PaulandtheResurrectionofIsrael
Jews,FormerGentiles,Israelites
JASONA.STAPLES
NorthCarolinaStateUniversity
ShaftesburyRoad,Cambridge ,UnitedKingdom OneLibertyPlaza, thFloor,NewYork, ,USA WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne, ,Australia
–, rdFloor,Plot ,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre, NewDelhi – ,India
PenangRoad,#–/,VisioncrestCommercial,Singapore CambridgeUniversityPressispartofCambridgeUniversityPress&Assessment, adepartmentoftheUniversityofCambridge. WesharetheUniversity’smissiontocontributetosocietythroughthepursuitof education,learningandresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle: www.cambridge.org/
©JasonA.Staples
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisions ofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytake placewithoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress&Assessment.
Firstpublished PrintedintheUnitedKingdombyTJBooksLimited,PadstowCornwall AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
ACataloging-in-PublicationdatarecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheLibraryofCongress
- Hardback
CambridgeUniversityPress&Assessmenthasnoresponsibilityforthepersistence oraccuracyofURLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhis publicationanddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain, accurateorappropriate.
Tomywife,Kari Andmymother,Brenda
Theysupportedhishands
Oneononeside,oneontheother Sohishandswerefaithful.
Contents
ListofFigures page x
ListofTables xi
Preface xiii
Acknowledgments xvii
Introduction:Jews,FormerGentiles,Israelites
WhoArePaul’s(Former)Gentiles?
“AllIsraelWillBeSaved”
EmpiricalEthnicity?
TheAgendaofThisWork
Excursus:TheAudienceofPaul’sLetters
Excursus:TranslatingKeyTerminology
JewsorJudaeans?
TheGodofJewsOnly?
AnExperimentinCriticism:BeyondtheInsider/ OutsiderParadigm
TwoNationsunderGod:TheOtherIsraelites
TheGreatDivorce:IsraelandJudah
GreatExpectations:TheRestorationofIsraelandJudah
WilltheRealIsraelitesPleaseComeBack?
RevivalintheLandandIsrael’sOngoingExile
ThereandBackAgain:IsraelandRestorationEschatology
ReturnoftheKing:JesusandtheGospel
PaulandtheIsraelProblem
MinisterofaNewCovenant
TheNewCovenantandIsrael’sJusti fication
TheSpiritandtheNewCovenant
SpiritsinBondage:TheCurseoftheTorahand Israel’sInfidelity
SmokeontheMountain:TheLetterandtheVeil
TheCurseoftheTorah:Death(ByExile)
DeliverancefromtheAgeofWrath
TheIsraelProblemandtheGentiles
TheStumblingBlockofRomans –
ParadiseLost:JudgmentagainstImpietyandImmorality
TheDiscardedImage:Idolatry,Immorality,andthe KnowledgeofGod
PrideandPrejudice:IsraelandtheNationsunderSin
TheAbolitionofMan:God’sImpartialJustice
JusticeandMercyHaveKissed
CrimeandPunishment:ImpartialJudgmentforJews andGreeksAlike
SalvationthroughJusti fication:JewsandGentilesAlike
JewishIdentityandGod’sImpartiality
ThatHideousStrength:TheThreeTrapsofBelial
TheValueofCircumcision
TheHiddenJewBelongstoGod
CircumcisedJews,UncircumcisedIsraelites
DoingTorahbytheSpirit:GraceandWorks
RestorationviatheSpiritinRomans
“NotMyPeople”:Israel’sInfidelityandGod’sFidelity
“NotAllfromIsraelAreIsrael”
GodintheDock:Potter,Clay,andDivinePathos
God’sPatienceandDivinePathos
VesselsofWrath
“NotMyPeople,” EthnicMixture,andVesselsamong theNations
NotesfromtheUnderground:Dishonored VesselsRedeemed
HaveGentilesAttainedRighteousness?
TheBusinessofHeaven:RedemptiveReversal
God’sJusticeandtheEndoftheTorah
BringingtheMessiah:RighteousnessandRedemption
RighteousnessandRestorationintheTorah andProphets
TheYa _ hadasRighteousVanguardofIsrael
TheContingencyofIsrael’sRestoration
RepentanceandRestorationinRabbinicTraditions
TheGrandMiracle:DivinelyInitiatedJustness
TheOneWhoLives:MessiahandtheJustnessofGod
DivineDeadlifting:TheResurrectionoftheJustOne
TheJustOneandRedemptionfromtheCurseof theTorah
TheLogicofGalatians
ReconsideringaSo-calledAntithesis
He’stheMessiah!PledgingFealtytotheLivingLord
TheMysteryofIsrael’sSalvation
Disobedience,Mercy,andJealousy
JealousGod,JealousPeople
ImpartialJustice,MercytoAll
Jealousy,Not-My-People,andaNon-Nation
ConsecratedbyIncorporation
TheOliveTree
BrokenOffandGraftedIn
JudgmentandtheRemnant
Paul’sMysteryRevealed
AMysteriousSequence?
Paul’sMystery:TheFullnessoftheNations
“AllIsrael”:IsraelandJudah
SurprisedbyJoy:MercytoIsrael,MercytoAll
TheEndoftheMatter
TheLastBattle:Death,Resurrection,andtheVindication ofYHWH
Paul’sCoherentCore:Israel’sResurrection
Incorporation,NotSupersession
WhyNotCircumcision?
