hmecaskey_ancmedjudaism_d1

8/8/2019 HMecaskey_AncMedJudaism_D1

1/6

Mecaskey 1

Hannah M. Mecaskey

HSST 2022: Ancient/Medieval JudaismProf. Mira Wasserman

Argument of Continuity/Change5 November 2010

Paul and Nomos vs. Scripture in TorahA Critical Re-reading of Romans 1-4.12

Introduction: Pauls Identity and Note on Reading Paul

Writing from the context of the early rabbinic period, circa 40CE, the Apostle Paul is an excellentexample of continuity and change within Judaism. Self-identifying as a Hebrew of Hebrews from the

tribe of Benjamin,1

Paul also aligns his identity with the Pharisees, a prominent religious sect during thelate Second Temple period. While none of Pauls identity claims are thoroughly verifiable, his epistles

demonstrate a deep familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures as well as Hellenistic thought. Using languageoflogos and nomos to derive new interpretations of the Scriptures after his ecstatic experience with

Christ, Paul has frequently been credited as the originator of a Jesus movement which drastically departs

from Judaism.As a follower of the New Paul tradition, a recent interpretive movement that has spent the last

fifty years re-examining Pauls work from an Anti-Jewish perspective, I argue that while Paul does not

dismiss the Torah entirely, he alters his hermeneutical usage of it in such a way that omits Oral Torah andnegates observances particular to Jewish identity. Presenting a lens for my interpretation of Rom. 1-4.12

in distinguishing between Pauls normative use ofnomos (law) and his quotes from Written Torah, I willclarify through a close reading of Rom. 1-4.12 how Paul maintains continuities with Pharisaic,

Hellenistic, and Rabbinic Jewish traditions, while also departing from these in dramatic ways. Realizingwhat a controversial figure Paul has been in the history of Jewish-Christian relations, I would like to note

that every reading of Paul is very colored by the readers context. As Catholic Christian educated in

modern biblical scholarship through a Christian perspective, I am very self-conscious of presumptions Ibring to these texts, and will do my best to be reflective in my arguments.

Gonsells Distinction of Torahs Regulations vs. Instructions

Peter Gonsell suggests that Paul appears to appeal to law inconsistently in Romans, seeminglycontradicting himself by declaring faithful in Christ freed from it while quoting from scriptural Law.

2

Gonsell suggests that resolution to this contradiction distinguishing between Pauls use of law as

regulation and Law as instructing scripture.3 Gonsell interprets the differences in Pauls usage ofnomosfrom quoting scripture by noting that though both concepts are rooted in Torah, nomos in Romans refers

to written, controlling or authoritative regulations4 which are the bases of Israels covenant with God,

while Pauls actual quotation of Torah as written, authoritative instruction5

reveals Gods universaldesires for human future and behavior. By this interpretation, Gonsell suggests that Paul is not dismissinghis readers from Torah adherence entirely in his rhetoric, but rather advocating some kind of reading of

Torah for moral guidance. Following Gonsells argument, that Paul is not polemicizing against the whole

of the Torah, but rather drawing a radical distinction between those elements of Mosaic law which define

1 Philippians 3.5, English Standard Version.2Peter W. Gonsell. "Law in Romans: regulation and instruction."Novum testamentum 51, no. 3 (January 1, 2009):

252-271.ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed November 4, 2010).3

Ibid., 255.4 Ibid., 253.5 Ibid.


2/6

Mecaskey 2

Israelite covenant from universal covenant between God and humankind, I will elucidate the ways in

which Romans 1-4.12 demonstrates these usages.

