Any theology professor worth their salt (hats off to you, Maxie Burch, David Gouwens) will tell you that you can’t really understand the theology of a person unless you understand their history. Biography=theology, or at least somewhere close. With that in mind, I wondered aloud the other day if that applied to the apostle Paul. For example, did the fact that Paul having killed a bunch of Christians in God’s name have anything to do with the conclusions he came to later? So I looked into it. It turns out, from my perspective, yes.
The New Testament uses this word “grace” (χαρις), 155 times, in 147 verses. Paul’s writings contribute 107 of them. Jesus uses this word only 4 times. And guess what? It isn’t God’s χαρις, but a human’s χαρις that is in view. Even if we stop right there, that is enough for me to rethink how “grace vs. law” might not be the best framing of our faith. If Jesus did indeed come to offer God’ grace, why the heck didn’t he talk about it? EVER?
But that isn’t it. The times in Acts the word is used is 17. 11 of those are about God’s grace. In the Gospels, the word is used a total of 12 times. 6 relate to God. 5 of 8 in Hebrews is about God. James uses it 2 times, about God. 7/12 uses of “grace” the Petrine letters are about God. 1,2,3 John and Revelation use it 4 times, 3 times in greeting. Jude uses it once, about God. Of the non-Pauline New Testament corpus, only 26 uses are about God. Paul’s “Grace of God” VS. other NT writers “Grace of God” VS. Jesus’ “Grace of God”. 107/26/0. 5 Times in the Old Testament (LXX) is this word used to describe what God has toward an individual. 5 times. Paul/other NT writers/Jesus/Old Testamant. 107/26/0/5.
Is it possible, that just perhaps, we have inherited a fixation on “grace”, specifically, “Grace vs. Law” from a guy who was so hung up on the fact that he ruthlessly killed a bunch of good people and needed forgiveness, or “grace”, that he like so many after him, simply assumed that everyone else needed to hear what he needed to hear?
The Old Testament speaks primarily of faithfulness. Specifically faithfulness to a covenant. Jesus speaks primarily of God’s Kingdom, forgiveness of others, loving others . Paul speaks A LOT about Grace from God. Is it telling that so many of us put ourselves down as “wretches like me”, hopelessly lost without the Grace of God? Whose cues are we taking when we give priority to our Bible reading? Do we think og Jesus as being a wonderful savior who is so mysterious and scary that we need super-smart Paul to understand what he really meant? I think that is absolutely how most protestant churches treat the Bible.
Paul is not Jesus. He wasn’t as smart as Jesus. He wasn’t as loving as Jesus. He wasn’t as good of a pastor, a prophet, a scholar, a rabbi, or a speaker than… Jesus. So why do we keep running to Paul for our lessons about Grace, when instead we should be immersing ourselves anew all the time in the Kingdom message of Rabbi Jesus, and using Paul as someone who testifies to the way HE lived out the message faithfully in his time? Instead, we have taken Paul’s faithful outworking and instead made IT the message. God is not all about “grace”. But perhaps God was that for Paul (and Augustine, and Luther). For the rest of us, perhaps those of us who don’t make a habit of self-flagellation, God is about forgiving others, revolting against evil, justice, and God’s love. Don’t make Paul or Grace an idol.
Of all the people Jesus had to tell to “shut up” (in not so few words), the pharisees were usually the ones, and it was usually when they failed to allow or tolerate “Grace” freely enough. Paul was one of those people, so he should know. When it comes to deciding what to do, sometimes we should not ask ourselves “What would Jesus do”, but “What would Paul do?” Personally, I lack the faith to heal someone’s whole life with a word or a touch, and since Jesus singled many of us out to tell us to leave people be, maybe we should. You have something there: what if there were not so much Grace from God, but just grace from me? I would have to be as pure-hearted as possible, while not requiring so much from others.
Leo, you make a great point. Asking what Jesus would do is a dubious proposition. Instead of “what would Paul do?”, perhaps we can ask “how can a stand in the spirit of Paul?” Paul was a first century Roman Jew. He would likely have a mental breakdown if thrust into our world. However, we can do what Paul did. Paul faithfully translated the message of Jesus for his particular congregations. We should not look to Paul for our theology, but look to Paul for how he looked to Jesus and do likewise. Look to Jesus and translate Jesus for our context.
Chad,
We did not get “law v. grace” from Paul. We got that from the Reformers who took Paul out of his context for their own personal vendettas against the 16th century Catholic church.
Oh, and bTW Chad, Jesus is called the one who brings Grace and truth in John 1.
Correct you are. Nevertheless, grace vs. law is how it works itself out in most churches. Therefore, while I didn’t say that Paul came up with law v. grace, the implications of relativising the scriptural importance of grace apply there.