StrengthsofThisReading
ThePayoff:TheTaskDischarged
Bibliography
PrimarySourcesIndex
AuthorIndex
SubjectIndex
. JewsaspartofIsrael page
. Prophetic/sectarianviewofJewsandIsrael
Tables
. JewsandIsraelitesinJosephus page
. VesselsofwrathinLXXJeremiah : andRomans :
. Leviticus :bandPaul’scitations
. God’sjustness,theMessiah,and fidelity
. ParallelisminGalatians :–
. Ephraim’sseed:Thefullnessofthenations
Preface
IoftenimaginePaulineinterpretationasakintoputtingtogetherajigsaw puzzletobestrepresenttheimagesketchedoutbyPaul’sletters.AsIsee it,thedominantparadigmsforPaulineinterpretationhavetendedtostart byputtingthe “easy” pieces(e.g., “justi ficationbyfaith”)togetheronlyto discoverthatseveralseeminglyextraneouspiecesdon’tseemto fitthe reconstructedimageattheend.Romans and – haveprovenespeciallydiffi cultto fitintocommonparadigmsofPaul’stheology,withsome goingsofarastosuggestthatthesesectionsdonotinfactrepresentthe apostle’sthoughtorthatPaulwassimplyself-contradictory.Butinmy experience,whenafewpiecesremainonthetableattheend,itusually meanssomepartofthepuzzlehasbeenwronglyputtogether.Iwouldbe hesitanttoboardanairplaneafterlearningthatseveralpiecesfromthe insideoftheenginewerestilllayingontheground,regardlessofreassurancesfromtheairport’smechanicthattheysimplydidn’t fitwhenhewas rebuildingtheengine. Instead,afterdiscoveringthepiecesleftoutbythe reconstruction,theonlysolutionistopullthewholethingapartandstart anewbeginningby figuringoutwheretheproblematicpieces fitandthen buildingaroundthem.
Thisbookrepresentsmyattempttodoexactlythat.Ratherthan beginningfromconsensusparadigmsbuiltontheseeminglyeasierpassagesandthentryingtoaccountforwhycertainpassages fi tsopoorly, Ihavestartedfromwhatarewidelyregardedasthemostdif ficultand
WillTimminssimilarlycomparestheprocesstosolvingaRubik’scube: “evenasingle piecewhichremainsoutofplacebetraystheneedforanewsolution” (Romans and ChristianIdentity [], ).
anomaloussectionsofthePaulinecorpus.Theideaisthatbyestablishing theproperplacesforthemostdif ficultpieces,therestcanmoreeasily snapintoplacearoundthem.Ultimately,ifmyargumenthereiscorrect, thereasonthesedif ficultchaptershave fitsopoorlywithmodernreconstructionsofPaul’stheologyisthatthosemodernreconstructionshave builtonfaultyfoundationalassumptions,resultinginnumerousloose ends.Inotherwords,theprimaryprobleminPaulineinterpretationhas notbeenwhatwedon’tknow – it’sthatmuchofwhatwe’vethoughtwe knowisn’tso.
Ifthisisindeedthecase,oncethosedif ficultpiecesareproperlyplaced, manyotherpassageswillneedtobereexaminedinlightofwhatPaulis doinginthechaptersaddressedhere.Thus,althoughthisbookfocuses speci ficallyonPaul’sargumentsaboutIsrael,Torah,andthegospelina seriesofspecifi cpassages,itrepresentsanattempttolayafoundationfor anewandmorerobustparadigmforunderstandingPaul’slettersand gospelproclamationingeneral.(Althoughmyanalysisislimitedtothe sevenundisputedletters,inmyjudgmenttheframeworkproposedinthis studyappliesequallywelltotherestofthePaulinecorpus.)Bytheendof theprocess,myhopeisthatbyestablishingabetterfoundation,avariety ofspeci ficinsightsfrompreviousinterpretersmaybeseenfromadifferent andwideranglerevealingmorepiecesatonce,allowingthewholeelephantto finallycomeintoview.
Seeingfromawideranglealsorequiressteppingoutsidethenarrow worldofPaulinestudies,whichtoooftentreatstheapostleinnear isolationoronlyengageswithoutsidesourcesasfoilsagainstwhich Paul,theuniqueandoriginalthinker,isunderstood.ButthePauline lettersinvolvehighlycompressedandallusiveargumentsthatassume thereadersshareagreatdealoffoundationalcommonknowledge –knowledgemodernreadersdonottendtoshare.Arrivinglatetoa conversationmakesiteasytomisunderstandwhatisbeingsaiduntil othersexplainwhatwassaidearlierinthediscussion,andwhenreading Paul’sletters,wearehearingonlyonesideofaconversationthatbuilds onearlierdiscussionstowhichwehavenoaccess.ReadingthePauline corpusisthereforeakintotryingtounderstandameme-heavyexchange ontheInternet,potentiallyinscrutablewithoutsharedknowledgeofthe movies,television,orotherpopularmediareshapedandreappliedinnew contexts.IamthereforepersuadedthattounderstandPaul,onemust first endeavortoreconstructthatcommonfoundationasmuchaspossibleby immersingintheHebrewBible/LXXandothersourcematerialsfromthe SecondTempleperiod,preparingtorecognizethesubtle,complex
nuancesembeddedinseeminglystraightforwardstatements,thesimplicityinwhatmayinitiallyseemhopelesslycomplexorcontradictory.
Iendeavoredtoreconstructsomeofthatcorefoundationin TheIdea ofIsraelinSecondTempleJudaism (),ofwhichthisbookservesasa sequelvolume.Assuch,IamapproachingPaulnotasthoughhewerea whollyoriginalanduniqueindividualdisconnectedfromhistemporal andculturalfoundationbutratherasadistinctrepresentativeofearly Judaism – itselfanexceedinglydiversephenomenon – inthecontextof theearliestJesusmovement.ThisbookthereforeaimstoputPaulin conversationwithothersourcematerialfromtheSecondTempleperiod whilesimultaneouslyusingthatinformationtodelvedeeplyintothe exegesisofspeci ficPaulinepassages.
Theresultofthisapproachisthateachindividualchapterisbotha speci fic,self-containedargumentandanimportantfoundationstonefor thelargerargumentofthebook.Nevertheless,nosinglechapteror speci ficargumentisdeterminativeforthelargerargumentasawhole –onemight,forinstance,disagreewithmuchofmyanalysisofRom or Cor whilestillagreeingwiththelargerparadigmasawholeorviceversa.Consequently,thereadermostinterestedinthelargerthesiswill havetoworkthroughnumerousdetaileddiscussionsofspecificcases, sincethelargerparadigmIamproposingdependsonacumulativecase abouthowthevariouspiecesofthepuzzle fittogether.Ontheotherhand, thosemoreinterestedinmyreadingofaspeci ficchapterorpassagewill needtoconsidertherelationshipofthosespeci ficpartstothecomprehensiveargumentofthebook(andinsomecasesfoundationaldetailsfound intheprecedingvolume),asthecumulativeweightofotherpassages contributestotheplausibilityofsuchspecifi cs.
