Paul and the issue of syncretism

Learning to let go

People tend to bring religious baggage to Christ with them. They may not be able to release this baggage all at once. Many will be like a young Japanese woman who told me with tears in her eyes, “I love Jesus, but I also need to pray to my ancestors.” Breaking away from these deeply ingrained practices involves learning to trust in Jesus for everything. This may require a lifetime of discipleship. A much older Japanese woman who had followed Jesus for many years invited me to a ceremony in which we burned her family altar, dedicated to her ancestral spirits. She told me, “I have followed Jesus for many years. The time finally has come to let go of my past.”

One day, while my family was visiting a Shinto shrine festival with a friend, she bought toys for our two children. We had to say no, because we knew the toys had been offered to the local deity to insure good luck to the children who played with them. Our friend also wanted our children to help pull the omikoshi, the portable shrine used to convey the deity around the neighborhood. How do we maintain open relationships needed to make disciples while closing the door on syncretism?

The issue of syncretism did not begin in twenty-first-century Japan. Many issues we face today have parallels in the New Testament. Similarities between first-century Rome and our contemporary world suggest that Paul’s responses to syncretism could have application for us as well. These responses depend on context and circumstances, and range from identification and incarnation on the one hand to rejection and a call for repentance on the other. In the end, Paul’s missiology of accommodation may provide the best guide for us in our attempts to respond to syncretism.

Contemporary syncretism in biblical context

John Travis (1998) and Phil Parshal (1998) debate the possibility of forming “Christ-centered communities” that maintain social connections with surrounding Muslim communities. This discussion has expanded to include “insider movements” among Buddhists and Hindus as well as Muslims. The primary issue here is whether a person can truly follow Jesus while continuing to identify with another belief system (Tennent, 2007: 199–202). Similarly, Tennent raises the possibility of whether first-century Christians could continue as an insider movement within Judaism. Jews that accepted Jesus as Messiah and Lord did so “within Jewish religious identity.” However, repeated rejection by other Jews (Acts 4:1–20; 5:17–42; 8:1–4; 13:50; 14:5, 19; 17:5–9; 21:27–25:12) eventually caused Christ-followers to form their own faith community (2007: 204–05).

Another contemporary issue rooted in the biblical context is the appropriation of the names of gods of other religions for the God of Christianity. Is it legitimate to use “Allah,” the Muslim term for God, to refer to the God of Israel and the Father of Jesus Christ (Dembele, 2010: 29–32)? The same issue arises in other contexts as well. For example, “kami,” the Shinto term for deity or spirit, is used for God in Japanese translations of the Bible. When African traditional religionists come to faith in Christ, they often carry their tribal names for the Creator with them. However, traditional African concepts of the Supreme God are not precisely the same as the biblical understanding (Orobator, 2008: 20–22). In the biblical text, “El” and “Elohim,” translated “God” in the Old Testament, are terms that Hebrew shares with neighboring Semitic languages such as Babylonian, Phoenician, Aramaic, and Arabic (Garrett, 1990: 191). In both the Septuagint and the New Testament, God is translated, “theos” and “kurios,” terms used for various deities in the Greek-speaking world. In the biblical texts, these terms are redeemed by their ascription to a specific God, the Creator of the universe, the Holy One of Israel, the One Jesus called, “Abba” (Mark 14:36), whom Christians worship as Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Wright, 2006: 54).

A third issue is whether Christians can continue their former ways of life after conversion to faith in Christ. According to Paul Hiebert’s principle of “critical contextualization,” believers should evaluate their old ways on the basis of Scripture. Beliefs and practices not condemned by Scripture may be kept. Beliefs and practices condemned by Scripture should be rejected. Also, some practices may be modified to give them Christian meaning (1985: 186–91). Hiebert’s principle is helpful, but there is no consensus regarding its application. For example, many Western Christians reject ancestral practices that are a part of some traditional African and Asian religions. However, some African and Asian Christians argue for the continuation of ancestral practices based on the Old Testament commandment to honor one’s parents (Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16), our need to give heed to the “great cloud of witnesses,” heroes of the faith that have gone on before us (Heb. 12:1; Orobator, 2008: 146–47), and the fulfillment of Confucian standards of “filial piety” and “social cohesion” (Chan, 2014: 188–90).