Rod, you bring up a good point. It is not that the usage of χαρις isn’t present in the NT, it is that it is never spoken of as the main point, except by Paul. Of course, many other times in the NT, it is not translated “grace”, but favor. I think that communicates a little more clearly and less theological than our loaded word, “grace” does today.
I wish I could be good enough on my own. I wish I could stand to Jesus’ call for perfection. But from where I’ve been in my life, I guess I feel with those you mentioned–Paul, Augustine, and Luther–that grace is very important to me. Maybe Jesus doesn’t refer to grace by name, but oh how it is taught throughout the gospels. How grace is taught throughout the Old Testament to the weak-apart-from-God men like Jonah who God bestowed his grace upon. For that I am grateful–for without it I am nothing.
Jake, your post illustrates clearly what I am saying. The very fact that I am speaking about relativising grace brings out phrases like, “good enough on my own” and “without it I am nothing”. This kind of talk is absent in the words of Jesus. Jesus never said anything close to “we are worthless without grace”. Jesus never expects us to be good enough on our own either. All of Jesus’ teachings presuppose God will be there to help us. Jesus, nor the OT, nor the other writers of the NT focus on having to “get” the grace of God. Paul does, and thus he has to wrestle with the “how” of having to get this grace.
Paul seems to be the only one struggling with trying to work for it. This is why I think his background influences him. He has a legitimate reason to feel worthless. He killed innocent people in the name of a loving God. What have you done that makes you feel unworthy? Many of us are made to feel unworthy for very small things. Oh no! We lied in 4th grade! We cheated on our test! We snuck a look at a girlie magazine! The Bible deals with sins much more egregious than that and a God that still claims love. We really do injustice to the Scripture and its God when we say we “can’t be good enough” when in reality that masks the fact that we aren’t following Jesus’ because we spend all of our energy trying not to do these petty “sins” or feeling guilty about them.
I like your thinking, Chad. This idea is kind of where I based my “abusive relationship” post earlier last week. To be honest, I hadn’t considered that it could be our perceptions of God (our interpretation of the scriptures), that jades us into this role as the complacent abused. I should say, though, that I misspoke when I called God abusive. I suppose, it’s more accurate to say that PEOPLE in positions of power and influence use the concept of the Biblical God, to justify their dehumanizing, abusive, grace-driven speech to convince us that we’re damned from the start, and can’t hope to reach perfection without divine help.
As it stands, I don’t believe there is a God, so implicitly, I don’t believe he could possibly be abusive.
I’m not sure if I’m reading you right, but it seems that this “not good enough” mentality is almost exclusively Pauline. Correct me if I’m wrong there. If I got you right, I can’t disagree. Paul’s entire ministry confounded me while I was a believer, and it only got weirder when I deconverted.
But I can definitely draw a connection between a man who thought he was doing the Lord’s will, only to find out later that the Lord saw “his best behavior” as an atrocity. If I realized (or it was revealed to me) I had been an ass my whole life, when I thought I had been doing my best, you can bet it’d change the way I look at everything.
Look, I am not down on Paul. I am down on those who make Paul more important to the faith than Jesus. If you want to see this in action, look no further than most “reformed” churches. Since I stand in that tradition as a Presbyterian, I feel that is a valid critique from within.
Yes, I do feel like this “not good enough” thing is almost exclusively Paul. Jesus has no hint of it (i’m sure someone will find it to spite me, lol).
And yes, people misuse God all of the time to further their own agendas, hurting others along the way. But I take refuge in that Stalin and Hitler could do the same with science. And Justin Timberlake can do the same with music.
As a general observation (and maybe I shoul have added this as a reply to the first comment), I uderstand that asking what would Jesus do is more important, but the fact remains the Pauline letters are extremely influential to Christians worldwide; including in my former life.
Here’s my question, Paul clearly states that the gospel came to him directly from Christ…
Gal 1:11-12
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
With the idea that all scripture is God breathed in mind, how can we possibly think that this “grace gospel” is anything but the absolute truth? I mean, it’s direct from the head honcho’s mouth…or the head honcho’s mouth to Paul’s mouth.
The part that always gave rise to doubt in most of the NT for me was the fact that Paul never actually SAW Jesus. Whether when Jesus was alive, or resurrected, or even on the road to Demascus.
Acts 9:3-7
And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
All he experienced was a blinding light and a commanding voice. He assumes that “Jesus” was telling the truth and that it actually was Jesus. Here’s where I run into trouble…
Paul states:
2 Cor 11:12-14
But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Do you at least see my problem with this? Paul claims that Satan himself can assume the form of an angel of light to deceive people.
How could Paul be sure the faceless shining light and voice he experienced was actually Jesus?
