his gospel had no human origin but came to him through a revelation concerning Jesus Christ (1.11-12), 1 he launches into an autobiographical account with a mention of his earlier career as an eminent Israelite persecutor of the church of God (1.13-14), a description of how God chose to reveal his son ‘in me’ so he might preach the gospel among the gentiles (1.15-16) and a statement of his journey immediately thereafter to Arabia and return to Damascus (1.17). He then recounts his first trip after these events to Jerusalem, where he saw no one except Cephas and James the Lord’s brother (1.18-20), his departure to Syria and Cilicia and the response to his evangelism (1.21-24), his second visit to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus and the events that occurred then (2.1-10) and, last, the incident in Antioch when Peter and the other Israelites broke off table-fellowship with the gentiles, leading to his rebuke of Peter when he saw that he was not walking according to the truth of the gospel (2.11-14). A reader of the letter must inevitably ask why Paul should include this statement of past events in a letter written to the Galatian congregations some time later. How were the two situations related? What was it about the earlier events, if anything, which bore on the Galatian exigence of the letter? As we have seen in Chapter 3, the ancient rhetoricians used the word ‘narratio’ to describe a statement of past facts in a speech and such a feature could occur in a deliberative communication (as here) even if more common in a judicial one.” Esler (1998) defended that a narration is either to attack or eulogise and as a part of a deliberative speech as he quoted Paul, “For I would have you know, brothers, the gospel which I preach is not human in nature, for I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but [I received it] through a revelation of Jesus Christ,” (Gal. 1.11-12). The Roman Catholic and Popular View There may be proverbial reasons in the order of things why Paul was anointed as a convert due to his popularity and owing to his dual citizenship --- that of a Roman and a Jew at the same time --- as with the role of the Roman Empire for Christianity. Historians and fathers of the church virtually believe that there is a pre-designed purpose for all these things, as Spain and Portugal, too, during their conquest of new territories all over the world have been designated the role of conquerors for “God, gold and glory”. And if we were to analyze all these things and events that have occurred, all were not in perfect harmony, nor ideal at both sides of the stories of the conquered and the conqueror. But a common factor lies in all these: the propagation of Christianity. There have been a lot of imperfections, first and foremost, the shedding of blood, the death of innocents, as well as the “preaching” of inconsistent writings now preserved for all eternity in the holy book called the Bible. Paul, in this instance, is a mere instrument to a grander design. He was not a “perfect” icon, a figure to glorify unlike the name he preaches, but a means to cross the bridge between the seedy minority of the early Christian church towards an empire called Rome. Considering the “western” belief as the “dominant” race, to embrace the belief of a Roman who is in the person of Paul is much easier to swallow than embracing the belief, of say, a Peter or a John who were genuine Jews, and never once were declared as “Roman citizens” of which Paul used as his own shield. Paul used his “Roman citizenship” gallantly, weaving his way in and out of territories as his counterparts (the original disciples) languish in jails or in exile, and avoiding authorities in all their moves. This is quite an obvious contrast, if one were to study the New Testament closely. Paul did not preach much, if one has to really come down to it. John, although he had a lesser page allotted for him, wrote more substance, and in a fluid, interconnected way, unlike Paul’s which were quite rebellious at times, and pacifying in some moments. John did not curse, nor condemned existing entities, but so much like the prophets of old, he spoke in ambiguity, giving the benefit of the doubt to the reader. Paul spoke as if impersonating authority, but quite vindictive in most counts, which, now can be seen as divisive. As Esler (1998) would write in Paul’s defense, “God chose to reveal his son in him so that he might preach Christ among the gentiles (1.16); 3 the members of the Judean churches glorified God when they heard he was preaching the gospel of the faith which he once tried to destroy (1.23-24); he laid before the congregation in Jerusalem the gospel he proclaimed among the gentiles (2.2); he resisted the efforts of false brothers intent on imposing the yoke of slavery (no doubt meaning circumcision) so he might preserve ‘the truth of the gospel’ for the Galatians (2.5); some at least of those in Jerusalem acknowledged that he had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision just as Peter had been entrusted with that of the circumcision and that God was at work in both apostolates (2.7-8); and, last, that in Antioch he rebuked Peter when he saw that he was not walking according to ‘the truth of the gospel’ (2.14),” there owes a huge chunk of achievement of the general Christian church to Paul. Esler (1998) added that “For Paul, in fact, the ‘truth of the gospel’ (2.5, 14, and nowhere else in his writings) means the freedom with which his Israelite and gentile converts can be