There is a similar quandary in the New Testament. On the one hand, what degree of Jewishness is permissible for a Christian? At least for a time, synagogue worship, observance of the law, and temple observance were allowed, but not required (Acts 2:46; 13:14; 14:1; 17:1–2, 10; 18:4; 21:26). On the other hand, what degree of Gentile-ness is permissible? Through faith in Christ, both Jews and Gentiles have equal access to God (Eph. 2:11–14, 18). However, Gentile believers are expected to forego certain practices for the benefit of their Jewish brethren: they must “abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (Acts 15:20, NIV).

Paul’s new identity

Paul begins as a zealous Pharisee who persecutes the church, sees a light from heaven on the Damascus road, hears the voice of Christ, and is set apart to “proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles” (Acts 9:1–19; Kuepfer, 2009: 14–16). Should Paul’s “Damascus Road experience” be seen as a conversion from Judaism to Christianity or a calling to apostolic ministry (Kern, 2003: 63–64)? ¹ Some argue that accounts of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:1–29; 22:3–21; 26:1–26) are not biographical, but rather Paul’s epiphany is reconstructed to “legitimize his message and mission” (Hanges, 2003: 165–72). ² Paul still “describes himself as a Jew” (Rom. 9:3) and takes part in “Jewish purification rituals” (Acts 21:24). But he no longer believes keeping the Jewish law is necessary, and Paul affiliates with the community he once persecuted. Capes, Reeves, and Richards believe Paul has converted to a new kind of “Judaism centered in the crucified and risen Christ” (2007: 84–94). Alan Segel, a Jewish scholar, regards Paul’s experience as a conversion because it invokes faith in salvation based on the deity of Christ, a doctrine abhorrent to most first-century Jews (1990: 68–70).

Jews living in Damascus conspire to kill Paul because they regard him as a traitor (Acts 9:22–23). Christians living in Jerusalem fear that he may still be a persecutor of the church (Acts 9:26). It is only after Barnabas intervenes that Paul is given some freedom to preach in Jerusalem (Acts 9:27–28). This leads to more death threats so that Paul is sent off to Tarsus for his safety (Acts 9:29–30). Paul begins as “God’s enemy,” but becomes “totally immersed” in the community he once intended to destroy (Kern, 2003: 73–78). There is a change of direction in Paul’s life marked by two commissions. His former commission, given by the high priest in Jerusalem, is to persecute the disciples in Damascus (Acts 9:1–2). In its place, Jesus gives Paul a new commission through Ananias (Acts 9:15–16; 22:14–15; Czachesz, 1995: 22–23; Hedrick, 1981: 420). “Jesus is the light” that comes from God; Paul is called to “reflect God’s light into the dark world of the nations” (Kuepfer, 2009: 18).

Fellowship in Christ’s suffering

There is nothing in Paul’s new faith that prevents him from following Jewish customs. Paul could place confidence in his own experience as a “Hebrew of Hebrews,” a Pharisee zealous for the law to the point of persecuting the church (Phil. 3:5–6). But Paul now considers his former Judaism to be trash in comparison with his new identity found in Jesus Christ (Phil. 3:4–9). “I have lost all things,” Paul writes, “In order that I may gain Christ” (Phil. 3:8). Paul follows Christ’s example by “emptying himself” to the point of death (Ryan, 2012: 77). “Conforming to Christ’s death” is “God’s way” of transforming Paul into the “likeness of Christ” (Snyman, 2006: 276). While crucifixion is “shameful” in the Roman Empire, Paul subverts its meaning into a “praiseworthy death.” Paul exalts Jesus’ death and longs to be exalted through inclusion in Christ’s resurrection as well (Nash, 2016: 91–92).