Romans 1: Beginning in Israelite Identity and Departing to Gods Behavioral ConcernsPaul begins his letter to the church in Rome by establishing the authority with which he is

speaking, to gain credibility with an audience he likely never met. Tracing the scriptural lineage of Jesus

through Gods promises to the prophets,6 Paul is concerned with both the spiritual and biological lineageof Jesus in vs. 3 and 4: according to the Flesh of David and demonstrated to be Gods Son throughresurrection by the Spirit of Holiness.7 In this introduction of Jesus as his source of authority, Paulsubtly ties his message to the Hebrew Scriptures with which his audience may have some familiarity, and

introduces the theme of his letter, that Jesus enabled the obedience of faith8 amongst all peoples and

nations. Having described the obedience brought by Jesus down from the prophets as for all people, Pauladds an ordering of Jewish primacy to his message: first Jew, then Gentiles may believe. This seems to

begin Pauls departure from an emphasis of biological ancestry to one of faith, for he closes by quotingHabakkuk 2.4, The righteous shall live by faith.9

Language of wrath towards unrighteous behavior immediately follows, pivoting from Paulsquotation of the prophet Habakkuk, indicating Gods concern about human unrighteousness without

distinction between Jew or Gentile.10 Yet, perhaps Paul has the Jews ancestors, the Israelites, in mind in

vs. 21 where he talks specifically about those who persisted in ungodly behavior even though they knewGod. Describing the foolishness of those who claimed to be wise, turning their backs on God (vs. 22-

27), Paul begins to use language of law or transgressed covenant, describing the unrighteous as receiving

in themselves the due penalty for their error.11 Whatever particular group or error Paul is referring to inhis rhetoric, he understands the consequences of disobeying God to be God reneging on Gods end of the

covenant, deterministically disposing the disobedient towards more sin.12

Describing the manner of sin into which these forsaken people abandoned themselves, 13 Paul

paints a picture of these people realizing their transgression of Gods covenant, yet celebrating theirdeparture from it. I think it is important to note at the end of chapter 1 in Romans, Paul has only discussed

disobedience of Gods covenantal terms in moral vocabulary, which could apply universally to

humankind, rather than just the Israelite covenant with God the Jewish people claim.

Romans 2: Redefining Gods Requirements Without CircumcisionAssigning the task of judgment to God because of the universality of human guilt, Paul begins the

second chapter of Romans by setting the stage for his polemic against the nomos which defines theIsraelite covenant. Pauls rhetoric takes a tone of rebuke with any who have judged, calling them torepentance, for only God is worthy of judging.14 It actually seems that Paul is trying to redefine what

kinds of works God is interested in, saying that He will render to each one according to his works,15the righteous will receive eternal life,16 while the disobedient will face Gods wrath.17 Having described

God as the judge of all human people on the basis of their moral behavior, Paul must qualify why he can

claim that there is no difference between Jew or Gentile under Gods judgment.

6 Romans 1.2, ESV.7 Ibid, 1.4, ESV.8

Ibid, 1.5, ESV.9 Ibid., 1.17, ESV.10 Ibid., 1.18-20, ESV.11 Ibid., 1.27, ESV.12

Ibid., 1.28, ESV.13 Ibid., 1.29-31, ESV.14

Ibid., 2.5, ESV.15

Ibid., 2.6, ESV.16 Ibid 2.7, ESV17 Ibid. 2.8, ESV


3/6

Mecaskey 3

Though Paul understands God not to show partiality, 18 he seems to continue to address the

Roman audiences understanding of a Jewish preference in covenantal relationship with God. Myunderstanding is that though Pauls audience is likely mixed, Jewish and Gentile Jesus-followers, the

larger majority is Jewish. I also understand that it is not likely that Paul founded this church-group, butrather one of the other Apostles, whom Paul was likely in conflict with over the issue of Gentile inclusion

without circumcision in the Jesus movement. Reading from this perspective, I can reconstruct the

presuppositions of Pauls audience by the tone with which he appeals to them: even though Paul claimsthat God will judge all humanity on the basis of moral behavior, Paul orders the dispersion of bothretribution and blessing to the Jew first and also the Greek.19

From verse 12 to 29 of Romans 2, Paul sets up the perimeters by which he distinguishes the

nomos of the Israelite covenant from the instruction of the Torah. Leveling the playing field, Paul says

that having the Torah alone is not grounds for receiving eternal life- that is, the belief that all who followthe rituals of the covenant between God and Israel, but rather doing the moral instructions of the Torah,

regardless of whether one has it or not, accounts for righteous obedience of Gods covenant withhumankind. The idea that God has a covenant with humankind regardless of the revelation of Torah itself

is introduced in Romans 2.14-16: Paul equates Gentile behavior that follows the Torahs moral instructionas Torah observance, calling such behavior a law to themselves, even though they do not have the

law.20 Paul contrasts this state which he describes as having the work of the law [as] written on their