Intheinterestofreadability,Ihavenotattemptedtorepresentthefull rangeofscholarshiponthepassagesandsubjectmattercoveredinthis volume,letalonePaulinestudiesasawhole,andhaveinsteadlimitedmy engagementwithpreviousscholarshiptowhatseemednecessarytothe discussion.Ataneditoriallevel,IhavetranslatedallsubstantiveforeignlanguagequotesintoEnglish,providingtheoriginalquotationsincorrespondingfootnoteswhenthatseemedwarranted.Alltranslationsof ancientmaterialsaremyownexceptwherenoted.Ihavealsotransliteratedafewkeytermsfrequentlyusedinthebodytext(e.g., Ioudaios, ekklesia)tomakethebookmoreaccessiblebuthaveotherwiseretained
Cf.thesimilarcaveatsinJasonA.Staples, TheIdeaofIsraelinSecondTempleJudaism (),xiii;andE.P.Sanders, PaulandPalestinianJudaism (),xii.
GreekorHebrewcharactersinparentheticalreferencesorfootnotes.All citationsandabbreviationsfollow TheSBLHandbookofStyle, nded., thoughforeconomyIhaveeschewedthelong firstcitationwithfull publicationdatainfavorofabbreviatedtitleanddate,leavingother informationtothebibliography,withafewexceptionswheremoreinformationincontextwasdeemedpreferable.Abbreviationsnotincludedin the SBLHS followtheconventionsoftheirrespective fields.Allreferences totheHebrewBible/OldTestamentusetheHebrewversification(“ET” = Englishtranslation).Chapter ,whichsummarizesthethesisof TheIdea ofIsraelinSecondTempleJudaism,borrowsheavilyfromthatbook. PartsofChapters and includematerialthathaspreviouslyappearedin the JournalofBiblicalLiterature (“WhatDotheGentilesHavetoDo with ‘AllIsrael’?AFreshLookatRomans :–” [])and HarvardTheologicalReview (“VesselsofWrathandGod’sPathos: Potter/ClayImageryinRom :–” []).
Acknowledgments
Thisbookbeganwithideas firstformedandputforwardinWilliam L.Lyons’ HebrewBibleProphetsclass,andIamprofoundlythankfultoBillforallhisencouragementandhelpfulfeedbackoverthepast twodecades.Iamalsodeeplyindebtedtomy Doktorvater,BartEhrman, whosesupport,counsel,andgenerosityhavebeeninvaluableoverthe past fifteenyears.IamalsogratefultoDavidLevensonforhistraining andmentorshipwhenIwasatFloridaState – itturnsouttherewasindeed worklefttodoonPaulafterall!Thisbookalsomayneverhavecometo fruitionwithouttheearlyenthusiasmofthelateRobertJewett,who stronglyadvocatedfortheprojectfromwhichthisbookgrew.Bobwent outofhiswaytovouchfortheinitialinsightsofanascentprojectthat departedsosignifi cantlyfrompriorparadigms,volunteeredtobean outsidereaderofmydissertation,andcarvedouttimetodiscusscore conceptsintheearlystagesofmyresearch.Heexempli fiedkindness, gentleness,generosity,andbreadthofmind,andhedemonstratedhow touseseniorstatusandinfluencetobenefitthosewithless.Mayhis memorybeforablessing.
Iamdeeplyindebtedtothegenerosityofthosewhoreadandprovided valuablecritiquesandfeedbackofvariouspartsofthisbookatdifferent stages,especiallyStephenCarlson,PaulSloan,SonyaCronin,David Schroder,BenjaminL.White,LoganWilliams,andIsaacSoon.Paula Fredriksen’sgenerousfeedbackandencouragementoverthepastdecade –evenwhenwehavedisagreed – havemeantagreatdeal.Ialsoowe gratitudetoEibertTigchelaar,JoelMarcus,JodiMagness,Douglas Campbell,AnatheaPortier-Young,DavidLambert,ZlatkoPleše, JonathanBoyarin,andRossWagnerfortheircritiquesandsupport
throughearlystagesofthisproject.RichardHays,JamesCrenshaw,and Fr.RonOlszewskiweregenerousteacherswhoalsoinfluencedthisprojectinonewayoranother.IamdeeplyindebtedtoSvetlaSlaveva-Grif fin, KathrynStoddard,JohnMarincola,andFrancisCairns,whotaughtme toreadGreektextsanddomyowncarefullexicalworkratherthan merelytrustingalexiconandregurgitatingglosses.Inparticular,Cairns’ offhandcommentina Aeschylusseminaraboutthereciprocity inherenttotheword χάρις – asmallmomentIwillneverforget – significantlyimpactedmyunderstandingofPaul’sgospel.Otherlong-suffering soulswhohavetoleratedmyobsessionwiththissubjectandproved especiallyvaluableconversationpartnersduringwhatmusthaveseemed likeanunendingprojectincludeJasonCombs,T.J.Lang,Nathan Eubank,IsaacOliver,MichaelBarber,JamesTabor,MarkNanos,Scott Hahn,JohnKincaid,MarkGoodacre,DavidBurnett,MatthewGrey,Jim Hayes,Fr.Gregory(Joshua)Edwards,andTimCupery.