This is a “complete reversal in Paul’s value system” (Ryan, 2012: 77): in place of his former pursuit of righteousness through obedience to the law, he now receives “the righteous that comes from God . . . through faith in Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:9, NIV). Paul transfers his loyalty from a “community” that finds its identity in obedience to the law to one that comes together as the “fellowship of Christ’s suffering” (Phil. 3:10). This “fellowship” includes both “communion with Christ” and with those who take on his suffering for the sake of the gospel (Werntz, 2015: 147; Snyman, 2006: 275). This is not necessarily a polemic against Judaism. Rather, it may be a distinction between Jews who have placed their faith in Christ and those who haven’t (Zocalli, 2011: 19). It is a contrast between those who continue to place confidence in their own righteousness and those who trust in the righteousness of Christ (DeSilva, 1994: 36, 42; Snyman, 2006: 272–74). It is Christ’s own “obedience” based on his “faithfulness to God” which provides the “model” which must be followed in order to “gain salvation” (DeSilva, 1994: 43–44; Stegman, 2011: 509–11). The crucial question is not whether a person is Jewish, but whether a person follows Christ. This allows for Jewish Christ-followers to maintain their Jewish identity, minus strict adherence to the law. It also allows for Gentiles to follow Christ without adhering to the requirements of Judaism (Zocalli, 2011: 22–28).

Paul echoes this same idea in Ephesians 2:8–9: “For it is by grace that you have been saved through faith—and this not of your selves, it is the gift of God—not by works so that no one can boast” (NIV). Paul has turned from a soteriology of human effort to one of trusting God’s work in Christ. Through God’s grace, the worthless realities of the old world—the law, sin, and death—have been replaced by the timeless realities of forgiveness and new life found in Christ (Ridderbos, 1975: 210–211). Paul is no longer merely a Jew. He is a follower of Jesus Christ who attempts to incarnate the gospel in various local contexts. His contextualization is limited by what he believes will honor Jesus Christ.

Responding to syncretism in Corinth

Paul addresses the issue of syncretism in his discussion of food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8:1–13; 10:14–33). Many religions in the Roman world do “not demand absolute allegiance: a person could join as many as his or her time and wealth allowed” (Lynch, 2010: 29). So there is no hindrance to participation in ritual meals dedicated to a variety of gods. Most people think, “The more the better.” This is most likely not Paul’s first confrontation with the Corinthians over the issue of food and idols. It is one of the first issues he would have addressed with new converts, and what we have in 1 Corinthians is only the latest installment in an ongoing dispute (Garland, 2003: 182–83). While “idol food” has no power, participating in idol feasts brings a person into “community with demons and fractures” fellowship with Christ and other Christians (Jefferson, 2007: 34).

Paul is concerned about Corinthian Christians who argue “Idols are not real, so there is nothing wrong with eating food sacrificed to them.” In Corinth, food sacrificed to idols (Jefferson, 2007: 23) ³ is served in temple dining rooms. These dining rooms are used for social and business functions as well as for religious occasions. Some Christians argue that idols are not real, so there is nothing wrong with going to social and business gatherings in these settings (Kloha, 2004: 184–86). This is not so much a theological argument as a cultural one. To refuse to participate in these occasions cuts Christians off socially. So they are, in effect, asking, “Why can’t we eat idol food?” (Garland, 2003: 184). Paul understands the Christian confession of “loyalty only to God and Christ” to be compromised by “any association with any food overtly connected to idolatry” (Garland, 2003: 173). “Religious and social functions were indissolubly bound together.” The people in the ancient world did not “compartmentalize their lives” into social, economic, and religious categories (Garland, 2003: 176).

In taking a lackadaisical attitude towards participating in “idol feasts,” Corinthian Christians have become nonchalant about their new covenant relationship with Christ sealed through participation in the Lord’s Supper (Hwang, 2011: 584–86). For Paul, “eating in a worship context, whether among Christ followers (1 Cor. 10:16–17), among traditional Jews (1 Cor. 10:18), or among pagans (1 Cor. 10:19), involves fellowship with the divine or spiritual beings invoked in each setting” (Heisey, 2011: 47). Paul argues that the Lord’s Supper signifies our exclusive unity with the Lord Jesus Christ and his body, the church (1 Cor. 10:14–17). Table fellowship around the common loaf brings disparate believers into shared unity with the Lord; a unity that eliminates the possibility of continued relations with other gods. While Paul states that an idol is nothing, he argues, “Sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons” (1 Cor. 10:19–20). Idols are only lifeless stone or wood (Cf. Isa. 44:9–18), but they can be used by demonic spirits as tools to connect with people. Christians should avoid any possible connection with these spirits. “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s Table and the table of demons” (1 Cor. 10:21, NIV). Christ calls people to an exclusive relationship with him. A person who is joined to Christ must turn away from relationships to other gods.

