A Pauline Paradox
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 NASB
Grace/works – I used to think I knew what Paul was writing about. Decades ago, I had the right theological perspective on Paul. He was a former Jew, a convert to Christianity, the first expositor of the gospel of grace. Works were legalistic, human efforts to earn righteousness, something that was simply impossible. Paul lined up with Augustine, Calvin, and Luther. We’re saved by faith! That brick was removed from my theological fortress under duress. Nevertheless, the historical facts of Paul’s life eventually dislodged the brick—and the whole tower of Christian dogma about faith and works came tumbling down. At the time it was traumatic. Now it’s nearly passé, until I read something like this from Abraham Heschel:
“Echoing the Paulinian doctrine that man is saved by faith alone, Kant and his disciples taught that the essence of religion or morality would consist in an absolute quality of the soul or the will, regardless of the actions that may come out of it or the ends that may be attained. . . The intention, not the deed, the how, not the what of one’s conduct, would be essential, and no motive other than the sense of duty would be of any moral value.”[1]
It’s fairly clear to me that Heschel thought of Paul as a Christian—a Kantian Christian, to use an anachronism—separating law and grace, works and faith. But Heschel was a very intelligent man. So is Jonathan Sacks. How is it that these great scholars believed Paul stood with Luther on the law/grace, faith/works issue? Did I miss something?
Frankly, I’d like to remove a lot of Paul’s writings. They seem so paradoxical, so contradictory. Paul does come across like an orthodox Jew. Just read this verse! Doesn’t it sound like Paul thinks works have no place in salvation? Doesn’t he contrast grace-faith with human effort? When I read verses like this one, I have to agree with Heschel:
“To the modern mind, religion is a state of the soul, inwardness; feeling rather than obedience, faith rather than action, spiritual rather than concrete.” But then he goes on to say, “To Judaism, religion is not a feeling for something that is, but an answer to Him who is asking us to live in a certain way. It is in its very origin a consciousness of total commitment; . . .”[2]
Heschel’s words make more sense to me than Paul’s. I just don’t see how Paul could be so mixed up, and I can’t even imagine his reading audience understood it better than I do. I can investigate the Greek vocabulary (cháris – grace; pístis– faith; érgon – works) and explore the rabbinic uses of these terms, but I always end up with either the Jewish view (as Heschel demonstrates) or the Christian view (as Luther, et.al, provide). Who’s going to show me how Paul can write things like and still be an orthodox Jew, not a Platonic dualist? Maybe I’m still too much a product of my own upbringing. When I read Heschel, I identify with the way he frames the issue.
“The dichotomy of faith and works which presented such an important problem in Christian theology was never a problem in Judaism. To us, the basic problem is neither what is the right action nor what is the right intention. The basic problem is: what is right living?”[3]
And I agree with his assessment: “Right living is like a work of art, the product of a vision and of a wrestling with concrete situations.”[4]
I just don’t get Paul. I mean I get some of his writing. There are places where he expresses very Jewish ideas (like his view of women). But there are other places where what he writes seems as if he deliberately wanted to torture future readers. It’s opaque! Maybe that’s too strong. Maybe what I really should notice is that Paul developed his thinking over time, just like the rest of us, and that his earlier letters might just be steps on the way to clearer thought. Oh, I realize that this shreds the typical idea of inspiration and inerrancy, but those doctrines don’t match up with what actually happens in Scripture anyway, and I am quite sure Paul did not think of his own letters as inspired and inerrant. Maybe that helps. He’s just thinking his way through all this, and like Flusser, he would say, “I wrote that when I was stupid.”
Topical Index: Paul, Heschel, grace, law, faith, works, Ephesians 2:8-9
[1] Abraham Heschel, Between God and Man: An Interpretation of Judaism (Free Press Paperbacks, 1959), pp. 155-156.
[2] Ibid., p. 155.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
