Law as a Problematic Aspect of Religion

LawasaProblematicAspectofReligion

Paul’sSkepticisminaBroaderJewishContext

SergeRuzer

IINTRODUCTION

Inhispioneeringstudies,E.P.SandersdescribedlateSecondTempleJudaismas “covenantal nomism”inthesensethatwhilethedemandsofthelawasderivedfrom theTorahconstituteacoreelementofthecovenantalrelationshipbetweenGodand Israel,thecovenantisnotexhaustedbyitslaw-centeredaspect.Itincludesadditional foundationalcomponentslikeelection,God’sfaithfulness,hismercy,andmechanismsofatonementandreconciliation.Asthetitleofhisbookwherethetermwasfirst introducedindicates,1 itisinconversationwithviewsfoundintheepistlesofPaul, pennedmostlyduringthe 50softhefirstcenturyCE,thatthescholarwasableto portraythismorenuancedpictureofthecontemporaneousJudaism.Nowonder–Paul,amemberofthenascentJesusmovement,amessianicoffshootofbroader Judaism,providesmanyexamplesofcopingwiththelaw-centeredtenetsofreligion juxtaposedtothoseofGod’smercyrevealedinmessianicredemption.Thischapter attemptstofurtherclarifycertainaspectsofSanders’importantintuition.

Paulusesextensivelytheterm nomos (law)withavarietyofmeanings:sometimes thismayrefertoauniversallaw,archetypallawofthecosmos,which,asalreadythe HellenisticJewishsecond-centuryBCE LetterofAristeas argued,essentiallyoverlaps withthelawrevealedintheTorah.2 I,however,focushereonthecaseswherethe particularJewishmeaningof nomos asrelatedtoTorahisclearlyindicatedbythe context.ThisfocuswillallowtorevisittheissueofPaul’sgraspoftheinteractions betweenvariouspartsoftheTorah-centeredlawandtheirstandingvis-a`-visother aspectsofthecovenant.ContextualizingPaul’sstrategiesagainstthebackdropofthe

1 EdP.Sanders, PaulandPalestinianJudaism:AComparisonofPatternsofReligion (Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1977).SeealsoEdP.Sanders,“‘ACovenanttothePeople,aLighttotheNations’: Universalism,Exceptionalism,andtheProblemofChosennessinJewishThought,” JewishStudies Quarterly 16 1 (2009): 23–55

2 TheequationthatwouldbelaterpropagatedbyPhilo,seediscussioninChristineHayes, WhatIs DivineaboutDivineLaw? (PrincetonandOxford:PrincetonUniversityPress, 2015), 122–24.Thatthe outlinesofuniversallawwereavailabletotheGentileswithouttheTorahandthustheyareresponsible forfulfillingit,seemstobeindicatedinRom 2:12:“Allthosewhosinnedwithoutthelaw/Torahwill alsoperishwithoutthelaw/Torah.”

varietyofearlyJewishthoughtpatterns,Iwouldarguethatwhilepropagating asingular,Jesus-centered,message–inmanycasesexplicitlydirectedatGentile fellow-travelers–PaulalsoaddressesconcernsofhisimplicitJewishaudience.His argumentsthusechoandbearwitnesstoabroaderintra-Jewishawarenessofthe problematicaspectofthenotionofreligionasfirstandforemostlaw.

IITORAHANDTHEWORKSOFTHETORAH

ScholarshavelongrecognizednascentChristianity’smultifacetednaturereflected invarious,sometimescontradictory,emphasesfoundwithintheJesusmovement duringthefirstdecadesofitshistory.AttitudestothedemandsofJewishreligious law,asexpressed,ontheonehand,intheBookofActs,and,ontheotherhand,in Paul’sauthenticlettersprovideatellingexampleofsuchunresolvedtension. AccordingtoActs,inthetimesofmessianicredemptionthoseGentileswhobecome partoftheJesusmovementareexemptfromembracingsomeritualmarkersof belongingtoJudaism.However,thecontinuingfaithfulnessofJewishbelieversin Jesustothesepreceptsisneverquestioned,butratherpresentedasharmoniouswith theiradherencetoJesustheMessiah(Acts 15:1–29; 21:18–25).3 Asamatteroffact,it seemsthatevenGentileswillingtoembracesomepositiveMosaicritualprescriptions,preachedintheDiasporasynagogues,arewelcometodosoor,atleast,not reprimandedforthisinclination.4