Food leftover from temple sacrifices is often made available for sale in local markets (Jeffers, 1999: 91). Paul says that believers can eat anything bought in the market without any question of conscience (1 Cor. 10:24) because there is no way to determine with certainty if the food had been previously offered to an idol (Kloha, 2004: 194). There is some evidence that meat used for sacrifice sold for a higher price due to its “spiritual quality.” Also, some foods may have been advertised as “food sacrificed to a particular god” in order to entice potential buyers. However, given market conditions in first-century Corinth, it would have been impossible to verify these claims. So Paul advises his readers not to worry about it (Jefferson, 2007: 31).

The same holds for food served in an unbeliever’s home (1 Cor. 10:27). The believer should “eat whatever is set before” him (1 Cor. 10:27, NIV), unless the host says, “This has been offered in sacrifice.” If someone says the food has been sacrificed to an idol, this turns the occasion into a “religious event” (Kloha, 2004: 196). Local etiquette requires dinner party participants to eat whatever was set before them. But Paul draws a “boundary line” between Christian and pagan practice (Jefferson, 2007: 29, 30). As Garland comments, “Food is food and permissible to eat unless it is specifically identified as idol food, which puts it in a special category that is always forbidden to Christians” (2003: 193). The believer should avoid eating sacrificial food for the sake of the unbelieving host (1 Cor. 10:28–29). Eating food that has been used to honor another god with an idolater may cause the unbeliever to “stumble” (1 Cor. 10:32) because it robs the true God of his “glory” (1 Cor. 10:31).

While we must be careful about drawing parallels between first-century Corinth and a contemporary context, the situation of idol foods in 1 Corinthians 8–10 does raise the issue of what should be done when one person interprets an action as “harmless” but another person finds it offensive. The problem here, in particular, is that a “new convert” lacks the training and experience to make “appropriate moral judgments.” The spiritually immature may be “sucked back into the vortex of idolatry and face spiritual ruination” (Garland, 2003: 187, 188). In this case, those who are more mature should lay aside their freedom for the sake of the less mature. The “salvation of individuals is at stake, for if they worship what is not God, they cannot worship the true God” (Kloha, 2004: 197–98).

A Jew among Jews

Paul, who is a Jew, writes that he “became a Jew to win the Jews” (1 Cor. 9:20). How does Paul become what he already is? When Paul becomes a follower of Christ, he does not totally turn away from his Jewish identity, just as he does not demand that Gentiles give up their identities in order to follow Christ. Paul allows people to maintain some degree of Jewishness or Gentile-ness while also believing in Christ (Cosgrove, 2006: 283). When Paul enters a new city, he goes to the synagogue first. The synagogue is the center of Jewish community life in Gentile cities. When Jews arrive in a city they go to the synagogue to meet other Jews for encouragement and support (Jeffers, 1999: 216–17). Paul is following the custom of his day. He comes as a “Hellenized Jew” among “Hellenized Jews,” using the Septuagint as his primary text, sharing the good news that the long-awaited Messiah finally has come (Stark, 1997: 62–63). Paul does this by emphasizing the continuity between the “story of Israel and the stor[y] of . . . Jesus” (Flemming, 2005: 60). Paul uses the fulfillment of Scripture to explain Christ to Jews and their Gentile proselytes (Flemming, 2005: 63). Many Jews in the diaspora “remained aloof” from their Gentile neighbors, refusing to eat with them, to marry them, or to participate in public events, which were often tied to idolatry (Heisey, 2011: 43). These Jews are offended because Paul calls them to follow a crucified Messiah and claims the way of salvation is now open to the “people of all nations” (Gilliland, 1983: 56–58). This message draws its greatest initial response among Gentile proselytes of Judaism who attend the synagogue, understand the Scriptures and believe in Jewish monotheism, but who are still considered outsiders in Judaism. Paul’s “Gentile mission” flows out of his “Jewish mission” (Bosch, 1991: 94–95).

