Everything Political

Continuing the ‘REAL Paul’ theme, not the theoretical or philosophical pawn of modern thinkers, we previously considered how realistically Paul thinks of the apocalypse and the paradoxical disposition he is in, himself and his constituents.

We continue the real Paul realistic thinking, and engage in loads of textual evidence in 2 categories - what we refer to as political, and mystical.

Taubes went off on a tangent speaking of Paul’s politicalness. He was excited about the theme of political theology. Paul is definitely very theological and very political. But what kinds of political and theological actually do we speak of?

Father and Son Religion

There is so much to say about Paul and political thinking as a religious leader and theologian... One level is personal and organizational.

There are lots of political dynamics going on between him and the other apostles, for example, that is why he makes sure to say he has also seen Jesus, albeit in the heavens, and that he has suffered and done more than the others, etc. There are dynamics between him and the people, the communities that he is writing to, he wants to make sure they understand his political apostolic stature, the whole letter to the Galatians has so much of that there - him next to Peter. 

Taubes points out that he writes to the Galatians in one tone, for he has established that community, he is more authoritative, and then later he writes to the Romans in another tone, more persuasive style, for others established this community - and it is political that he has written to them in the first place! Even before we read the words that are political, the fact the he wrote them in such a way is an entirely political maneuvre.

Another level or aspect of the political is his philosophy and mindset, which he identifies as nihilism. Paul is not political in regards to the Roman empire, he is kind of indifferent - and that is because he believes very soon Jesus will come and manifest a new kingdom, and everything will change, so the current empire is not even worth working for or against. 

Another significant point of Taubes, is that what is happening in Paul’s letters is quite Freudian: Paul is starting a new religion, he is a new Moses, preaching a new covenant, a new law - a new law is political, it’s like a new establishment with a new constitution...

But then he has murdered the father! And then feels guilt. So Paul becomes inconsistent and expresses appreciation of the father religion he just killed. This explains the multiple passages in the letters, all about the value of Judaism and the Torah (or simply put - the law, nomos). 

On this point, I present the waves of ‘the new perspective on Paul’.

The ‘old perspective’ is aligned with the assumptions of Taubes, giving a profound creative twist to the old perspective. But, if we agree with the new perspectives, then we understand that it is based on false assumptions.

What is really going on with the big question of Paul and the law, the Torah, Judaism and Jews, the nomos?! Here I won’t explain in detail, nor present texts, but basically I agree with the radical new perspective on Paul, which posits that Paul was being very wily, rhetorical, and contextual when writing such things in the letters, that only seem on the surface level to tread on the old religion. 

In a nutshell, and this has everything to do with the political-theological: the radical or real new perspective on Paul sees him as a zealous messianist, advocate of Jesus of Nazareth, whom he assumes will come very soon.

With that mindset, Paul sets out on his mission to bring the faith to Gentiles, and retain them, for it has some value for the messianic proclamation and history of divine salvation / redemption.

All in the context of the Israelite Kingdom: the political social mindset of Paul is universal in the sense of a messianic Israelite imperialistic approach, outreach and inclusive in regards to the nations. Not post-tribal-nationalistic...

Paul is sets out universally, and in so doing, his language towards those peoples is quite rhetorical. He is not post-Torah, rather he is in the messianic manifested era, he is reaching outside of Israel to include them, making them feel that the particularistic essence, nation and tribe. of the Israelite religion he is spreading, is not a critical part to them and to their situation.  

Let's just say that it is evident that Paul seem inconsistent in his attitude towards Torah and Jewish Israelite religious heritage.

Crossing Borderlines

Now skipping to the next very important point on this matter - the Gentiles, the peoples, the nations (not "non-Jews"). He is self-identifying in the letters as ‘the Apostle to the Gentiles’. This is how he presents himself - especially noticeable in his exceptional letter Romans. 

We add to this, that in his letters when he identifies himself in such a way, is he not seeminlgy addressing Gentiles? There is a question among scholars, which cannot be empirically decisive, but several points support this strongly in my opinion - asserting that he is addressing only Gentiles, not Jews. 

When he discusses matters of the law, it does not feel, using subjective terms, that he is discussing these with fellow Jews.

Add to that, research shows that the issues and questions Paul presents are not present in any Jewish sources at the time, which suggests that these are not actually Jewish issues, which suggests he is deeply engaged with Gentiles - and if he is addressing Gentiles and not Jews, then much of the fog clears from the letters and thus it seems even more likely that he is speaking with Gentiles not Jews, who are dealing with feelings of inferiority.

Paul is ideologically seeking them out, and in so doing he is expressing himself in the letters by various rhetorical forms. It is important to point out contextually that his writings styles are known rhetorical devices, suggesting strongly that he was trained in rhetorical communication.

Putting all these pieces together, Paul is a political ideological radical player.

Think about it, in Acts and in various letters, there is evidence that he has had political personal issues with Peter and Barnabus and Jacob of Jerusalem, for example. The letter to Galatians is particularly political - in it he describes an event, fictitious or not, where he publicly rebukes Peter himself. And he then writes a letter about it! That is super political. 

When Paul writes a letter to the Romans, which in and of itself was apparently another significant political act, and on top of that - the content.

List of Politicking

Taubes points out several political messages undermining the concept of the Empire - he is writing to the community inside the capital, and in it essentially undermining its authority - Jesus is described as King and Lord, utilizing such terms used for the Emperor in Rome, for example.

One of the profound rhetorical devices used in Romans is intensely displayed in chapter 7, where discusses the term nomos (law) and several times smoothly skips from one meaning to another, without the critical careful reader noticing. 

All of these together suggest that Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, a political person, approaches the Gentile believers as adopted sons to the G-d of Israel, and is also critical of law or Torah and various Jewish aspects, for the stated purpose of maintaining their faith and their feeling that they are sons, adopted but identical to the natural sons, Israel. 

Remember that Paul says of himself that he is all things to all people for the sake of his ideological objectives. And why not? The end of the world as we know it is near anyway. He is preaching of a separatist apocalyptic movement, short term, not a long-term religious foundation. 

That was Paul and political theology in the context of apocalyptic realism and as an expression of the messianic paradoxical.

[Without the in-depth textual readings, and also without all the references and dealing with what important scholars said of him on this topic which are not relevant outside an academic paper…]

Now for Paul’s mystical theology in the context of apocalyptic realism and as an expression of the messianic paradoxical!