Paul’swritings,however,aredistinguishedbyadifferentandclearlypolemical emphasis,unequivocallydenyingthecapacityofJudaism’sritualprescriptionsto contributetothecleansingofthehearts.Theseprescriptionsmighthavehadsuch

3 Thustheauthorcharacteristicallyinsists–inabalancingactcompensatingforthetragicStephen episodeinActs 7 –thatnotonlythefirstJerusalem-basedapostlesbutalsoPaul,returningtothecityin thewakeofhispraiseworthymissionarysuccessesamongthenon-JewsintheDiaspora,remained faithfultotheTemple,undoubtedlythecoreelementofJewishritualobservanceoftheday(Acts 2:46; 21:26).SeeHansConzelmann, ActsoftheApostles:ACommentaryontheActsoftheApostles (Hermeneia;Philadelphia:Fortress, 1987), 24.Fordiscussionofthenarrativestrategiesthroughout Acts,see,forexample,StevenG.Wilson, TheGentilesandtheGentileMissioninLuke-Acts (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1973);RobertL.Brawley, Luke-ActsandtheJews: Conflict,Apology,andConciliation (Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress, 1987);SergeRuzer,“Crucifixion: TheSearchforaMeaningvis-a`-visBiblicalProphecy.FromLuketoActs,”in MappingtheNew Testament:EarlyChristianWritingsasaWitnessforJewishBiblicalExegesis (Leiden:Brill, 2007), 187–99.SeealsoJustinTaylor,“PaulandtheJewishLeadersatRome:Acts 28:17–31,”in Paul’sJewish Matrix,eds.ThomasG.CaseyandJustinTaylor(Rome:GregorianandBiblicalPress, 2011), 311–26 Butcf.MartinHengel,“TheBeginningsofChristianityasaJewish-MessianicandUniversalistic Movement,”in TheBeginningsofChristianity:ACollectionofArticles,eds.J.PastorandM.Mor (Jerusalem:YadBen-Zvi, 2005, 85–100;MartinHengel, TheAtonement:TheOriginsoftheDoctrinein theNewTestament (Philadelphia:FortressPress, 1981).InHengel’sview,theinsightthatthefulfillmentofTorahritualdemandsingeneral(and,morespecifically,thoseconnectedtoTempleworship) haslostitsabilitytoeffectforgivenessofsinsandaplaceintheworld-to-come,constitutedasalient markeroftheearlyJesusmovementasawholealmostfromitsinception,andthusdistinguishedit frombroaderJudaism.

4 SeeActs 15:21.

acapacityinthepast;butinthemessianicera,itisexclusivelyidentificationwith and“sharing”intheMessiah’sexpiatingdeath,andbeliefinhisresurrection,that constitutethepathleadingtosalvation–bygraceandnotbyacquiredmerit.Itisin thiseither-orcontextcharacterizingtheEpistletotheGalatiansthatPaulcomesto viewthose“external”preceptsasharmful,asblockingthewaytoindividualjustificationintheeyesofGodthroughgrace(Gal. 2:21,cf.Rom. 3:20):“Idonotnullify thegraceofGod;forifjustificationwerethroughthelaw(nomos,Torah?),then Christdiedtonopurpose.”Moreover,thosewhostillputtheirhopeinthe“worksof thelaw(Torah)”arebringinguponthemselves“law’s/Torah’scurse”(Gal 3:10–11, 6:15).Theargumentinchapter 2 oftheepistle,wherethephrasethe“worksofthe nomos,”obviouslycentralforPaul’sthinkingthere,isusedrepeatedlyandemphatically,strengthenstheunderstandingthat nomos heremeansspecificallytheTorah ofIsrael(Gal. 2:15-16):5

Weourselves,whoareJewsbybirthandnotGentilesinners,yetwhoknowthat amanisnotjustifiedbyworksofthelaw(ἐξ ἔργω όμου),butthroughfaithin JesusChrist/theMessiah,evenwehavebelievedinChrist/theMessiahJesus,in ordertobejustifiedbyfaithinChrist,andnotbyworksofthelaw(οὐκ ἐξ ἔργω όμου),becausebyworksofthelaw(ἐξ ἔργω όμου)shallnoonebejustified.