When Paul goes to Jerusalem, his identification with Gentiles becomes an issue. The rumor has spread that Paul has taught Jews living among Gentiles that they no longer have to be circumcised or follow other Jewish customs (Acts 21:21). In order to satisfy the concerns of Jews living in Jerusalem, Paul agrees to pay expenses at the temple for four men completing purification rites (21:22–24, 26). Paul’s attempt to identify with local Jews backfires, however, when he is seized and accused of bringing Gentiles into the temple (21:27–29). Paul would have been killed if he had not been rescued by Roman troops stationed in the city (21:31–35). Paul takes this opportunity to speak to the crowd about his Jewish ancestry and his conversion to Christianity. This seems to be well received until he mentions that the Lord sent him to the Gentiles (22:1–21). As a result, the people repeatedly attempt to murder Paul (22:22; 23:12–22).

In Galatians 2:11–20, Paul writes that he rebuked Peter and other Jewish Christians in Antioch for trying to force Gentile-background believers to behave like Jews, and then withdrawing fellowship from Gentiles that failed to follow this standard (Gal. 2:11–14). It seems that Peter believes a gospel of salvation “by faith in Christ” (Gal. 2:16), but “under external pressure” withdraws “from Gentiles” (Hardin, 2014: 301). Peter is communicating that the “Jews’ ritually clean lifestyle [is] morally superior,” and that Gentiles must “keep Jewish food laws if they wish to share table fellowship with him” (Scacewater, 2013: 312, 315). He and Barnabas (Gal. 2:13) may have been responding to the risk of persecution of Christians in Jerusalem if word reached “Jewish zealots” of table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles in Antioch (Cosby, 2015: 18–19; Das, 2013: 58).

Paul argues that both Jews and Gentiles are justified through faith in Christ rather by obedience to the law (Gal. 2: 16). Both Jews and Gentiles “fall short of God’s glory” (Rom. 3:23) but are redeemed from sin by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8; Garlington, 2009: 14). The problem is not obedience to the law, but rather attempting to substitute obedience to the law for faith in Christ. A Jew may continue to follow the law as long as he trusts in Christ for salvation (Das, 2013: 49). Paul clinches this argument by saying that he has been “crucified with Christ” so that his life is not his own, but rather Christ living in him (Gal. 2:20). The old life is replaced by new life in Christ (Gilliland, 1983: 73). Christ is not added on top of “one’s traditional religion” (Gilliland, 1983: 107). There must be a turning from one’s former way of life in order to turn to Christ.

Finding common ground with Gentiles

In his message at the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:22–31), Paul attempts to connect with a Gentile audience. These people are a mixture of: polytheists, who continue to worship the traditional gods of Greece and Rome (Schnabel, 2005: 173–74); ⁴ Epicureans, who argue that the gods are immaterial objects of reason that do not require physical sacrifices in manmade temples; and Stoics, who take the pantheistic position that “the substance of God (ousia theou) is the entire world and the heavens” (Schnabel, 2005: 179–80). The legal authority of the Areopagus has diminished over time, but in the first century it still has authority to determine whether a new deity can be added to the Athenian pantheon (Winter, 2006: 42–44). ⁵ Paul’s purpose is to preach “Jesus and the resurrection” (1 Cor. 17:18; Kanagaraj, 2011: 301–02). His listeners think he is talking about two gods (Winter, 2006: 50). They hold Paul “in contempt” as an “untrained novice” who attempts to introduce “foreign deities” (17:18; literally, “foreign demons”; Jipp, 2012: 571–72).

