Reinventing Paul

John Gager's purpose in "Reinventing Paul" is to create acceptance of both Judaism and Christianity as equal paths to righteousness before God. He and the scholars he reads see Apostle Paul's writings--particularly Galatians and Romans--as the lightning rod of anti-Israel and anti-law beliefs among "traditional" Christians for two millennia. To combat this "old Paul" idea he starts with an explanation of the traditional reading of Paul, then he reinvents a "new Paul" who ministers solely to Gentiles and says nothing that is ultimately negative about Israel or her law. To prove this point, he provides brief commentaries on key passages in Galatians and Romans.On the last page, Gager presents himself as a non-believing "Christian," a phrase which leaves the reader wondering. However, the "non-believing" descriptor makes itself know in his low view of the inspiration of Scripture--attributing Paul's ideas to his own personal beliefs rather than to apostolic revelation and the inspiration of Scripture. This also presents itself in numerous quotes by authors who attack Paul's integrity. Although Gager claims to defend Paul in most instances, the sheer number of detractors leaves the reader questioning Paul and his theology.Gager sets up two straw men and keeps beating up on them. The first is the straw Paul who rejects Israel and condemns the law. As an evangelical Christian who understands Paul as the builder of a new dispensation, I have never seen this Paul in my reading of Scripture. Although Paul was half Jew and half Gentile, he always identified with his Jewish ethnicity. In Acts 28 he was still reaching out to the Jews "to persuade them concerning Jesus," who himself was a Jew and limited his earthly ministry to Israel. In spite of the numerous writers Gager quotes to build up this straw Paul, that person is simply not found in Scripture. Paul always loved Israel and wanted them to be saved.The second straw man is the modern Christian who is anti-Semitic. The fact is that every serious student of the Bible recognizes the special place of Israel in God's eternal plan. Paul himself says that the law, the covenants, the prophets, the temple and the promises belong to Israel. Perhaps Gager's circles contain anti-Jewish Christians, but certainly not among the majority of evangelical Christians. Perhaps it should be pointed out that it was three "Christian" nations that reestablished Israel as a nation in 1948. Furthermore, committed Christians have insisted that the United States remain a powerful and committed ally of modern Israel. This constant building and tearing down of these two straw men makes the book seem overbearing at times.I read "Reinventing Paul" because of two core points which Gager makes. 1) Paul did not abolish Israel or the law, and 2) he accepted the law as a God-ordained part of Israel's identity and worship even after he began his mission in Acts 13. Gager makes both of these points clearly in chapters 2 through 4. These were the gems in the book.Unfortunately, in the process of making the two key points, the book contains numerous misinterpretations of Scripture, false preconceptions, confusing logic, doubts cast on the veracity of Paul and Scripture, pride in saying the "new Paul" overturns 2000 years of Biblical scholarship and a willful neglect of pertinent Scripture outside of Galatians and Romans. I wanted to give the book one star, but raised it to two because Gager does emphasize the two key points.The straw Paul who is the judge and executioner of Israel is simply too prevalent in the book. In contrast to Gager's idealized picture of first century Jews living in harmony with God, the statements of Jesus, Peter, John and Stephen all contain strong condemnation of the attitude and behavior of the Jews. Stephen's judgment of Israel in Acts 7:51-53 was made at least two years before Paul believed in Jesus--and it was Paul who approved Stephen's stoning for preaching that message. The truth is that Paul and the others clearly saw the sin and failure of Israel while also understanding God's promises to restore them to their promised earthly kingdom at a future point.Perhaps the biggest error in this book is the insistence that Israel has no Christology. Gager believes that even after John's statement to the Jewish throngs, "Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," that Israel continued to be saved through Judaism apart from Christ. Let us for a moment take Paul's 13 epistles plus Acts 13-28 out of the New Testament. The remaining authors are Jews speaking primarily to Jews. Yet, their writings clearly attest to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel. John explained to his Jewish followers, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." Before Paul's conversion, Peter insisted, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name [Jesus Christ of Nazareth] under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."Another glaring error of Gager is that Paul only ministered to Gentiles. We are supposed to believe that when Paul went to the synagogues, as was his practice, he only preached to Gentiles. That is not even possible. Furthermore, the Bible completely contradicts this idea. Note the Lord's calling of Paul in Acts 9: "This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name." Paul was called to preach his message to Jews as well as Gentiles. Paul's first ministry was in Damascus: "Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ." In Jerusalem he "talked and debated with Grecian Jews." The fact is that Paul preached to Jews as well as Gentiles throughout his ministry, which can be easily proved in Acts and Paul's epistles.Gager makes several illogical claims. For example, he says that the Greek "anthropos" (human) refers only to Gentiles. Greek scholars and lexicons all over the world would like to know how he makes this leap. Likewise that "dikaiosune" (righteousness) refers to the redemption of Gentiles. Or that "works of law" refers to Gentiles. The one that takes the cake is that in Romans 9 Paul is saying the opposite of what he means. Gager insists, "He misleads in order to convince. We need to avoid falling into his trap." Huh? At times while reading this book I was reminded of "The Princess Bride" where Wesley says, "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." Vizzini answers, "Wait till I get going. Now, where was I?"In conclusion, I cannot recommend "Reinventing Paul." There are a couple of interesting and important truths emphasized within the book. However, the errors in their presentation cause me to place the book on my "not recommended" list. If one insists on reading the book, then I recommend a careful study of Galatians and Romans as preparation. There are better books for presenting the "new Paul perspective."