TheEpistletotheGalatiansisexplicitlyaddressedtoGentilefollowersofJesusin Galatia,whoareunderpressurefromsomerepresentativesoftheJewishsectionof themovementtoembraceJudaism’sritualpractices,firstofallcircumcisionsothat theJewsandtheGentilesofthemessianicgroupcanbecomeonecommunity,for example,eattogether(Gal. 2:11–14).6 Onethenisjustifiedinviewingthe“worksof theTorah”languageasbelongingtothediscussionofthatcoreissue–inother words,thephraseseemstodesignatetheritualmarkersofJewishtradition. Therefore,the“worksofthelaw, ἔργα όμου,”thatPaulexpressesdoubtswith regardtotheireffectiveness(Gal. 2:15–21)shouldbeunderstoodinthiscontextin alimitedsense–namely,asdesignatingthosepracticesprescribedbytheTorahthat serveas“identitybadges”separatingJewsfromtheirGentileneighbors.Theyare thusdistinguishedfromthe“corecommandments”definingGod’scovenantwith IsraelortheTorah( όμος)proper,suchastheDecalogueandLeviticus 19:18 –passagesthatindisputablyretaintheircentralityintheapostle’sinterpretationofthe messianicsalvationinJesus,asforcefullyexpressed,e.g.,inGal 5:14. 7 Suchan understandingofthe“worksofthelaw”findscorroborationintheמעשיהתורה (ma’aseiha-torah, theworksoftheTorah)usageattestedin 4QMMTfrom

5 TheEnglishquotationsfromtheOldandNewTestamentsthroughoutthischapterarefromtheRSV.

6 Fordiscussionofthenatureofthe“Galatiancrisis,”see,forexample,FrancisWatson, Paul,Judaism, andtheGentiles:BeyondtheNewPerspective (GrandRapids,MI;Eerdmans, 2007), 100–08

7 SeeJamesD.G.Dunn,“WorksoftheLawandtheCurseoftheLaw(Galatians 3:10–4),” NTS 31 4 (1985): 523–42.ForacriticismofDunn’sthesis,seeCharlesE.B.Cranfield,“TheWorksoftheLawin theEpistletotheRomans,” JSNT 43 (1991): 89–101;Dunn’sresponseisfoundinhis“YetOnceMore ‘TheWorksoftheLaw’:AResponse,” JSNT 46 (1992): 99–117.

346 SergeRuzer

Qumran,wherethephrasedenotesritualprecepts,markingtheproperobservance oftheTemplecult,corruptedaccordingtothecomposersofthedocumentbythe currentpriestlyleadership.8 Thisritualunderstandingisfurtherconfirmedwhen Paulreiteratesthecoreoppositionmentionedabove(Gal. 5:2):“Now,I,Paul,sayto youthatifyoureceivecircumcision,Messiah/Christwillbeofnoadvantagetoyou.”

