Whether Christ’s resurrection did or did not occur, there is considerable historical interest, especially at Easter-time, in what those who believed that it did, thought that it meant.

There’s no doubt that today’s Christians, drawing upon Christian doctrines such as that of the Trinity, believe that Jesus’ resurrection proved that he was god. That answer had emerged by the end of the fourth century CE, when Christian doctrine settled on the view that Jesus and god were, somehow, one person, but what Christ-followers in the few decades immediately after Christ’s death believed is not so clear.

The New Testament, our major source of documentation of early Christian beliefs, was largely composed in the second half of the first century CE. Its earliest parts are the letters of Paul, written at about the midpoint of the century, some 20 years after Jesus’ death. What I wish to review in this column is a scholarly theory concerning what Paul believed about Jesus’ nature and the meaning of his resurrection.

Paul’s writings are not theological essays, but letters to various outposts of Christ-followers, discussing the affairs and problems of those outposts. Nonetheless, Paul is often regarded as, doctrinally, the first Christian. Present-day Christians generally believe that it was Paul who broke with Judaism and taught his followers to worship Christ as god.

That view of Paul’s beliefs may well be mistaken. Paul (Saul) was, of course, a Jew (as were most Christ-followers in the years immediately following Jesus’ death), and no one doubts that, prior to his visionary encounter with the risen Christ, he was a devout — in fact, a fanatical — believer in the faith of his people. He tells us that himself. Did that faith dissolve, then, under the influence of Jesus? Not according to one group of biblical scholars. They believe that there is persuasive evidence that Paul remained an observant Jew for his entire life; that he never rejected Judaism; never thought Christ was god; and never saw Christ’s resurrection as proof of his divinity.

For these scholars, what leads today’s Christians astray is that they read Paul’s epistles through the lens of later Christian doctrine. They are misled by Paul’s exceptional reverence for, and devotion to, Christ and his references to Christ as “lord” and the “son of god.” They misinterpret Paul’s rejection of the view that gentiles must be circumcised and obey Jewish law in order to obtain god’s forgiveness, and his apparent belief that accepting Christ is sufficient to achieve salvation. They fail to see an alternative explanation.

Present-day Christians tend to lose sight of the fact that a great many first-century Jews (probably including Jesus) fervently believed that the world was about to end and an earthly kingdom of the Jewish god established. The creation of that kingdom would entail turmoil and warfare, as god’s forces defeated his enemies. Then there would be a resurrection of the dead, and all the arisen would be judged. The Jews, oppressed and scattered throughout the world, would once again assemble as a nation. The new kingdom, which would include all of mankind, would be ruled by god’s special emissary, the same person who had led the army of god in the initial stage of the kingdom’s establishment, and a person who had been endowed by god with extraordinary power and authority — the Jewish Messiah.

Paul believed Jesus to be that Messiah and understood his resurrection as proof of that identity and a sign of his early return as conqueror and king. Was the Messiah a god, for Paul? In the first century, pagans believed in a multiplicity of greater and lesser gods; even Jews believed in divine beings, such as angels, other than god. For Paul, the Messiah was certainly not a celestial being; he was a human to whom the supreme god had given a crucial role in the cosmic drama and endowed with the ability to play that role. The Messiah was, therefore, like Moses and David before him, a “son of god” and god-like in stature.

When Paul’s letters are read with this thesis in mind, they still make sense — just not Christian sense. And there may be passages that seem incompatible with it. But you must keep in mind that your Bible is a translation, probably made by Christians. Take Romans 1.3-4, for example. In the Revised Standard Version it seems to say that Jesus has two natures — one human and one divine — and that the divine nature was revealed by “his resurrection FROM THE dead.” But this is a mistranslation from the Greek, which is properly translated as “resurrection OF THE dead,” meaning that when Jesus returns as the Messiah, his divinely granted authority will be exhibited by his bringing all the dead to life.

In Philippians 2.6-11, Paul seems to suggest, by saying that Jesus was “in the form of God,” that he was of equal status with the supreme god. But the RSV habitually capitalizes the word “god,” as though it always refers to god the father, and in this case, it doesn’t. A better translation of the passage would be “…in the form of (a) god.” Jesus, as the Messiah and king of god’s kingdom, would be, indeed, god-like and one before whom “every knee must bend…and every tongue confess”; but note that when Paul calls him “Lord” (again capitalized) in 2.11, he adds, “to the glory of God the Father.”

Paul nowhere refers to Jesus as “god” (theos); but always as “human” (anthropos). The word “lord” (kurios), though often used to refer to god the father in the Greek Bible, also, in Paul’s time, was used to refer to any social superior, whether human or divine. The Messiah, ruler of the earthly kingdom, would definitely be such a superior.

As to Paul’s rejection of the need to observe Jewish law, remember that he is addressing gentiles. Paul didn’t believe that a gentile could actually become a Jew, even by circumcision. A gentile is simply not one of god’s chosen people. But gentiles could, on judgment day, be spared by the Jewish god if they had begun to worship him (rather than idols), had led lives consistent with the basic moral principles of Jewish law (the Ten Commandments); and acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah. Jews, on that day, would be judged by a different standard, one appropriate for them, including adherence to the full Jewish law. The Christian notion that Paul believed salvation came through “faith,” not “works,” is simply mistaken. That’s a Reformation concept, not one that would have occurred to any religious Jew of the first century, nor, for that matter to any religious pagan.

In short, Paul did not abandon Judaism and invent Christianity. He did exalt Jesus, who, he believed, would soon return to earth as the conquering Messiah and occupy the throne of an earthly kingdom, but he also believed that there was a heavenly throne, which would forever be occupied by the god of the Jews.

If you wish to pursue this topic, I recommend two books: P. Fredriksen, “Paul: the Pagans’ Apostle,” and P. Eisenbaum, “Paul was Not a Christian.”

Leonard Hitchcock of Pocatello is an alumnus of the University of Iowa and did graduate work at Claremont Graduate University and the University of California, San Diego. He taught philosophy in California and Arizona for 15 years. In 1985, after earning a library degree, he was hired by Idaho State University. He retired from ISU’s Oboler Library in 2006.