ThisbookgrewoutofmyPhDdissertationattheUniversityofNorth CarolinaatChapelHill,whereIwassupportedbyaJacobK.Javits FellowshipandaThomasS.andHelenBordaRoysterDissertation Fellowship.MostofthebookwaswrittenwhileinvisitingfacultypositionsatWakeForest,Duke,andNCState,andIamgratefultocolleaguesinthosedepartments(MichaelPendleburyandWilliamAdlerin particular)andforthebeneficenceofthelibrarystaffateachinstitution. IamalsogratefultomycolleaguesfromInsideCarolina,especiallyBuck SandersandBenSherman,whounderstoodthatthisprojectwasapriorityandwerepatientwhenmyoutputdiminishedattimesintheoffseason. ThanksalsotothemanywhohelpedmywifeandIstayafl oatafterour house firein andtoMichaelG.Scottforhelpwiththemanagement ofsuchalargeproject.LuisandLizMarquezalsosupportedthisproject inmorewaysthanone,andforthatIwillalwaysbegrateful.Thanksalso tothefullCambridgeUniversityPressteam,especiallyforthepatience andencouragementofBeatriceRehl,whosevisionofatwo-volume projectmadethisbookpossible.Twoanonymousreadersalsoprovided helpfulcritiquesthatimprovedthe finalproduct.Thede ficienciesthat remaininthisworkareofcoursemyownresponsibility.
Thisbookistheproductofmanyyearsofcommitment,support,and sacri ficefromfamily.Inadditiontoproducingmusicthathelpedfuellong hoursofwriting,mysisterStephanieandbrother-in-lawErikhavebeen supportiveinavarietyofways.Myfather,Mark,laidthefoundationof howIunderstandPaul’sgospelandremainsoneofthe finestteachersand brightestmindsIhaveeverencountered.Heplantedandcultivatedthe
seedsthathavegrownintothisbook,trainingmefromthebeginningto reexamineeverytraditionandquestioneveryinterpretation,nomatter how firmlyestablishedorwidelybelieved,inthequestfortruth.His readinesstorecognizeandadmithisownerrorsandlimitationsalsoset awonderfulexampleofhumility.Hissupporthasbeenunwaveringover theyears,andthisbookrepresentshistoilasmuchasmine – itwas possibleonlybecauseIamstandingonhisshoulders.
Finally,thisbookisdedicatedtothetwowomenwhoseprodigious effortsandsacrificesmadeitpossible.Mymother,Brenda,hassacrificed moretoensurethisbookwouldcometofruitionthanIeverimagined possible.Shehasgivenbeyondmeasure,andwhatevergoodcomesfrom thisbookshouldbecreditedtoheraccount.Thankyou,mom.Mywife, Kari,hastrulybeenmy γνήσιοςσύζυγος andhassharedinthetoil throughouttheprocess;hersupportneverwaveredevenwhensheknew followingthispathmeantsacri ficingluxurieslikeaconsistentpaycheck andretirementsavings.Themakingofmanybooksisendlessandexcessivestudyisexhausting,butsheismorepreciousthanlifeandherloveis strongerthandeath.Ihopeonedaytobeworthyofit.Maythisbook provealastingandvaluablecommemorationofthatlove.
Introduction
Jews,FormerGentiles,Israelites
ThereisneitherJewnorGreek,thereisneitherslavenorfree,thereisnotmaleand female,foryouarealloneinMessiahJesus.
AndthusallIsraelwillbesaved.
Galatians :
Romans :
Paul’sthoughtcontainsoneoverarchingdifficulty,andhehimselfwasawareofit: howdoesGod’srecentrevelationinChristrelatetohisformerrevelationstoIsrael?
E.P.Sanders
Alittleoveracenturyago,AlbertSchweitzersuggestedthatprovidingan explanationforhowasmallJewishsectproclaimingarabbifromthe backwatertownofNazarethtobethemessiahofIsraelsoquickly transitionedtoamovementprimarilyinvolvingnon-Jewswas “thegreat andstillundischargedtaskwhichconfrontsthoseengagedinthehistoricalstudyofprimitiveChristianity. ” “Theprimarytask,” Schweitzer says, “istode finethepositionofPaul,” theJewishteacherwhodeclared himself “apostleofnations/gentiles ” andinsistedontheinclusionof
E.P.Sanders, Paul:AVeryShortIntroduction (), . AlbertSchweitzer, PaulandHisInterpreters (),v.Further: “Thesystemofthe ApostletotheGentilesstandsoveragainsttheteachingofJesusassomethingofan entirelydifferentcharacter,anddoesnotcreatetheimpressionofhavingarisenoutofit. ButhowissuchanewcreationofChristianideas – andthatwithinabaretwoorthree decadesafterthedeathofJesus – atallconceivable? ... Thiswantofconnectionmusthave someexplanation” (vii).
Schweitzer, PaulandHisInterpreters,x.
Rom :;cf.Gal :–;Rom :, .SeeE.P.Sanders, “PatternsofReligioninPaul andRabbinicJudaism” ().
non-JewsasequalmembersinthecommunitiesofJesus-followers. Despitesigni ficantadvancesoverthepastcentury,thepositionofPaul hasremaineddif ficulttodefi neandhasbeenthesubjectofsigni ficant scholarlyreappraisalinrecentdecades.Paul’sdistinctiveinsistenceonthe inclusionofuncircumcised “gentiles” (thatis,non-Jews)asfullmembers ofcommunitiesdevotedtofollowingJesusasthemessiahofIsraelserved asakeypivotpointinthetransitionfromasmallJewishsecttothe primarilygentilemovementagenerationlater. Buttherationaleforthat inclusion – andhowit fitswithGod’splanforIsraelasPaulunderstands it – hascontinuedtoengenderconsiderableinquiryanddebate.
Thatisnottosaythatnoprogresshasbeenmade,asmuchthatcould betakenforgrantedinSchweitzer ’sdayhasbeenweighedandfound wanting.Forexample,evenagenerationago,mostscholarlyworkcould presumeatraditional(mostlyProtestant)viewinwhichPaulunderstood JesustohaveabolishedtheTorah,resultingintheuniversal “law-free ” messageof “justi ficationbyfaith” asopposedtoJewish “legalism ” or “works-righteousness ”– thatis,theideathatonemustobservetheTorah toachieveGod’sfavorthroughone’srighteousworks,ataskPaul allegedlyfoundonerousandimpossiblebeforehis “conversion” to “Christianity. ” Inthismodel,theinclusionofgentilesinthenew ChristiancommunityisthereforeanaturaloutgrowthofPaul’srealizationthatsalvationcouldnotbeachievedthroughobediencetothe Torah – whichChristabolished – butisinsteadfreelyavailabletoanyone whobelievesinChristwithoutregardforworks.Consequently,non-Jews nowhavethesameaccesstosalvationasJews,whose “legalism ” or “works-righteousness ” providesthefoilforPaul’suniversalmessage.In thismodel,Paul’snew “Christianreligion” hassuperseded “Judaism,”
Seetheexcursusattheendofthischapterfordiscussionofthedifficultiesinvolvedinthe translationoftheterms “Jews” and “gentiles.”