[Gentile] hearts21 with those who are Jewish, claiming to teach and know the Torah, while transgressingat the same time its moral instruction.22 Paul chastises the Jews in the community, saying You who boast

in the law dishonor God by breaking the law.23

Transitioning to the issue of circumcision, Paul discusses the equation of circumcision, a sign ofGods covenant with Israel, to a keeping of the whole Torah, of which Paul has prefaced Gods concern

with its moral instruction. Thus for Jews, he says, circumcision is only valuable if they keep Gods moralinstructionswithout obedience, circumcision is worthless.24 For the uncircumcised Gentiles, however,

Paul equates obedience to the moral instruction of the Torah, even without knowledge of the Torah, assame in value to physical circumcision. What Paul is doing here is demonstrating his preference of moral

obedience to Gods will (which cannot be solely identified with Torah obedience) to fulfilling obligations

of Israels covenant with God. Yet, Paul is not denouncing circumcision either, but distinguishing it fromGods requirements of righteousness for all mankind to specifically Gods covenant with Israel. Paul

begins by merely reforming the concept of circumcision, saying that no one is a Jew who is merely oneoutwardly, for circumcision is not only outward and physical.25 However, the following verse more

radically defines Pauls notion of Jewishness: quoting Jeremiah, Paul redefines circumcision as of theheart, redefining Jewish understanding of inclusion within Torah community from the Israelites covenantto a more universal one.

Romans 3: Covenant of Faith as Understood as Coming Out from Law While Not Negating it

Affirming the righteousness of God in spite of human transgression to covenantal relationships

with God, Paul directly addresses Jewish privilege with regards to covenantal blessing by God. Quoting acocktail of Psalms and Proverbs, Paul demonstrates that the law categorizes all people, both Jew andGentile as under sin. In this context where Paul has distinguished between the law, under which one

understanding of covenant with God can be found in the Israelite covenant and the law in terms of

18 Ibid., 2.11, ESV.19 Ibid., 2.9,10., ESV.20

Ibid., 2.14, ESV.21 Ibid., 2.15, ESV.22

Ibid., 2.17-23, ESV.23

Ibid., 2.23, ESV.24 Ibid., 2.25, ESV.25 Ibid., 2.28, ESV.


4/6

Mecaskey 4

Gods expectation for all humanity, works of the law26 in Pauls usage seems to refer to actions

pertaining to the Israelite covenant with God. Declaring to the Jews in the Roman congregation of theJesus movement that justification in Gods eyes does not come from works of the law, which could be

equated with circumcision mention in Pauls reconstruction of what it means to obey God in Romans2.28-9.

In verses 21-31 of Romans 3, Paul begins his most radical development of a theology in which

would recognize circumcision as a necessary part of covenant with God. I say this because Paul beginsthis section, now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Lawand Prophets bear witness to it.27 This demonstrates how self-conscious Paul is that he is developingsomething new out of the Hebrew Scriptures, through he has not yet developed what he means by the

righteousness of God. Paul describes how righteousness comes apart from the law through faith in

Jesus Christ without distinction of whether one is Jew or Gentile. 28 Describing how Christ comes out ofthe law, Paul applies the cultic atonement metaphor of sacrifice to Jesus death on the cross,29 picturing

the crucifixion as an activity of God to right some score that was kept when in His divine forbearance Hehad passed over former sins.30 What Paul means by these former sins is debated amongst scholars, but

some think that Paul sees a similarity between Judeas current situation under intensifying Roman ruleand the Babylonian exile. Using regulator language to describe the redemptive death of Jesus, Paul

attempts to picture how regulations of the Israelite covenant should be understood as secondary to a

covenant of faith which is mediated by moral instruction from the Torah.Reiterating the elimination of Jewish privilege over Gentiles by re-affirming a law of faith, Paul

retains the moral instruction of the Torah rather than upholding regulations of the Israelite covenant (also

in the Torah) as requirements of this new understanding of covenant. Paul completely separates theIsraelite covenant from his understanding of Gods universal covenant with humanity, allowing those

who are Jewish to retain their particular covenant, but underneath the umbrella of a covenant of faith inJesus Christ, which requires moral behavior rather than circumcision. This is not an overthrowing of the

law, Paul assures his readers, but rather an upholding of the law.31 It would seem that Pauls mysticalexperience of Christ on the road to Damascus has presented him with a new hermeneutic for interpreting

the Torah, and by which Paul feels he offers a faithful rendering of Gods requirement for mankind.

