Sha’ul Unraveled

you therefore who teach another, do you not teach yourself? Romans 2:21

You – Do you know what a “straw man” is? Sure you do. It isn’t the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz. It’s a fictitious person in an argument; someone that embodies the views of the opponent so we are able to conduct a role-play discussion. This concept is very, very old. In fact, it was used by the Greeks in the time of the Stoics (and earlier) to present positions that could be defeated in debate. What we have learned in the last few decades of biblical study is this: Sha’ul uses the same technique in his letters. He creates a “straw man” as an imaginary opponent and then proceeds to defeat that opponent with his arguments. He has a conversation where he plays both sides of the debate. Unfortunately, many Christians don’t realize what Sha’ul is doing, and as a result, they misinterpret what he says. They start thinking that Sha’ul is actually saying what his straw man is meant to say.

Romans chapter 7 is a good example. For years interpreters thought Sha’ul’s cries for help from internal spiritual distress might be autobiographical. But now scholars consider these remarks as a particular literary technique called prosopopoiia (character sketches), deliberately creating a fictitious person who exemplifies what Sha’ul is attempting to explain. If this is true, then Sha’ul’s use of this technique in other places casts a new light on the meanings of his statements.

The biggest battle over Sha’ul’s theology has been the battle of law and grace. For centuries the Church has interpreted Sha’ul as a Christian convert who moved away from Judaism and left the Law behind in his proclamation of God’s new dispensation of grace. Of course, we know there is considerable internal evidence against such an interpretation. Now we see that Sha’ul’s use of the rhetorical technique of prosopopoiia illuminates the mistake of this dispensation theology. Our verse from the letter to the Romans illustrates Sha’ul’s “straw man” technique.

Sha’ul suggests that there is someone, a fictitious person, who acts like a Jew outwardly (see verses 17-20) but who is far from Torah-observance inwardly. This caricature is the legalist; the one who requires observance in the lives of others but whose heart is not submitted to the Lord. When we see this opponent as a “straw man,” we realize that Sha’ul is not arguing against the Law at all. He is arguing against the man who purports to keep the Law but actually does not. Sha’ul calls this man exactly what he is – a hypocrite. He is able to teach others because he knows the code, but he is not teachable himself because he refuses to obey. This is no “second” dispensation. It is a deliberate attempt to make up an opponent in order to show the fallacy in his thinking. It is a conversation where Sha’ul plays both parts as a teaching technique.

Imagine what happens when we apply this common technique to some of Sha’ul’s other controversial remarks like the statements about women being silent because the Law requires it. Those are the words of Sha’ul’s “straw man” whom he soundly defeats. What difference will it make to you once you see how Sha’ul uses this common gambit in his constructed debates? Will you be able to separate what Sha’ul holds as his own theology from the made-up claims of his fictitious opponents? Will you be able to find a consistency in Sha’ul that resonates with his background as a Pharisee? Will you stop reading every word as if the only things he said were legislated pronouncements?

Topical Index: Sha’ul, straw man, prosopopoiia, Romans 2:21