Forsummariesandassessmentsofsomeoftherecenttrendsinthisarea,seeMatthew Novenson, “WhitherthePaulwithinJudaism Schule?” ();MagnusZetterholm, “Paul withinJudaism” ();N.T.Wright, PaulandHisRecentInterpreters ();Wright, “PaulinCurrentAnglophoneScholarship” ();JohnM.G.Barclay, “Paul,Judaism, andtheJewishPeople” ();ChristopherZoccali, WhomGodHasCalled (); ChristineGerber, “BlickeaufPaulus” ();GuntherWenz, “OldPerspectiveson Paul” ();MagnusZetterholm, ApproachestoPaul ();MichaelF.Birdand PrestonM.Sprinkle, “JewishInterpretationofPaulintheLastThirtyYears” (). Foranolderbutstillrelevantsummaryoftheseissues,seeTerenceL.Donaldson, Pauland theGentiles (),esp. – “Judaism” isanotherproblematicterm,inpartbecauseofcenturiesofbaggageinwhichit hasservedtodescribethe(alleged)religiousorculturalcharacteristicsofJewsoverand againstChristianity.Butthetermisalsodifficultbecauseitisanabstractcategory
andthechurchhasbecomethe “trueIsrael,” effectivelyreplacingthe disobedientJewswhohaverefusedthegospel.
Thoughthisreadinghasbynomeansdisappeared,itcannolongerbe takenforgrantedbecauseofmanyfaultsfoundinitsfoundation – most notablyintheallegedoppositionbetween ”Jewishlegalism ” andPaul’s messageof “grace” and “justi ficationbyfaith.” First,asKristerStendahl famouslypointedoutin “PaulandtheIntrospectiveConscienceofthe West,” theapostlegivesnoindicationofhavinghadaguiltyconscienceor ofhavinghadanydif ficultykeepingtheTorah – aviewStendahlidenti fies ashavingderivedfromAugustineratherthanPaul.Instead,Paulhada “rather ‘robust’ conscience,” declaringthathehadbeen “blamelesswith respecttorighteousnesswhichisintheTorah” (Phil :)andcontinuing toemphasizetheimportanceofobediencethroughouthisletters,warning hishearersthatallwillreapwhattheyhavesown(Gal :–)andwillbe judgedbasedonworks( :–).ItisthereforeunlikelythatPaularrived atthedoctrineofjusti ficationbyfaithinoppositiontoobedienceto Torahandthenconcludedthatgentilescouldbeincludedonthatbasis. Then,evenmoresignifi cantly,E.P.Sanders’ landmark Pauland PalestinianJudaism ()demonstratedthatJewishbeliefandpractice inPaul’sdaydidnotresemblethetraditionallegalisticimagepresumedby Paulineinterpreters,making “works-righteousness” animplausiblefoil forPaul’sgospel. ThismorerobustunderstandingoftheJudaismof describingthecustoms,culture,andboundariesofaparticularsocialgroup(orsetof groups)andbecausethecharacteristicsof “Judaism” arevariegatedandencompassboth whatwouldtypicallybecalled “ethnic” and “religious” categoriestoday.Wherethat termappearsinthisstudy,itreferstocustoms,practices,andtheologicalperspectives commonamongthoseidentifiedas Ioudaioi intheSecondTempleperiod.Onthe difficultiesinherentintheterm “Judaism,” seeMichaelL.Satlow, “DefiningJudaism” ();Satlow, “AHistoryoftheJewsorJudaism?” ();SethSchwartz, “HowMany JudaismsWereThere?” ();andthediscussionintheexcursusattheendof thischapter.
SeeMarcelSimon, VerusIsrael (), –;DeniseKimberBuell, WhyThisNew Race? (), –. KristerStendahl, “TheApostlePaulandtheIntrospectiveConscienceoftheWest” (), ;arevisedEnglishversionofStendahl, “PaulusochSamvetet” ().
Sanderswasnotthe firsttochallengetheimageofJudaismasalegalistictheologyofmerit butratherbuiltontheworkofearlierscholarssuchasC.G.Montefiore, JudaismandSt. Paul ();GeorgeFootMoore, “ChristianWritersonJudaism” ();W.D.Davies, PaulandRabbinicJudaism ();SolomonSchechter, AspectsofRabbinicTheology ();andothers.MarkusBarth, Ephesians (), –,alsoanticipatesSanders’ moreextendedtreatmentinmanyrespects.Butwhereastheirprotestshadgonelargely unheeded,Sanderssynthesizedatourdeforcethatcouldnolongerbeignored,resulting
Paul’sdayledtoa “NewPerspective” onPaul’sgospel. Nevertheless, mostproponentsoftheNewPerspectivehavestilloperatedfromthe assumptionthatPaulmusthavefound something wrongwithJudaism, followingSandersinunderstandingPaulandJudaismasrepresentingtwo distinct “patternsofreligion. ” With “Jewishlegalism” nolongeran obviousfoil,manyhavesincerelocatedPaul’sobjectiontoJudaismfrom thesupposed rationale fortheinclusionofgentilestothe fact ofthe inclusionofgentilesitself.Thatis,PaulrejectedJewishinsistenceon ethnicidentityasanecessarycomponentofmembershipamongGod’s peopleinfavorofaraciallyinclusiveChristianityexempli fiedinhis declarationthat “inChrist,thereisneitherJewnorGreek” (Gal :). Essentially,ratherthanrejectinglegalism,Paul’sgospelisbased onarejectionofracism,andthecoreofhisgospelwas,inN.T.Wright’s words, “grace,notrace.” JamesD.G.Dunnexplains: FortheJudaismwhichfocuseditsidentitymostfullyintheTorah,andwhich founditselfunabletoseparateethnicidentityfromreligiousidentity,Paulandthe Gentilemissioninvolvedanirreparablebreach.