Romans 4.1-12: Covenant of Faith not new with Christ but Based in Ancestor of Judaism, Abraham

To demonstrate that he is in fact upholding the law, Paul roots his new hermeneutical tradition inAbraham, our forefather according to the flesh32 for all of Jewish descent who hold on to the Israelite

covenant. Proof texting Abraham as the father of the Covenant of Faith, because his belief broughtjustification before any action, Paul seems to be reacting to some understanding of Judaism amongst theRoman congregation which seems circumcision as a work which God responds to by paying a wage.33

Using Psalm 32 as an example of scriptural authority to understand God as concerned with a sinfulcondition rather than ceremonial condition, Paul argues that God blesses sinless person regardless of

circumcision.

Returning to Abraham, Paul hinges his argument that Abraham was justified by faith on the factthat Abraham was not circumcised until after he had been declared justified.

34Interpreting this fact to

understand Abraham as the father of all who believe without being circumcised,35 Pauls hermeneutical

26

Ibid., 3.20, ESV.27 Ibid., 3.21, ESV.28 Ibid., 3.22, ESV.29 Ibid., 3.24-26, ESV.30

Ibid., 3.25, ESV.31 Ibid., 3.31, ESV.32

Ibid., 4.1, ESV.33

Ibid., 4.4-5, ESV.34 Ibid., 4.10, ESV.35 Ibid., 4.11, ESV.


5/6

Mecaskey 5

preference of the Abrahamic covenant over and against the Mosaic covenant becomes evident. While

Abraham received circumcision as a seal of the righteousness he had by faith while yetuncircumcised,36 the most crucial part of Abrahams heritage to Paul is not his circumcision, but rather

opening up the possibility for the uncircumcised to be counted righteous by God without ever receivingcircumcision.37 Having explained Pauls arguments in Romans 1-4.12 as a defense of Gentile

righteousness without circumcision through faith to Jewish followers of Jesus, Pauls arguments

themselves offer many points of divergence and continuity from what we might discern as Judaismaccording to early rabbinic characteristics in the late Second Temple Period.

Pauls Continuity With and Change From Jewish Tradition

As stated earlier, it would seem that Paul understands himself as authentically Jewish by his self-

descriptions, even more specifically; Paul has described himself as a Pharisee and can be held accountableto what we know of their practices and beliefs as well. Since more is known about the Rabbis, the

religious descendents of the Pharisees, than the Pharisees themselves, I will also compare Paulsmethodology and conclusions to Rabbinic thought. Existing within a very Hellenized period of Judaism,

Paul would have been very influences by Hellenized thought, so as much as possible, I will elucidatethese instances from his overall arguments and reasoning in Romans 1-4.12.

Beginning with his claim of Pharisaism, how does Paul show signs of similarity/departure from

this sect? Josephus seems to indicate that the Pharisee party was very concerned with biblical law and itsapplication, both in the forms of Written Torah and Oral Torah (as the later Rabbis would identify these

tenets). Paul demonstrates a great concern for the Written Torah, but does polemicize against the

ritualistic aspects of Jewish law (such as circumcision in this context) as no longer necessary to covenantwith God because of the availability of faith in Jesus. Pauls reinterpretation of law seems to either reject

Oral Torah completely, which departs from Pharisaic tradition, or reinterpret Torah in such a way as tonullify the need to be circumcised, which is commanded of Israelite men in the Torah. However,

distinctive belief of the Pharisees are very apparent in Pauls writing, including the resurrection from thedead,38 existence of Spirits and angels, and in the coming of the Messiah. For Paul, however, the future

eschatological coming of the Pharisees Messiah is realized in Jesus, spurring his theological departure

concerning certain distinctively Jewish observances.Hellenism contributed greatly in Pauls conceptions of Judaism. Incorporating Greek

philosophical methods of communication into his writing, Paul relied heavily on rhetoric. Paul alsoutilized allegory and metaphor while writing in Greek, most notably his circumcision is a matter of the

heart,39

which was also used by Philo of Alexandria to normalize the custom of circumcision fromapparent barbarism to sophistication.

