3

Did Paul Radicalise Jewish Tradition? Or Did he Simply
Return it to its Revolutionary God-of-the-Marginals Roots?

Barclay

An exchange with John Barclay who is the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at Durham University.

In a paper entitled Two Versions of Grace delivered at the 2008 British New Testament Society conference in Durham Professor Barclay argued that in Romans 9-11 Paul radicalises the Jewish traditional understanding of grace. He describes this traditional first century Jewish understanding, found for example in the work entitled The Wisdom of Solomon. thus:

‘God’s goodness guarantees and establishes a system of moral and rational symmetries in which the foolish and unrepentant get what they deserve and the good gifts of God reach their proper and fitting beneficiaries’.

John Barclay argued that Paul’s discourse on grace and mercy in Romans 9-11 operates fully within this Jewish tradition. However, in doing so it also radicalises it by refusing to allow any element of condition or worth to accompany the divine gift. John Barclay explained that you could put things in a nutshell by asking the simple question ‘Why had God elected Israel?’ The traditional Jewish reply as given by The Wisdom of Solomon was that God had chosen Israel because she was worthy. Paul for his part, writing from within this same tradition, could so easily have given the same reply but he didn’t. His response, judged on Romans 9-11, could only have been that God had chosen Israel … because he had chosen Israel.

I was struck by the fact that John Barclay had sought to label Paul’s discourse a radicalisation when as John himself had set it up it would seem to have been an evasion rather than a radicalisation. He seemed to me to be suggesting that in being theologically evasive Paul had somehow managed to be theologically creative. This is an inherently unlikely scenario since evasion and creation are normally viewed as alternatives: ‘either/or’s. It is certainly the case that you can sometimes be evasive and at others creative but, for my money, you can’t be both at one and the same time. So was Paul being evasive or creative ‘in refusing to allow any element of condition or worth to accompany the divine gift’? The answer, to me at least, seemed clear: he was being evasive.

I was also struck by the fact that John Barclay had associated the traditional Jewish understanding of grace with election since from a god-of-the-marginals perspective election can only be seen as a late revisionist doctrine, as I explained when I managed eventually to speak with him after the meeting (See my debate with Walter Brueggemann in God of the Marginals pp. 333 & 352.) I put it to him that in being evasive Paul had simply been attempting to undo this revisionist doctrine of election so as to return to the former revolutionary god-of-the-marginals position in which Yahweh does not choose Israel to be his people because he is already the Hebrew’s god – the god of the marginals – by definition. Of course Paul couldn’t openly have denied election since, given the way in which things had developed over the years, that would inevitably have been taken as denying that Yahweh was Israel’s god. So Paul had done the next best thing which was to be evasive in such a way as to effectively though not openly deny election: exactly the situation John Barclay had so clearly described in his paper.

I had the impression John Barclay was intrigued by what I had to say for he listened very carefully asking if I had any suggestion as to when this revisionist doctrine of election first appeared. Before I could reply he himself suggested the Duteronomistic writings. I agreed that that was my opinion and seeing that we were getting on so well I ventured to ask him, point blank, what he thought of my proposition. Wisely he replied that he would have to have time to think the matter over. Is it too soon now to ask him the same question once again?

John Barclay rejoinder:

John has informed me that due to pressure of work he will not be able to continue this exchange with me. I should emphasise that no one is under any obligation to accept my invitation to a dialogue. Scholars have expressed themselves publicly on some matter and I have taken issue with them publicly on what they have said basing my arguments on my god-of-the marginals position. For the rest it is for everyone to draw their own conclusions.

3

Previous - - Next