AtitshistoricheartChristianityisaprotest againstanyandeveryattemptto markoffsomeofGod’speopleasmoreholythanothers,asexclusivechannelsof divinegrace.
ThismodeldoeshavetheadvantageofnotsettingPaulagainstthe imaginaryandanachronisticbogeymanoflegalism,butitlacksone strengthofthetraditionalreading:aplausibleexplanationforPaul’s objectiontoethnocentrism.Instead,thisapproachsimplypresumesthat
inaparadigmshift.SeealsoDanielR.Langton, “TheMythofthe ‘TraditionalViewof Paul’” ().
JamesD.G.Dunnisusuallycreditedwithpopularizingtheterm “NewPerspectiveon Paul” inhis MansonMemorialLecture,publishedas “TheNewPerspectiveon Paul” (),thoughitwouldbemoreaccuratetocallitanewperspectiveonJudaism forPaulinestudies.SeethesummaryinMarkD.NanosandMagnusZetterholm,eds., PaulwithinJudaism (), –.
ThephrasecomesfromthesubtitleofSanders, PPJ.Elsewhere,Sanders(Paul,theLaw, andtheJewishPeople [], –)concludesthat “Paul’sbreak[withJudaism]is clearlyperceptible.”
E.g.,JamesD.G.Dunn, Jesus,Paul,andtheLaw (), –, –;N.T. Wright, TheClimaxoftheCovenant (), , , ;BruceW.Longenecker, EschatologyandtheCovenant (), –;DanielBoyarin, ARadicalJew ().
Wright, Climax,
JamesD.G.Dunn, ThePartingsoftheWaysbetweenChristianityandJudaism (), .
Dunn, ThePartingsoftheWays, –
Paul’sencounterwithJesusmusthavecausedhimtorealizethatopenness andinclusivenessareprimafaciesuperiortoexclusivityandparticularity, anunlikelyconclusionforaJewlivinginthe fi rst-centuryRomanEmpire. ItisalsohardlymerecoincidencethatagroupofWesternscholars fromthelatetwentiethcenturydiscoveredthatPaul’sgospelwasreally aboutinclusivenessandoppositiontoracism. “Inclusiveness” is,afterall, arguablythehighestvirtueinpostmodernWesternculture.TheNew Perspectivehasthereforeexchangedanantithesismoreathomeinthe sixteenthcentury(merit/grace)foronebettersuitedtothetwenty-first century(racism/inclusiveness). ByinterpretingPaul’smessageasthe gospelofinclusiveness, Paul’sinterpretershaveonceagainlookeddown thedeepwellofhistoryandseentheirownfacesreflectedbackatthem. Moreover,bytrading “legalism ” for “ethnocentrism,” muchNew Perspectivescholarshipironicallyandunfortunatelyrepresentsaretreat totheanti-Jewishtendenciesofpre-SchweitzerPaulinescholarship,effectivelyportrayingPaulastheenlightenedapostleofmodernliberalism, embracinginclusiveandprogressiveidealsoverandagainstaregressive Jewishparticularism.
DavidI.Starling, NotMyPeople:GentilesasExilesinPaulineHermeneutics (),
See,forexample,thediscussioninJacobNeusner, “WasRabbinicJudaismReally ‘Ethnic’?” (),
ThisimageisoftenassociatedwithSchweitzerbutinfactderivesfromGeorgeTyrrell, ChristianityattheCross-roads (), .
“MostscholarshiptakesasitsstartingpointthepositionthatIsraelintheJudaismofthat timeisethnic,buttheGospel,universal.ChristianityimprovedonJudaismbybringingto allthepeoplesoftheworldwhathadoriginallybeenkeptforonepeoplealone .The contrastbetweentheethnicJudaismandtheuniversalistChristianityderivesfromthe presentationofIsraelbytheapostlePaul” (JacobNeusner, “ThePremiseofPaul’sEthnic Israel” [], ).SeealsoMarkD.Nanos, “Introduction” (), –;Kathy Ehrensperger, ThatWeMayBeMutuallyEncouraged (), –.OntheantiJewishperspectivesofthepre-Schweitzerera,seeBarclay, “Paul,Judaism,andthe JewishPeople,” ;foranexample,seeFerdinandChristianBaur, TheChurch HistoryoftheFirstThreeCenturies (), ..SuchanimageofaprogressivePaul atoddswithregressive,racistJudaismisobviouslycoherentwiththeanti-Semiticzeitgeist leadinguptotheHolocaust,astheJewsweremalignedfortheirunwillingnesstoleave behindtheirJewishparticularitiesandfullyassimilateintotheirwidernationalsocieties, aswasexpectedupontheiremancipation.SeeStevenBeller, Antisemitism (), –; DavidJanSorkin, TheTransformationofGermanJewry, – (), –; JonathanM.Hess, “JewishEmancipationandthePoliticsofRace” ();Hess, Germans,Jews,andtheClaimsofModernity ();DavidLeeBrodbeck, Defining Deutschtum (), –.Foracloserlookathowmodernconcernshaveimposedon theinterpretationofRom –,seeKlausHaacker, “DasThemavonRömer – als ProblemderAuslegungsgeschicte” ().
Introduction
ThatPaul’sgospelamountstoarejectionofparticularismisalsodifficult tosquarewiththetroublesomefactthatPaulhimselfestablishedgroupsset apartbyandtotheGodofIsrael. InasmuchasPaul’sowngroupshadclear boundariesandexpectationsofinsidersindistinctionfromoutsiders,Paul doesnotrejectparticularityinprinciple.ThedisputebetweenPaulandhis opponentsdoesnotpit “particularism” versus “inclusion” nordoesitcall intoquestionwhetherthereshouldbeaparticularist,exclusivepeopleof Godatall.Instead,thedebateconcernstheproperlocationoftheboundariesfortheexclusivecommunityofGod’speople;andalthoughmanyhave assumedPaulfoundsomethingwrongwithJudaismleadingtohisconversiontoChristianity,Paulpresentshistransitionasa revelation anda call fromIsrael’sGodincontinuitywiththetheologicalframeworkhehad previouslyembraced. Paulneverpresentshimselfashavingdepartedfrom Israelorashavingcreatedsomethingentirelynew,insteaddeclaring, “Itoo amanIsraelite!” (Rom :)andcontinuingtotreattheTorahandIsraelite prophetsasauthoritativescripture.