Yes. I most definitely see your problem with this. Paul is speaking from his experience. Which is hard to argue with. However, Paul is not telling the Corinthians the whole truth here for a reason. Paul indeed got his start with Jesus through his experience. In fact, Paul’s brand of church planting and ministry will continue to focus on this experiential, charismatic style as he goes on. However, remember what the situation is in Corinth. The church is splitting along the lines of personality. One likes Paul, one likes Peter, etc… So of course Paul isn’t going to tell you that he went and studied for three years and then got approval from the apostles to teach. Even then, the Jerusalem apostles sent people after Paul to correct him in some of his teaching.
Paul was right sometimes (as when he confronted Peter about eating with gentiles). Paul was also wrong sometimes (as when James makes fun of him, “show me faith without works and I’ll show you my faith by what I do”). That Paul thought he was right and defended it so much is part of what caused many to not like him. But Paul is speaking to a church he planted. He speaks much less arrogantly to churches he didn’t plant.
So did Paul think he was absolutely right? Yep. Was he always right? I don’t think so. Does that mean that he has no place in the Bible? No.
Get Jesus right first. Then look at Paul to see how Paul applied Jesus in HIS context. Not ours.
I follow your thoughts here Chad, but I’m not sure I find them consistent with other posts. In “Of Child Pornography and National Defense,” you say:
“We are all child pornographers. Fearful that someone will come along and tell us that the people we are taking advantage of are actually underage, when we have been pretending that they are consenting adults. But we are all wrong.”
I understand this to mean that you want us all to realize we contribute to these horrific injustices regardless of if we are actually committing them. Empathize and offer some grace. I follow.
It seems contradictory to then criticize Paul for highlighting our need for grace, saying that he has caused people to become overly concerned with how sinful they are, especially when their sins are not so bad.
You seem to want to corporatize sin in the case of the child pornographer, but in Paul’s case you want to distinguish between him being a murderer and someone else only stealing candy from the corner store. One could argue that the child pornographer and Paul (murderer), should feel like “pond scum” because they have committed egregious crimes. If we’re all child pornographers, then surely we are all murderers on the level of Paul (we need go no further than Jesus on the cross). It seems to me that Paul’s emphasis on grace is born out of his context but that it is a part of scripture because it is a context that can be applied across the human experience.
Brandon, you are quite correct to point that out. Good insight. In my defense, such as it is, I will say that when I said “we are all child pornographers”, it was in a passive sense, intended not to make people run to prostrate themselves, but rather to make them aware. But, you are indeed correct.
Now the issue for me here is not grace. The issue is forgiveness. They are not the same. Grace, or χαρις, does not mean forgiveness in the greek. It has more of a sense of favor, the way a king might look on a subject and be pleased. Jesus talks a lot about forgiveness, and there is where I would hang my hat on this issue. Jesus forgives me, even for my passivity in the world’s worsening. But that forgiveness spurs me to action, even if that action is raising awareness though a blog.
Paul (keep in mind I am talking about eh traditional interpretation of Paul) however, uses grace to contrast God’s favor with the law of God. This is not a law v. forgiveness thing that Paul is talking about. It is a statement of God looking favorably on us, despite following the law or not.
It is not that I don’t feel that Paul’s thoughts have some merit, they certainly do (although I don’t fall into traditional Pauline interpretation). What I am reacting against is the move we have made to make χαρις synonymous with the gospel. I just don’t see that as appropriate given that Jesus brought and taught the gospel and never mentioned God’s χαρις even 1 time.
This is profound. It seems almost like the grace gospel could possibly (or may already have) become another prosperity gospel. Don’t get me wrong, I understand grace is sufficiently covered in most of paul’s letters, which of course makes it biblical. However, we may someday find “preachers” on television, pushing this gospel, just as fervently, and biblically as some do with the prosperity gospel. They’d probably have a tough time finding a way to make a buck off of it, at first.
I’m not being cynical here, because we both know the name of God can be and has been prostituted over the years.
Well, I think that people like NT Wright are reading Paul in a much more responsible way nowadays. But let’s just say that Augustine and I would have not seen eye to eye on Paul (or grace, or predestination, or just war, or how abominable everyone is, or how we can’t do what God says until God helps us yet he punishes us for it anyway). Luther is Augustine pt.2.
The problem is the way these guys framed the gospel. IF Paul is read traditionally, then he, Augustine, Luther, etc…, all frame the gospel in terms of “how can I get ‘saved’ so i can go to heaven?” If you accept this as the bottom line, then you will read Paul and Jesus as giving a gospel of sin management. If you read Jesus as a continuation of the OT prophetic heritage (albeit in a truer, more complete/divine sense), then you will likely reach a different conclusion as to the heart of the gospel.