Paul attempts to demonstrate that the “Christian understanding of God” is both “incongruous” with and “superior” to “pagan conceptions of the divine” (Jipp, 2012: 574). He moves from “natural theology” through the “implications of God’s ultimate authority” to the “significance and evidence of the Resurrection” (Dahle, 2002: 314).

Paul begins with the polytheists, declaring the “unknown god” the Athenians worship through a statue (Acts 17:22–23) can be “known” through his creation (17:24; Flemming, 2002: 203). Then Paul attempts to connect with the Epicureans: saying God does not dwell in manmade temples and cannot be served by human hands (17:24–25; Schnabel, 2005: 180). God made the people of every nation and determined where they should live (17:26) so that they could “reach out for him and find him” (17:27). People are God’s “offspring” (17:28–29). They are made to bear the “image” of the living God (Gen. 1:27). This message about God’s universal presence in nature and human beings as his “offspring” would have connected with Stoic listeners (Flemming, 2002: 204; Schnabel 2005: 179–80). In this way, Paul attempts to draw together both Epicureans, who believe “God needs nothing from humans,” and Stoics, who hold that “God is the source of all of life” (Kanagaraj 2011: 304). There is an “overlap” between Christian faith and Greek philosophy that Paul uses to find “common ground” with his listeners (Jipp, 2012: 582).

While Paul attempts to connect with his audience, he also criticizes the lifeless images the people worship in Athens (Schnabel, 2005: 181). Rather than commending the Athenians for their religiosity in worship of the “unknown god,” it is more likely Paul is criticizing their “superstition” (Jipp, 2012: 576). The true God gives all people the opportunity to turn from the worship of false images to serve him (Acts 17:29–30). While there are points in Paul’s message that the Epicureans and Stoics would have agreed with, both groups of philosophers, who had a “negative view of human life,” would have found his teaching about the resurrection untenable (Kanagaraj, 2011: 299). However, Paul presses his point, arguing that only living human beings, created to resemble God, can truly represent his divine image—not lifeless “golden, silver, or wooden idols” (Jipp, 2012: 585). Furthermore, only the true God can raise someone from the dead (17:31). On this basis, Paul calls his listeners to turn from their former “ignorance manifested in their worship of idols” in order to serve the one true God revealed in Jesus Christ (Kanagaraj, 2011: 309).

Paul’s message has social and political as well as spiritual implications. Polytheism in Athens included the Roman imperial cult. To set aside the emperors in order to serve Jesus Christ could impact a person’s standing within the community (Winter, 2006: 58). In response, “Some began to sneer, but others said, ‘We shall hear you again concerning this’” (Acts 17:31, NASB; Rogness, 2007: 285).

Accommodation for the sake of Christ

The gospel is “intended for all,” and Paul is “under obligation to win as many as possible” (Bosch, 1991: 136). In choosing to become like others in order to win them for the gospel, Paul follows the incarnational principle of Jesus Christ who “took on flesh” (John 1:14), becoming human in order to save us. While Paul is “free from all men,” he follows the “model” of Jesus Christ who “took the form of slave” in order to bring human beings under the authority of God the Father (1 Cor. 9: 19; Phil. 2:5–8; Flemming, 2005: 195). Paul “contextualizes” both the “message” and the “messenger” for the “sake of the mission” (Flemming, 2005: 196).

Suleyman Turan, a Muslim, compares Paul to a “chameleon” who is willing to change his outward form to fit with his environment (2009: 198–99). Paul is willing to live under the law’s requirements when he is among the Jews, but does not follow the law when he is among Gentiles (Turan, 2009: 202). Turan concludes that Paul may be guilty of “hypocrisy,” concealing his “true opinions and beliefs” in order to gain influence over people whose beliefs and values differ from his own (2009: 210).

In contrast, Mark Nanos, a Jewish scholar, argues that if Paul only “hypocritically pretended” to be something he is not, he would be a “charlatan” (Nanos, 2013: 594–95). This is not an effective strategy since “non-Christians can see they are being duped into believing something other than what the gospel is represented to be” (Nanos, 2013: 596). Instead, Nanos proposes that Paul’s statement, “I have become all things to all men” (1 Cor. 9:22) should be understood as a “rhetorical” strategy. Paul begins his argument from the premises of the kind of person he is talking with, and seeks to move them to an understanding of the gospel. With a Jew, he begins with Jewish premises, and with a non-Jew he begins with non-Jewish principles. In the end, he hopes to bring both Jews and Gentiles to faith in Christ (Nanos, 2013: 598–600).