Paul’sownargumentsarealsostrikinglyethnocentric,startingwithhis claimofJewishpriorityinthegospel:thegospelis “fi rsttotheJewand thentotheGreek” (e.g.,Rom :).AndcontrarytoSanders’ conclusion thatPaul “deniestwopillarscommontoallformsofJudaism:theelection ofIsraelandfaithfulnesstotheMosaiclaw,” Paulvigorouslydefends Israel’sspecialstatus,concludingthreefullchaptersdefendingGod’s fidelitytoIsrael(Rom –)withthedeclaration “thusallIsraelwillbe saved” (Rom :).ThisethnocentricdictumcloselyparallelsthedeclarationoftheMishnahthat “AllIsraelhasapartintheworldtocome” (m.Sanh. :)andwouldhardlybesurprisingfromanyotherJewish thinkeroftheperiod.Butitwouldbeanexceedinglystrangesentiment comingfromsomeonewhodeniestheelectionofIsrael.
SomemoderninterpretershavefoundPaul’sdeclarationofIsrael’s salvationsoforeigntoPaul’sthoughtastosuggest – despitethelackof anytextualevidence – thatitmustbealaterinterpolation, whileothers
SeeNanos, “Introduction,” –;CarolineJohnsonHodge, IfSons,ThenHeirs (), –. SeeKristerStendahl, PaulamongJewsandGentiles (), –. SeeAndersRunesson, “TheQuestionofTerminology:TheArchitectureof ContemporaryDiscussionsonPaul” ()andMarkD.Nanos, “PaulandJudaism: WhyNotPaul’sJudaism?” (), –
Sanders, PLJP, –.
E.g.,ChristophPlag, IsraelsWegezumHeil (), .SeealsoJohnC.O’Neill, Paul’ s LettertotheRomans (),
haveconcludedthatPaulhereshowsa “startlinglackoflogicalconsistency,” backtrackingonhispriorclaimsabouttheequalityofallbefore God. StillothershavesuggestedthatPaul,awarehisargumentscould betakentoofar,suddenlymakesadefensefortheverythingagainst whichhehasbeenarguinginordertopreventsuchabuse, withRomans – anditsconclusion(asSandersdeclares) “adesperateexpedient” to resolve “aproblemofconfl ictingconvictions.”
RecognizingthisproblemwiththetypicalNewPerspectiveapproach, somescholarshaveproposedthatratherthancomparing “Pauland Judaism,” itisbettertothinkof “PaulwithinJudaism.” Inthis approach,PaulisunderstoodasneverhavingdepartedfromJudaismat all.Instead,ratherthanJudaismservingasa “background” orafoilfor thecreationofsomethingentirelynew,Paulisunderstoodasremaining partofalargerJewishdiscourse,retaininghiscommitmenttoIsrael’s specialelectionandthedivineauthorityoftheTorah,andcontinuingto practiceJudaismasheunderstoodit.Sometakingthisapproachhave suggestedthatPaul’sgospelisultimatelyfocusedon fixingthe “gentile problem”– thatis,theidolatrousandimmoralnaturesharedbygentiles (butnotJews)thatkeepsgentilesfromknowingGod. Inthisframework,bothJewishandgentilefollowersofJesusmustkeepGod’scommands,butthesecommandsdifferforthetwogroups – Jewsare “obligatedtokeepthewholeTorah” (Gal :),whilegentilesareobligatedtoasmallersetofdivinecommands. Paulthereforearguesagainst
TerenceL.Donaldson, “RichesfortheGentiles” (),
E.g.,HeikkiRäisänen, “Paul,God,andIsrael” (), , –;Räisänen, Pauland theLaw (),xxiii;PeterRichardson, IsraelintheApostolicChurch (), –; W.D.Davies, “PaulandthePeopleofIsrael” (), ;FrancisWatson, Paul,Judaism, andtheGentiles (), .WilliamCampbell(“DivergentImagesofPaulandHis Mission” [], )arguesthatPaulshouldnotbeheldtomodernstandardsof consistencyandlogic.Nevertheless,althoughitispossiblethatPaul’sargumentsare contingenttothepointofbeingcontradictoryorincoherent,thisconclusionshouldonly bealastresort.
E.g.,DavidRavens, LukeandtheRestorationofIsrael (), .
Sanders, PLJP, .
SeetherecentcollectionofessaysinNanosandZetterholm, PaulWithinJudaism.On thisgroupas “theRadicals,” seePamelaEisenbaum, “Paul,Polemics,andtheProblemof Essentialism” (), –.Cf.Zetterholm, ApproachestoPaul, –,underthe subheading “BeyondtheNewPerspective.” SeealsoNanos, “WhyNotPaul’sJudaism?” ; WilliamS.Campbell, “PerceptionsofCompatibilitybetweenChristianityandJudaismin PaulineInterpretation” ();BirdandSprinkle, “JewishInterpretationofPaul” ; Ehrensperger, ThatWeMayBeMutuallyEncouraged, –.
SeeespeciallyMatthewThiessen, PaulandtheGentileProblem ().
Thiessen, PaulandtheGentileProblem,
gentilecircumcisionbecausetheTorahdoesnotcommandgentilestobe circumcisedbutonlythedescendantsofAbraham,speci ficallythose withinIsrael,theheirofAbraham’scovenant. Similarly,Paul’sother argumentsabouttheinef ficacyof “worksofTorah” applyonlytononJews,whileJewsremainresponsibletokeeptheTorahofMosesinthe samewaytheyhadbeenbeforeJesus’ deathandresurrection.
