Source: “The Parting Of The Gods: Paul And The Redefinition Of Judaism**”**, By David Allen Brondos, 2021
Conclusion To The Parting Of The Gods..wav
This podcast conclusion explores the historical "parting of the Gods" between early followers of Jesus and other Jews, arguing that a fundamental difference emerged around the nature of God and how His will is discerned and accomplished. While both groups shared an understanding of God as a loving, just, and sovereign creator, the Jesus-followers believed God had exalted Jesus as His Son, making Jesus central to understanding God's will, superseding the Torah as the sole guide. The text then contrasts this with later Western Christian theology, particularly influenced by Anselm, which introduced a "second parting of the Gods" by asserting that God's nature necessitated Christ's death to satisfy divine justice. The author posits that this later view, which presents God as needing appeasement and introduces debates about faith versus works, is foreign to both Paul's thought and ancient Judaism, emphasizing that Paul's God, like the Jewish God, acts out of unconditional love and concern for human well-being, not an inner need for satisfaction. The source concludes by reframing Paul's relationship with Judaism, asserting he saw no inherent "wrong" with it and viewed the ekklesia as an inclusive, not superseding, community.
Topic 1: The First "Parting of the Gods" in Paul's Day By the time of the apostle Paul, a significant divergence in understanding God had emerged between Jews who believed in Jesus as the Christ and those who did not. This initial "parting of the Gods" stemmed from the conviction among Jesus' earliest followers that God had not only raised Jesus from the dead but also exalted him to God's right hand as Lord and Christ, uniquely designating him as God's Son. For these followers, God was primarily the God of Jesus Christ, rather than simply the God of Israel or Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as traditionally understood. This new proclamation presented a God who had sent his Son, allowed him to die on a cross, and then raised and exalted him, which was perceived as strange, new, and unrecognizable by most Jews who did not accept these claims. This redefinition of God also necessitated a re-evaluation of fundamental Jewish tenets, such as looking to Jesus for God's will instead of the Torah alone, accepting uncircumcised gentiles equally, defining righteousness through Christ-faith independently of Torah observance, relating to God through Jesus, and living under a new or renewed covenant established through Jesus. These points were central to Paul's gospel and shared by other apostles.
Topic 2: Enduring Commonalities in the Understanding of God Despite the first "parting of the Gods," the God proclaimed by Paul and other apostles also retained many attributes shared with the God traditionally believed in by Jews. Both perspectives agreed that God is the sovereign and omnipotent creator who needs nothing from humans and is entirely independent. Both understood God's primary desire to be the well-being and shalom of human beings, calling them to live according to His will for their own benefit. God's judgments were seen as aimed at eradicating evil to ensure goodness and justice prevail, leading to human wholeness. Acceptance by God was based on a commitment to justice, righteousness, and love, which could be brought about by faith in God and His word. This implied that true belief in God inherently led to the desired way of life. Furthermore, God's forgiveness for past and ongoing sins was understood as a gift received by looking to Him in faith, based on pure grace, not human merit or works. On these fundamental points, Paul and his non-believing Jewish contemporaries were in full agreement.
Topic 3: The Second "Parting of the Gods" in Later Western Christian Theology A second significant "parting of the Gods" occurred not in the first century but in later centuries with the development of Christian theology, particularly evident in Western Christian thought since Anselm of Canterbury. This later divergence separated the Christian God from the Jewish God that Paul and first-century Judaism held in common. The distinguishing characteristic of this Western Christian concept is the belief that God's perfectly holy, just, and righteous nature imposes limitations on Him, thereby obstructing human salvation. Because salvation became equated with the forgiveness of sins, and it was maintained that God's justice would not allow sins to be freely forgiven, it was posited that God's Son had to become human and die on the cross to make satisfaction for human sins to God's justice. This act was deemed necessary to deliver humanity from the punishment their sins warranted.
Topic 4: Critique of Western Christian Atonement Theory and God's Motivation The text heavily critiques the Western Christian understanding of God, which emerged from the second "parting of the Gods." This view, based on philosophical and theological arguments foreign to Hebrew Scriptures, ancient Judaism, Paul, and the New Testament, assumes that God's activity is ultimately motivated by an intrinsic need within His being that must be satisfied. Consequently, God is seen as acting for His own sake, not primarily for humanity's. The law, in this view, becomes an onerous burden imposed by a holy God to uphold His own righteousness, rather than a gracious gift for human well-being. Obedience is demanded for God's sake, not humanity's, because His just nature requires it. This depiction of God is analogous to a pagan deity who must be appeased by offerings, leading to the idea that humans must constantly placate Him to avoid wrath. This contrasts sharply with the biblical and Pauline understanding that God's actions are rooted in deep love and concern for human well-being and wholeness, prohibiting sin because of its harm to humans, not because it displeases God.
Topic 5: The Problematic Debate on Salvation's Conditions The Western Christian understanding of atonement, particularly Anselm's satisfaction theory, leads to further theological complexities and debates, especially regarding the conditions for salvation. If Jesus' death made sufficient satisfaction for all humanity's sins, it logically implies universal salvation. However, because universal salvation is considered contrary to biblical thought, a "second condition" for salvation is posited as necessary for humans to fulfill. This leads to the enduring debate between justification by "faith alone" (as in Protestant theology since the Reformation) and the necessity of "works" (attributed to Roman Catholicism and Judaism, often mischaracterized as "works-righteousness"). The text argues that this debate is unresolvable because it is grounded in a concept of God foreign to ancient Jewish thought. It suggests that God arbitrarily establishes faith or works as conditions, implying no intrinsic reason for their necessity, simply His sovereign decision, which ultimately obscures God's loving and gracious nature.