I believe Paul acts with the highest degree of integrity. Paul adjusts his actions in order to point to the gospel as the means of salvation (Flemming, 2005: 197). Paul’s “salvific intentionality” causes him to make “behavior choices with the salvation of everyone in mind” (Barram, 2007: 55). This accommodation might be compared to a doctor who accommodates his treatment in response to the needs of each patient, or a teacher who adjusts her instruction to the level of her students (Shin, 2008: 13–14). No responsible doctor or teacher would treat all of their patients or students the same. Similarly Paul, acting as a responsible witness for Christ, must accommodate his message to the conditions of his listeners.

Guided by a “teleological ethic,” Paul lays aside the “prescribed norms” (Zimmermann, 2009: 413) in favor of “Christ’s Law” (1 Cor. 9:21). God’s Spirit compels Paul to live self-sacrificially (Rom. 12:1–2) in order to fulfill Christ’s mission (Ridderbos, 1975: 285–86). Paul begins with people where they are, but he does not allow them to remain there. He calls them to follow Jesus Christ. Barram refers to this willingness to change behavior for the sake of others as “missionary accommodation.” It is an intentional lifestyle choice, not only for the purpose of evangelism, but also for the development of “faith communities” infused with the “ethic” of following Christ (2007: 55–56; Kostenberger and O’ Brien, 2001: 181).

Conclusion: learning from Paul

Paul goes to great lengths to identify with others in order to encourage them to come to faith in Christ. When a person turns to Christ, Paul encourages them to also turn away from their former way of life. It is evident from Paul’s discussion of food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8–10) that he desires for people to move intentionally towards behavior that honors Christ. However, he also seems to recognize that this may take some time, and that people will have to struggle to leave their old ways behind, especially when there are social consequences for doing so. Paul lets Gentile-background believers know that continued connection with idols will impede their growth in relationship to Christ. And he continually encourages Hellenized Jews who have decided to follow Christ to turn from the law.

Paul accepts the premise that God can use other religions to help people come to faith in Christ. For example, he regards the law as the Jews’ “tutor” (NASB) to bring them to faith in Christ (Gal. 3:24–25; Rom. 7:13–25). And he believes Gentiles who do not have the law are instructed about sin and their need for Christ by their consciences (Rom. 2:15). Paul is even willing to tell Athenians that an “unknown God” they worship in ignorance is the Creator who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ (Acts 17:23–24, 31). So it is possible that Paul could see instructional benefits in other religions as well.

While God can use elements of other religions to point a person to Christ, salvation is ultimately found through faith in him. The means of pointing to Christ and the salvation that comes through Christ remain distinct. As a matter of fact, continued adherence to a former way of life may prevent a person from experiencing complete spiritual transformation. In the first century, many Jews rejected Christ in favor of continued obedience to the law (Acts 21–23; Rom. 9:27–28; 10:16; Gal. 3:10–12). Paul writes that adherents of other religions have “turned from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9, NASB). He does not write that they may continue in their idolatry while also serving Jesus Christ.

As I compare Paul’s experiences with my own, I find that we have much in common. In Japan, life was a precarious balance of trying to cultivate relationships with people we hoped to encourage to come to Christ while discouraging syncretism. Saying yes to people, but saying no to their religious practices is difficult. Paul lived with the same balance: he entered into relationships with both Jews and Gentiles, encouraging them to turn from their former spiritualities to faith in Christ. Both Paul and I have found that learning to trust in Christ does not occur all at once; it is a process. Whether it is a Japanese grandmother who finally decides to burn her family altar after years of following Christ, a Jewish Christ-follower that wants to keep the law, or a Gentile believer that continues to participate in idol feasts, leaving old ways behind is not easy. We must encourage them.