This chapter examines the figure of Jesus in the letters of Paul, where Jesus is most often called Christ or messiah. The analysis briefly considers the linguistic puzzles around Paul’s use of the word “Christ,” then trace the contours of Paul’s particular account of Jesus as the Christ: his being sent by God, dying for others, effecting the resurrection of the dead, subduing all rival powers, and handing over kingship to God.

This chapter shows the Jewish context of the New Testament and discusses the implications of the fact that while these writings are primarily Jewish, they have become Christian scripture. The documents highlight continuities and discontinuities between Judaism and Christianity, including themes found throughout the Documentary History, such as covenant and the identity of the people of Israel.

Many interpreters have thought that Paul’s great religious contribution was his anti-legalism, but this is wrong. Not only is Paul not anti-legalist; by most standard definitions he could actually be considered a legalist. His big idea lay elsewhere.

Paul mentions Ioudaismos twice, both instances in Galatians 1:13–14 in reference to his own past. That Greek word, however, means not “Judaism” (that is, the religion of Jewish people) but rather a minority political movement for the defense and promotion of certain Jewish customs.

It is well known that Paul opposes what he calls “justification from works of the law,” and it is often claimed that this was a familiar type of ancient Jewish piety. In fact, none of the evidence often cited in support of this claim holds up to scrutiny.

What Paul offers to gentiles is not membership in Israel but the prospect of inheriting, alongside Israel, eschatological liberty (namely, from the forces of sin and death) and justice (that is, ethical perfection) for all (Jews and gentiles, now become newborn sons of God).

Paul’s controversial claim that Jesus the messiah is “the end of the law” is directly related to his other, lesser-known claim that Jesus is “the last man,” the last mortal human. After the resurrection of the dead, Paul reasons, the law must change to accommodate the change in the people for whom it legislates.

We know that Paul had some Jewish opponents, and we know that he had some opponents who preached proselyte circumcision. Scholars have usually conflated these two groups, but all the evidence suggests that Paul’s circumcision-preaching opponents were themselves recently circumcised gentile proselytes.

Many interpreters have thought that Paul’s great religious contribution was his anti-ethnocentrism, but this is wrong. Not only is Paul not anti-ethnocentric; by most standard definitions he could actually be considered an ethnic chauvinist. His big idea lay elsewhere.

Unlike many other later Christian thinkers, Paul never imagines any supposedly “true, spiritual Israel” to contrast with the actual, empirical Israel of which he was a member by birth. He never redefines the terms Israel, Jew, or circumcision, but takes them for granted as conventional ethnonyms.

The infamous problem of “Paul and Judaism” is not a problem in itself. It only emerges at all because of Christian hindsight, when Paul’s letters are read in light of the religion that canonized them rather than the religion of their author.