The “PaulwithinJudaism” perspectivehasmuchtocommendit,and thisbookwillsimilarlyarguethatPaulneverabandonedthetheological, eschatological,andethnicframeworkheheldbeforehecametoidentify JesusasIsrael’smessiah.Nevertheless,itcannotbedeniedthatPaul declaresthat “bothJewsandGreeksareallundersin” (Rom :),that “allwhoarefromworksofTorahareunderacurse” (Gal :),that Mosesadministered “theministryofdeath” ( Cor :),that “messiahis theend/goal[telos]ofTorah” (Rom :),andthatGodhasbrokenoff “naturalbranches” fromhispeopleduetoinfidelity(:–).These statementsandmanyotherslikethemaredifficulttosquarewiththeidea thatPaulunderstandshisgospelandministryasapplyingonlytopagans whileJewsaretocontinueasbefore. ’ ( ) ?
WhetherconsideringPaulasoperatingwithinJudaismorotherwise,a persuasiveexplanationforhowPaulunderstandsthestatusofuncircumcisedJesus-followershasremainedespeciallyelusive.Ontheonehand, Paulcontinuestodistinguishbetweentheseuncircumcisedindividuals andJews(e.g.,Rom :;Gal :)andvigorouslyarguesthatgentiles shouldnotundergocircumcisionorattempttobecomeJews(e.g.,Gal :–).Ontheotherhand,Paul’sgospelrequiresthatthesepersons abandontheirowngodsandtraditionalnormsandpractices,pledging loyaltytoIsrael’smessiahandworshipingonlytheGodofIsrael – commitmentsandpracticesotherwiseassociatedwithJewishethnicity.Even moresigni ficantly,PaulalsoregularlyappliesIsraelitelanguageand
PamelaEisenbaum, PaulWasNotaChristian (), –.Othersarguingalongthese lines(withsomevariation)includeLloydGaston, PaulandtheTorah ();John G.Gager, ReinventingPaul ();StanleyK.Stowers, ARereadingofRomans ();JohnsonHodge, IfSons,ThenHeirs;RunarM.Thorsteinsson, Paul’ s InterlocutorinRomans ();RafaelRodríguez, IfYouCallYourselfaJew (); NanosandZetterholm, PaulwithinJudaism;Thiessen, PaulandtheGentileProblem; andPaulaFredriksen, Paul:ThePagans’ Apostle ().
WhoArePaul’s(Former)Gentiles?
ethnicmarkers – evenpropheciesspeci ficallyaboutIsrael – tothese uncircumcisedindividuals(e.g.,Rom :–; :)andgoessofaras tocallthem former gentiles( Cor :),includethemamongtheseedof Abraham(Gal :),andrefertothemasdescendantsofbiblicalIsrael ( Cor :). ThesepersonsarethereforenotJews,buttheyarenot exactlygentilesanymore, andiftheyaredescendantsofbiblicalIsrael, theycannotbe “ex-paganpagans,” either.
Itshouldbenotedthattheideathatgentilesdidnotneedtoundergo circumcisionorbecomeJewsinordertoworshiptheGodofIsraelor attaineschatologicalsalvationwasbynomeansunusualinearly Judaism. Afterall,therewasacourtofthenationsatthetempleto allowgentilestoworshipYHWH,andtheProphetspredictedthatafter Israel’srestorationthenationswouldstreamtoJerusalemandserve Israel’sGod.Consequently,thedebateoverwhethergentilesshouldor mustbecircumcisedonlymakessenseifitconcernsgentilesbecoming membersofthecovenant.Paul’sopponentsareadvocatingcircumcision foradultgentilesasameansofincorporationinIsrael’scovenant, markingstatustransitionfrom “gentile” to “Israelite.” Paulcouldhave
OnPaul’sportrayalofgentilesinquasi-Israeliteterms,seeStarling, NotMyPeople; CavanW.Concannon, “WhenYouWereGentiles” ().ThatPaulincludesformer gentilesasdescendantsofbiblicalIsraelin Cor : isasignificantproblemfortheidea thatheseesthemasincorporatedintoAbrahambutnotIsrael.
AsobservedbyJoshuaD.Garroway, “TheCircumcisionofChrist:Romans –” (), –.
Pace Fredriksen, ThePagans’ Apostle, –.Althoughelsewhereemphasizingtheethnic natureofancientMediterraneandeitiesandtheology,FredriksenarguesthatPaulisan exception,suchthatthe “sharpdichotomy[betweenIsraelandthenations]isresolved theologically butnot ethnically” (,emphasisoriginal),despitethefactthatPaul explicitlyusesethnicterminologytorefertohisex-paganconverts.Foracritiqueof Fredriksen’sconceptof “ex-paganpagans” theologicallybutnotethnicallyincludedin thepeopleofGod,seeDenysN.McDonald, “‘Ex-PaganPagans’?Paul,Philo,and GentileEthnicReconfiguration” ()andtheresponseofFredriksen, “Paul,Pagans andEschatologicalEthnicities:AResponsetoDenysMcDonald” ().
SeeNanos, “WhyNotPaul’sJudaism?,” –;Eisenbaum, PaulWasNotaChristian, –;PaulaFredriksen, “Judaism,theCircumcisionofGentiles,andApocalyptic Hope” ();Donaldson, PaulandtheGentiles, –;JohnM.G.Barclay, Jewsin theMediterraneanDiaspora (), –;JeromeMurphy-O’Connor, “LotsofGodFearers?” ();ShayeJ.D.Cohen, “CrossingtheBoundaryandBecomingaJew” (), –;JohnG.Gager, TheOriginsofAnti-Semitism (), –; “Jews, Gentiles,andSynagoguesintheBookofActs” (). E.g.,Jdt :,whichequatescircumcisionwithbeingjoinedtoIsrael.Oncircumcision asthemechanismforfullconversion,seeShayeJ.D.Cohen, TheBeginningsof Jewishness (), –, –, –;Cohen, “CrossingtheBoundary” ; Thiessen, PaulandtheGentileProblem, –.Thefrequencyofconversionsinvolving