Suchareading,highlightingtheGentileswithintheJesusmovementasPaul’s intendedaudience,supportstheinterpretationsuggestedbyanumberofinfluential scholarssubscribingtowhatisnowcustomarilycalledtheNewPerspectiveonPaul. AmongthemKristerStendahl,JohnGager,andPaulaFredriksen,whoemphasized thespecificcontextinwhichPaul’sharshstatementsconcerningthe(worksofthe) Torahweremeanttoresonate–namely,thenon-Jewishaddresseesoftheapostle’s writings.9 Itwasargued,moreover,thatPaul’sclaimthatpiousGentilesdonothave toobservethepositiveritualpreceptsoftheTorah,forexample,performcircumcision(whereastheprohibitionofparticipatinginidolworshipwasemphatically upheldbyPaulwithregardtotheGentilefellowtravelerstoo),10 infactfollowed anaccepted,particularlyintheHellenisticDiaspora,Jewishperception.Namely, eveninthelastdays,theGentileswilljointheredemptioninaccordancewiththe patternfoundinthebiblicalprophecy,thatis,asGentiles,withoutblurringthe borderlinebetweenIsraelandthenations.FollowingIsaiah’sprophecy,thenations willcometothemountainoftheLordtoservehimtogetherwiththeJewsand becomeprivytothecoremessagesofGod’sTorah,whileremainingethnicallyand culturallydistinctfromthepeopleofIsrael.11 Accordingtothisinfluentialapproach,

8 4Q398 (4QMMTe),Frags. 14–17, 2:2–8; 4Q399 (4QMMTf), 1:11.SeeDunn,“WorksoftheLaw”; JosephA.Fitzmyer,“Paul’sJewishBackgroundandtheDeedsoftheLaw,”in AccordingtoPaul: StudiesintheTheologyoftheApostle (Mahwah,NJ:PaulistPress, 1993), 8–35,esp. 21–23.Foravariety ofappraisals–mostlydifferingfromDunn’s–ofthelinkobservedherebetweenPauland 4QMMT, seeMartinG.Abegg,Jr.,“Paul,‘WorksoftheLaw’andMMT,” BAR 20:6 (1994): 52–61, 82;idem, “ 4QMMT,Paul,and‘WorksoftheLaw’,”in TheBibleatQumran:Text,Shape,andInterpretation, ed.PeterW.Flint(StudiesintheDeadSeaScrollsandRelatedLiterature;GrandRapids,MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 203–16,esp. 205–06;TomN.Wright,“PaulandQumran,” BR 14.5 (1998): 18–54, esp. 54;JacquelineC.R.deRoo,“TheConceptof‘WorksoftheLaw’inJewishandChristian Literature,”in Christian-JewishRelationshipsthroughtheCenturies,eds.StanleyE.PorterandBrook W.R.Pearson(Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress, 2000), 116–47.Itdeservesnoticethatitisinthis contextthatPaulmovestotalkaboutAbraham,forwhomhisfaith“wasreckonedasrighteousness” (Gen. 15:6)longbeforehewascircumcised(Gal. 3:6–9).

9 See,forexample,KristerStendahl, FinalAccount:Paul’sLettertotheRomans (Minneapolis,MN: AugsburgFortress, 1995);JohnGager, ReinventingPaul (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 2000), 43–75;PaulaFredriksen,“Judaism,theCircumcisionofGentiles,andApocalypticHope:Another LookatGalatians 1 and 2,” JTS 42 (1991): 532–64

10 As,forexample,in 1 Cor. 10:14–22

11 SeeIsa. 2:1–4;PaulaFredriksen,“Judaism,theCircumcisionofGentiles.”Correspondinglythoseare, infact,Paul’sopponentswithintheJesusmovement,insistingon“Judaizing”Gentileswhohave embracedJesusastheMessiahofIsrael,whoactasinnovatorshere.Theirstancemaybeseenas areactiontotheperceiveddelayinthearrivaloftheendandthecorrespondingchangesinthe projectedredemptionscenario–alongerhistoricalperspectiveor,alternatively,theupcoming catastrophicphaseofwarsanddisasters–withbothperspectivesengenderinganeedforsocially consolidatingtheJesusmovement(ibid.,pp. 558–61).

thedemandstoGentileswishingtobecomepartofIsrael’svocationarebasically two:abandoningidolworshipforthesakeofworshippingtheoneGodandadopting atrulymoralbehaviorderivedfromtheallegiancetotheCreator.12 Paultherefore followedhereabeatentrack,andsinceheaddressedGentilesonly,heobviouslydid notintendtointroduceanydrasticreevaluationoftheTorahvis-a`-visJews.13