40In that way, Pauls atonement metaphor in Romans 3.25-6 also can

be interpreted as an attempt to sophisticate cultic rituals which may have transgressed Hellenistic senses

of decency. Similarly, Paul was able to utilize the Hellenistic Jewish way of speaking of monotheism, inwhich logos andsophia were understood as emanations of God, to expand his own thinking concerning

Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Linguistically, Paul uses a very Hellenized style, though some of his content,

specifically concerning Jesus, differs from that of his contemporaries.Finally, Paul demonstrates similar usage of Scripture to the emerging Rabbis, but also maintains

major differences with regards to his interpretation. While the Rabbis relied upon both Written and oral

Torah to derive their applications of scriptural text, Paul seems to rely only upon scripture through a

Hellenized lens of interpretation. Dealing with issues ancestry, rules for inclusion and requirements forrighteousness, Pauls subject matter is very similar to the Rabbis, as is his method of teasing out

36Ibid.

37 Ibid., 4.12, ESV.38

Ibid., 2.7, ESV eternal life..39

Ibid., 2.28, ESV.40 John M. G. Barclay. Paul And Philo on Circumcision: Romans 2.259 in Social and Cultural Context. New

Testament Studies, 44 (1998): 536-556.


6/6

Mecaskey 6

interpretations from minute details in the text. However, where the Rabbis prioritize biological ancestry

from Abraham, Paul introduces Abraham as a Patriarch of faith ancestry in a non-biological way. Thiseliminates for Paul the need to be circumcised for inclusion in the Jesus movement, though the Rabbis

maintain circumcision is necessary for inclusion in the Abrahamic line. Righteousness for Paul isadherence to the moral instruction of the Written Torah alone, while the Rabbis include prescriptions of

both Written and Oral Torah.

ConclusionHaving demonstrated how Paul distinguishes within even the Written Torah between

prescriptions of Jewish identity and righteousness before God, it becomes clear how differently Pauls

message to the Romans diverges from that of his rough contemporaries, the Pharisees, other Hellenized

Jews, and the early Rabbis. Using Hellenistic rhetoric, allegory and metaphor to argue from the HebrewScriptures, Paul determines that circumcision is not necessary for inclusion in the covenant of Abraham.

Rather, what is necessary is faith in Jesus Christ, demonstrated through obedience to the moral instructionof the Written Torah in order that one might hope to be resurrected from the dead. While Paul is indeed

demonstrating his Pharisaic roots with concern about afterlife and the Messiah, his interpretation of theseconcepts parts ways with the Pharisee party. And though he argues about the same issues as the Rabbis

and even in the same manner, Paul reaches conclusions which lay the groundwork from an entirely

different understanding of identity: early Christianity.

Works Cited:Barclay, John M. G. Paul And Philo on Circumcision: Romans 2.259 in Social and Cultural Context.

New Testament Studies, 44 (1998): 536-556.

Gosnell, Peter W. "Law in Romans: regulation and instruction."Novum testamentum 51, no. 3 (January 1,2009): 252-271.ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed November 4, 2010).

Gruenwald, Ithamar. "Paul and the nomos in light of ritual theory."New Testament Studies 54, no. 3 (July1, 2008): 398-416.ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed November 4,

2010).

Moo, Douglas J. "Law", "works of the law", and legalism in Paul." Westminster Theological Journal45,no. 1 (March 1, 1983): 73-100.ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost(accessed

November 4, 2010).

Barclay, John M. G. Paul And Philo on Circumcision: Romans 2.259 in Social and Cultural Context.

New Testament Studies, 44 (1998): 536-556.

hmecaskey_ancmedjudaism_d1

Documents