But Saul of Tarsus was not interested in the timeless rules of salvation or in the "works of righteousness." Nor was he interested in religion as, to use Sanders's terms, "getting in" and/or "staying in." He wanted only one thing – for God to save Israel. Moreover, throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, Saul sought mainly confirmation that this would happen. He could be compared to those Jews of various persuasions (their texts have been partially preserved) who, in times of the greatest historical, political, and cultural upheavals, called on God to intervene in history and take their side. This is so important that for those who still have doubts, I will repeat once again: Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in abstract, timeless, ahistorical salvation. They didn't even really care if they "went to heaven after death," as we would say today (they believed in the resurrection, that God would raise them up to eternal life in a renewed Israel and a renewed world, but their "eternity" was very different from the common Western idea of "heaven"). They needed only the salvation that they believed the one true God had promised to his people.

This hope had one very important feature. As is clear from the Tanakh and some later texts, the Covenant did not mean that God chose Israel as his people, and that he did not care about the fate of the rest of mankind. On the contrary, it was that by choosing Israel, God granted salvation to the whole world. Abraham's calling crossed out Adam's sin. However, the Babylonian captivity showed that Israel itself needed redemption: the one sent to proclaim salvation was eager to hear the message. The doctor had to heal himself. As already mentioned, most first-century Jews still felt themselves in captivity. The temple was not properly rebuilt, the Messiah was still delayed, the general resurrection never happened, the Torah was not observed, and the Gentiles did not flock to Zion to hear the living God. As long as things remain as they were, God's plans and promises will not be fulfilled.

All of the above allows us to clarify the meaning of two rather "dark" terms. First, what does "justification" mean in this context? To begin with, in the Jewish mind, this legal concept referred to the most important of all trials, at which God would judge all nations, and first of all those who rebelled against Israel. God will be on the side of His chosen ones: He will condemn the Gentiles and save His people. Thus, "justification" was understood, on the one hand, as future redemption and salvation as it was seen in the context of the covenant (Israel is God's people) and as a judicial process (God's judgment was presented as a judgment of cosmic proportions at which Israel would be justified), on the other. In order to understand how a Jew who lived in the first century perceived the world, it is necessary to learn to see any event through the prism of these most important concepts for him.

Legal metaphors were necessary to reveal the meaning of the covenant. The covenant was needed because a sin had been committed, and any sin or evil deed (at least as the Jews believed) should be brought before a judgment that would condemn the guilty and "acquit," that is, acquit or defend the righteous. Thus, it is quite natural that such a significant event as the final division into "lambs" and "goats" should be described in legal categories. God executes judgment, the evildoers (i.e., the Gentiles and apostates among the Jews) will be condemned and punished, the faithful (Israel, or at least the true people of Israel) will be raised up and justified. Redemption, which would be visibly and tangibly expressed in the political liberation and rebuilding of the Temple, would become, they believed, the greatest of all judicial verdicts, a worthy victory recognized by the judge. Several possible scenarios for future events were contained in the book of Daniel, in particular in chapter 7. No wonder this book was so loved by "zealots".

The second basic term, which we also have to deal with, is "eschatology." Most dictionaries define it as "the doctrine of death, judgment, hell and heaven" or something like that. However, in scientific usage, in relation to Judaism and Christianity of the first century, it is understood somewhat differently. It describes the common view among Jews and Christians that the history of Israel, and therefore the history of the world, is moving towards the final moment – the final and final division. (It should be emphasized that people, as a rule, do not understand that when talking about the "end of the world", Jews and Christians do not use these words in the literal sense. They do not mean that the world and history are really approaching the end. "dizzying" consequences.) Thus, by "eschatology" we mean, first of all, the idea that history is approaching, and perhaps has already approached, its highest point, to the greatest turning point. The term "apocalyptic" can be used in the same sense, but it has recently been dragged so far that some scientists prefer to abandon it altogether.

Now let's try to combine both concepts ("justification" and "eschatology") and see what comes of it. If by "justification," that is, the decisive moment of salvation, we mean the fulfillment of the covenant on the one hand, and the verdict of the supreme judgment on the other, then it acquires an eschatological character: Israel's centuries-old aspirations have finally been fulfilled. At the same time, it becomes clear that Israel's eschatological hope was nothing more than a hope of justification, a hope that God would eventually raise up his chosen people.

However, one can count on a final acquittal only under certain conditions. If each individual Jew observes the Torah with all his inherent zeal, he has a pretty good chance of becoming one of the "true sons of Israel." I am going to talk about this in more detail in Chapter Seven.

In the meantime, we have to understand what considerations moved Saul of Tarsus. In the most general form, there were three of them. First, he was undoubtedly zealous for the God of Israel and for the Torah. Hence all his piety, prayerful fervor and zeal with which he studied the sacred texts. However, his "zeal for the Torah" had nothing to do with Pelagian's self-righteous moralism. He was "zealous" only for the true worship of the true God, and for this he was ready to do anything to eradicate all betrayal of the Law and throw off the pagan yoke that defiles Israel and deprives them of the promised freedom. Secondly, Saul was convinced that only undivided devotion to the Torah in the present would allow him and his fellow tribesmen in the future, when the LORD comes to judge and save His people, to be among the justified. And thirdly, he wanted to hasten this day and for this he considered it necessary at any cost, including violence, to return the Jews to the Torah. In Saul's mind, these ideas were inextricably linked. They determined not only his way of life, but also his political and social goals. In fact, these goals prompted Saul of Tarsus to ask the high priest for authority—it should be noted that as a Pharisee he had no rights of his own—to go to Damascus to find the Christians there and bring them to prison, "both men and women." Of course, these are the same apostate Jews who lead Israel away from the true path of serving the true God. Finally, the day came (scholars would later call it a "milestone" in world history) when Paul set out on the road to Damascus.

Обращение Савла и его прямые последствия

Путь в Дамаск: событие и его значение