I can’t remember when I’ve read a more tendentious exposition of scripture. I give Dr. Gager credit for good intentions; he seems to want to remove from the New Testament all traces of anything that might be used to support antisemitism. But having to distort the text to do that does not help one’s case. And so the book’s title, “Reinventing” Paul, comes with an unintended irony.Gager begins with Krister Stendahl’s well-known claim that Romans 7 is not autobiographical but rather a “rhetorical device.” Gager treats virtually the entire letter that way. He describes Romans as so full of “rhetorical devices” and “unreliable author” that it seems Paul went out of his way to make his readers think he was saying exactly the opposite of what he intended.The conclusion Gager seems to want to draw is that Paul never questioned the legitimacy of Judaism, that he considered Judaism sufficient for the Jewish people, and that Jews need not accept faith in Christ in order to be saved. Supposedly Paul’s argument was not with Judaism, but only with “Judaizers”: those Jewish Christians who wanted to impose Judaism on Gentiles as a condition for acceptance into the messianic community.This is not credible for several reasons. Most fundamentally, it misrepresents Paul’s theological context. For Paul, “salvation” meant escape from the judgment that was to come and that he expected to arrive soon, even within his lifetime. Only a messianic figure could provide this rescue. Paul spends much time in both Galatians and Romans showing that the law does not have saving power, and if the law cannot save Gentiles, it cannot save Jews either.But doesn’t Paul say that the law is good? Of course, but making the argument hinge on whether Paul’s attitude toward the law was negative or positive is to set up a straw man. The law is good because it reveals God’s will to us. But the law still does not have the power to save. For that, insists Paul, you need Jesus Christ, no matter who you are, Gentile or Jew.If Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11 were solely against Judaizers, it would make no sense to say that God hardened their hearts, or even that God “made [them] for destruction” (Romans 9:22). One can see how the (temporary) refusal of Jesus as Messiah by the Jewish people might serve God’s purposes – by giving Gentiles space to enter the covenant – but there is no conceivable way that the Judaizers were helping to carry out God’s plan. Nor would it make sense for Paul to say he wanted “to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them,” if Paul truly believed Torah-observant Jews did not need to be saved. Gager makes much of Romans 11:1, “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!” and Romans 11:16, “all Israel will be saved.” But it is clear from the context that Jews will be saved when the Gentiles make them jealous, so that the Jews too will come to Christ following the example of the Gentiles. So all Jews indeed will be saved, because all will eventually come to Christ. At least that is Paul’s expectation. While there is much that is wrong with the traditional reading, it is not as far off as Gager means to imply.The use of the New Testament to support antisemitism, especially in the evangelical tradition, is definitely a serious problem. But sanitizing the New Testament is not the proper way out of it. Gager is right in insisting that our reading of the text be informed by knowledge of the historical and cultural context. Even so, it is still possible for our preconceptions to bleed into our interpretations. Much in Romans is not clear. But one thing that does seem evident is that while Paul recognizes value in the Torah (“law”), he does not see it as a path to salvation. All will indeed be saved, but they will be saved in Christ, and only in Christ.So what is a proper response to this text? The doctrine of “biblical inerrancy” needs to be questioned. Paul was a human being. The word of Paul is not the word of God, even if his letters have been incorporated into sacred scripture. When Paul calls Jews (or even Jewish Christians) “objects of wrath made for destruction” (Romans 9:22), or “enemies” (Romans 11:28), it is not God speaking. The responsibility to wrestle with our scriptures rests on all of us who would give to scripture any measure of authority. We need to keep in mind that when Paul, fully aware of his finite humanity, was composing his letters, he had no idea he was writing the Holy Bible. Had he known, are we sure he would have chosen to phrase things exactly the same way?

Very clear explanation of the old perspective on Paul and a clear layout of the new.