members of the same congregation without having their ‘freedom’ replaced with the demands of the Mosaic law[…] Paul’s strategy in the face of this challenge is twofold: first, he establishes for himself and his gospel a divine authority ab initio (which is a powerful means to defend the legitimacy of his mixed communities), and, second, he mentions occasions in the past when representatives of the Jerusalem Church either had the chance to object to his gospel and did not, actively considered it and agreed with its worth, or acted inconsistently with it. The existence of the rhetorical feature known as anticipation renders it highly likely that this strategy was designed to confront in advance claims that his gospel lacked requisite authority or that he had in the past subordinated himself to the Jerusalem Church—and should do so now.” Likewise, the argument that Paul “became” the founder of a new religion is quite a question. Jesus, in his own words laid Peter, and the Roman Catholic Church adhere to the belief that Peter was the rock, the corner, and the foundation of the new church, the Christian era. Popular Roman Catholic belief never imposed that Paul founded a new faith or religion. Paul is an acknowledged convert to Christianity, and nowhere else in Catholic teaching is Paul considered a founder. So, this line of thinking is quite unfounded. Paul was popular, that is not a thing t be contested. But the reason was obvious: due to the events surrounding his conversion and the aggressive and dedication in propagating early Christianity. In fact, it is of note that the popular Catholic teaching goes that the evangelists are Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Paul is always regarded as “the Convert” and Peter as the first “pope”. Esler (1998) noted how Paul alluded to Old Testament verses as to his “calling” or conversion as “especially on the basis that the language Paul uses contains a number of allusions to the way in which Old Testament prophets described their call and Paul is thereby seeking to emphasise his continuity with the God and religion of Israel, not to sever his connections (1977:1-23). Thus, Isaiah says: Yahweh called me before I was born, from my mother’s womb he pronounced my name. (49.1JB) And again: It is not enough for you to be my servant, to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back the survivors of Israel; I will make you the light of the nations so that my salvation shall reach to the ends of the earth. (49.6; JB). Jeremiah says of his commissioning: The word of Yahweh was addressed to me, saying: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you came to birth I consecrated you; I have appointed you as prophet to the nations’. Conclusion Thereby, the argument that Paul was converted from Judaism to Christianity may be true. He acknowledged that he has been thrown into that which God has called him for --- the true and “final expression of Israelite tradition, (Esler, 1998), which Esler would establish as a “reform movement.” This is a very likely rationalization and admissible to the circumstances surrounding Paul’s “conversion”. Paul had continuously evoked Israelite tradition in his New Testament letters and teachings so that it cannot be falsified that he had come from elsewhere, or of any other faith. He had constantly referred to the “old” teachings and quoted from the Old Testament, comparing what “was” and what “is” acceptable, or that which the new believers must embrace and adhere to. As to the given controversy wrought by Paul’s aggressive teachings, is also a consequential aftermath. The Bible, after all is the undisputed bestseller and most popular of all written books of the fiction and non-fiction category, bar none, for that matter. In fact, the Bible itself is one of the greatest contention of medieval up to the modern high-tech man so that continuing arguments, movements, schools of thought, as well as division are prevalent up to this time. After all is said and done, it can be concluded that Paul was an iconic instrument in the early spread of Christianity owing to his dual citizenship and fervour, as well as popularity at that time, as he converted from Judaism to Christianity. But it cannot be finalized that he founded a religion. It could be that he also caused and founded a great division. But he is more known as the “Convert” and not a “Founder”. Reference: Coogan, Michael. The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford University Press. 2001. De Bruyn, Theodore. Pelagius’s Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: Translated with Introduction and Notes. Clarendon Press. Donaldson, Terence. Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World. Minneapolis, Minn. Fortress Press. 1997. Esler, Philip. Galatians. Routledge. 1998. Esler, Philip. The Early Christian World – Vol. 1. Routledge. 2000 Finn, Thomas M. From Death to Rebirth: Ritual and Conversion in Antiquity. Paulist Press. 1997. Gager, John. Reinventing Paul. Oxford University Press. 2002. Hayes, Christine. “Gentile Impunities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud. Oxford University Press. 2002. Leone, Massimo. Religious Conversion and Identity: The Semiotic Analysis of Texts. Routledge. 2003. Peters, Gerald. The Mutilating God: Authorship and Authority in the Narrative of Conversion. University of Massachusetts Press. 1993. Samuelson, Francine. “Messianic Judaism: Church, Denomination, Sect or Cult?” Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Vol. 37. 2000. Read More