It was eye opening for me to read in Mark how Jesus was preaching the gospel. Turns out that is the first thing he did. But just one problem. Paul’s gospel (the one we aren’t supposed to change, even if angels tell us differently) includes Jesus’ death and resurrection. How on earth could Jesus have preached that? He didn’t. Was Jesus included then in Paul’s prohibition? Can you imagine Paul saying, “even if Jesus himself preaches a different gospel, like the one he preached when he was with us, let him be condemned!” lol.
There is far more to be said about this, but I really don’t want to give the impression that I am down on Paul. I react strongly to the traditional, one-dimensional, grace v. law Paul, but the Paul of the scriptures, the 1st century Rabbi caught between two worlds is actually a fascinating and truly admirable character. Context matters.
Two responses. And I don’t think you’re down on Paul, don’t worry.
First, I like the point you made about sin management. The idea that the reason we become Christians is so that we can avoid Hell, is damaging.
And it’s tragic that it’s so prevalent. I remember my born-again/get saved moment. And I really don’t remember having hell avoidence on my mind. I don’t think I loved God so I could avoid Hell…and yet, (and I’m probably not alone on this) I also distinctly remember the skit put on by high school kids involving a horrible car accident where two kids die and are judged (something along those lines.). It could likely have been at the back of my mind, washed out by the feeling of communing with God himself, and believing that nothing would ever threaten me again.
It’s certainly effective. It’s probably even biblical, but…I think you’re right when you say there’s a better way.
Second, personally, through this discussion, i’m finding more and more that I AM down on Paul. And here’s why.
Using Gal 1:11-12 and Acts 9:3-7 (my earlier comment), we have a grasp of how the gospel came to him.
Now, after his conversion experience Paul would preach (to select churches, as you pointed out) Paul preached that God canceled (Col 2:13-14, Rom 10:4, Gal 5:18) the perfect (Psa 19:7) and eternal (Psa 119:152,160) laws He had given to the Jewish people as a covenant. This doesn’t even jive with Jesus. Jesus said he didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (matt 5:17).
And I see exactly what you mean. Why is Paul preaching something opposite of Jesus. Which is when I run into 2 Cor 11:12-14 (earlier comment).
Maybe this would be considered “reaching.”
here is my take on those verses. Depending on the translation, you will get varying responses. Not sure which translation you are most familiar with, but if you start going down this rabbit hole, you will soon realize that translation follows theology in most cases.
In the Colossians passage, a translation of God “cancelling” the law is theologically driven, likely by people who have a stake in the very discussion we are having. The greek for v. 14 sounds more like, “blotting out the caligraphy of dogma that was against us”. it appears as if the problem being adressed is the negative implications some read into the law rather than the Law itself.
Romans 10:4 indicates something along the lines of, “Christ ended the whole “law=me being righteous” nonsense for us believers. ” Pauls seems again to indicate that the Law wasn’t the problem, but rather the pharisaic interpretation (that was fairly new) that the law is what made us right with God. The law was a gift from God, not a way to get God.
Galatians 5:18, I believe is not a matter of decrying the law, but the use of it as substitute for God. They are following the law, instead of the spirit behind it.
My view is, that in all of Paul’s writings, he was confronting a poor usage of the law by his contemporaries. It is precisely because later theologians did not understand Jewish culture that they seriously thought a Rabbi like Paul could decry the law in the way they suggest. Of course, this is one of my main beefs with the augustininan and reformed/lutheran traditions of interpretation.
if you want to know why Jewish thought and culture was not understood, look no further than the first council of Nicea, where it was agreed to separate, purposefully, any remnant of Judaism from Christian thought. Quite racist, and fatal to our understanding of the teachings of Jesus. Thank YHWH for the dead sea scrolls, archeology, and interreligious dialogue with Jews for helping us catch up.
interesting. i might just add that, when you read augustine’s and luther’s writings, you see that they were extremely concerned with Christian living – as in, they were about more than simply getting saved. luther’s commentaries are a tour de force of spirituality.
Mike, you are 100% correct. I am being rather unfair, if I am being honest. I am simply adressing what I consider a blind spot for those theologians with which I disagree (humbly). Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and especially Paul have contributed much much much good to our thoughts and conversations about God. I am in no way trying to lessen them, but I wanted to connect the main thrusts of their work to a misunderstanding of Paul. Not that it makes me any less of a heretic, i suppose, lol.
Thanks Chad for the response. The forgiveness and favor distinction is really helpful. I’d like to explore this notion of forgiveness as empowering one to action and wonder (now that I see what you mean) if favor tends to paralyze us by making us harp on our “unworthiness.” I also find your connection of translation and theology extremely helpful. It makes me appreciate the importance of those who study ancient languages and cultures to help us understand in a proper context. And I wholeheartedly, agree context matters.
I think, if you were so inclined, you have a book idea here, Chad.
The Guilt of Paul: Making Good on the Theology of a Self-Proclaimed Criminal
by Chad Presley