Topic 6: Paul's View on the Human Predicament and the Purpose of Christ's Coming Both Paul and his Jewish contemporaries understood the human plight in terms of sinfulness and the need for transformation, not merely forgiveness. They agreed that forgiving unrepentant sin would be detrimental. However, they differed on the solution. While Jewish thought saw the Torah as the solution, providing guidance for a life of justice and righteousness leading to wholeness, Paul believed the Torah, while helpful, could not fully resolve the problem of sin in the flesh or accomplish God's ultimate purpose of creating a community of all nations. For Paul, the law could not bring about the deep love and commitment necessary for true wholeness, nor could it unite Jews and gentiles. The purpose of Christ's coming and death, in Paul's thought, was not to satisfy God's nature or enable God to forgive, but to form the "ekklesia" – a community of love, communion, and solidarity. Jesus' death was a consequence of his dedication to establishing this community in a sinful world, not a requirement imposed by God's nature for satisfaction. His willingness to sacrifice himself exemplified the selfless love required for such a community to exist.
Topic 7: The Ekklesia, Israel, and Jewish Identity in Paul's Thought For Paul, the "ekklesia" (the community of believers) did not replace or supersede Israel or the Jewish community. He considered Israel his "natural family" by birth, and the ekklesia his "adopted family." Membership in the ekklesia did not necessitate abandoning one's natural family or previous identity. Instead, it preserved and presupposed it. Paul strongly opposed the idea that gentiles had to become Jews (e.g., through circumcision) to join the ekklesia. The ekklesia was a new and broader entity that incorporated people from diverse social and ethnic backgrounds, including both Jews and gentiles, into a united community without erasing their original identities. Paul actively sought to bring his natural family (Israel) and his adopted family (the ekklesia) together, or at least to encourage their acceptance and unity, rather than living in enmity.
Topic 8: Paul's Understanding of the Mosaic Law and the New Covenant The text clarifies that Paul did not believe there was anything "wrong" with the Jewish law itself. He considered it "holy, just, and good" and valued it highly. However, he understood its purpose differently from how it was often perceived or applied. The Mosaic law was given specifically to Israel and was not designed to govern all people or to achieve the universal community God intended through Christ. Attempts to apply it universally were seen as foolish and impractical. Similarly, Paul's concept of a "new covenant" in Christ did not mean the Mosaic covenant was abolished or superseded. Rather, each covenant applied to different people and contexts, with the new covenant being greater in scope and blessings but not nullifying the previous one. While the Mosaic covenant highlighted sin and prescribed penalties, the problem was human sin, not the law itself. Paul believed that Jewish believers could and should continue to observe the Torah, but with "freedom and maturity" and interpreted in the light of Christ, focusing on its "spirit" rather than merely its "letter," especially to foster fellowship with gentile believers. His insistence that justification is not by "works of the law" likely referred to specific ritual observances (like circumcision or Sabbath) and was consistent with Jewish thought that true law-observance went beyond mere literal fulfillment.
Topic 9: Paul's Compassion for His Fellow Jews and Rejection of Condemnation Paul held a profound and sincere love for his fellow Jews, expressing deep sorrow and anguish for those who had not come to believe in Christ. His hope was that they would eventually acknowledge the gospel's truth. Crucially, the text emphasizes that Paul never condoned violence or condemnation toward non-believing Jews. He did not affirm that people are condemned by God or subject to His wrath simply for not believing in Jesus as His Son. For Paul, the God he proclaimed is not a semi-pagan deity motivated by vengeance or offended by unbelief. Instead, God's condemnations are directed at hatred, evil, injustice, and oppression. In Paul's thought, the criterion for judgment for both Jews and non-Jews is their commitment to practicing good and right actions in accordance with God's will, as reflected in their deeds and hearts. Faith in Christ, for Paul, saves because it leads to a way of life that brings wholeness and well-being, which God desires for all. He also recognized that the Mosaic law could bring about a life of justice, righteousness, and love. His proclamation of the gospel to both Jews and gentiles stemmed from a deep love and desire for them to find the fullness he had experienced in Christ.
Topic 10: Reconsidering the Terms "Judaism" and "Christianity" The text argues that it is problematic and anachronistic to rigidly apply modern understandings of "Judaism" and "Christianity" to the first century. Paul would have been critical of any notion of Judaism as merely a "religion" focused on rituals and doctrines, asserting that God's desire was for people to practice love, justice, and righteousness. Similarly, while not inappropriate to call Paul a "Christian" in a sense that aligns with his faith in Christ rather than a defined religion, it must be understood that this term carries modern connotations. Just as there are senses in which Paul was not a "Christian" in the modern understanding, there are also senses in which he was not a "Jew" in the modern, rabbinic sense. Fundamentally, Paul would have rejected the idea that Judaism and Christianity are two mutually exclusive religions or faiths, or that one cannot be a faithful Jew and a believer in Christ simultaneously. He would likely have agreed that those who follow Christ are, in a significant way, "living Jewishly," even if they are not ethnically Jewish. Ultimately, both Paul's God and the God of Israel shared the same core desire: to bless and save all nations by guiding them to live in ways that lead to well-being and wholeness.