ThisnewviewofPaulclearlyhasitsmerits.However,asIarguedelsewhere,the contextofGalatiansindicatesthatbesidestheGentilefellow-travelersPaulmust havehadanadditional,hidden,audienceinmind–namely,thoseJewishpropagandistsfromwithinthemovement,whosepressureontheGentilemembersofthe communitypromptedtheapostle’sresponse.14 Infact,theopeninglineofthe passageunderdiscussiontoopointstoasupposedintra-Jewishlogicoftheargument (Gal. 2:15–16):“Weourselves,whoareJewsbybirthandnotGentilesinners ... know thatamanisnotjustifiedbytheworksoftheTorah ...”Oneisthereforeprompted toaskiftheapostle’scollationofahierarchicaldistinctionbetweenthehard-core commandmentsoftheTorahandtheperipheral“ritualmarkers”ofJudaismwith theclaimthatthoseritual“worksoftheTorah”donotactuallycontributeto achievingtherighteousnessepitomizedintheTorah’sfoundationalprecepts, couldresonatewithintheJewishmilieutoo.

Asnotedabove,thiskindofoutlookwassomehowreflectedinthegeneralHellenistic JewishattitudetowardGentilesympathizers.TheawarenessofthehierarchicalrelationshipsbetweenritualmarkersofJudaismanditsmoralpreceptsisexpressedinthesecond centuryBCE LetterofAristeas.TheJewishsagesthere,alsoaddressingGentileaudience, bothemphasizethesharedethicalvaluesoftheTorahandgeneralHellenisticoutlook andtrytoarguefortheusefulness–thoughtheyarenotobligatoryfortheGentiles–of Jewishritualprescriptionsas“helpingdevices”ineducatingoursoulsintheirpathto moralperfection.15 Itseems,however,thatthehierarchicaldivision–basedonavariety ofprinciplesandwithadifferentoutcome–wasappliedtointra-Jewishreligious discoursetoo,asaptlyexpressedinawell-knownpassagefromthefamousfirstcentury CEJewishHellenisticauthor,PhiloofAlexandria:

Therearesomewho,takingthelawsintheirliteralsenseassymbolsofintelligible realities,areover-preciseintheirinvestigationofthesymbol,whilefrivolously

12 Thisis,apropos,theapproachreflectedinRomans 1

13 Accordingtothisnewapproach,theage-longerroneousperceptionofPaulasarebelagainstthe TorahisaresultofananachronisticreadingofhisepistlesinlightofalaterChristianoutlookthat emergedindifferentsocio-historicalcircumstancesofaclear-cutdivisionandbordermarking.For example,Fredriksenhashighlightedthatsomelaternotionsemerginginthewakeofandasareaction tothedestructionoftheTemple,withJewishfollowersofJesusbeinggraduallymarginalized,were completelyforeigntoPaul’sthinking.SeePaulaFredriksen,“Paul,Purity,andthe‘Ekklesia’ofthe Gentiles,”in TheBeginningsofChristianity,eds.J.PastorandM.Mor(Jerusalem:YadBen-ZviPress, 2005) 205–17,esp. 215–16

14 SeeSergeRuzer,“Paul’sStanceontheTorahRevisited:GentileAddresseesandtheJewishSetting,” in Paul’sJewishMatrix,eds.ThomasG.CaseyandJustinTaylor(Rome:Gregorian&BiblicalPress, 2011), 75–97

15 SeeR.H.Charles(ed.), LetterofAristeas (Oxford:TheClarendonPress, 1913), 139–68.

neglectingtheletter.SuchpeopleI,formypart,shouldblamefortheircoolindifference,fortheyoughttohavecultivatedbothamorepreciseinvestigationofthings invisibleandanunexceptionablestewardshipofthingsvisible. Asitis,asifliving alonebythemselvesinawilderness,orasiftheyhadbecomediscarnatesouls, knowingneithercitynorvillagenorhouseholdnoranycompanyofhumansatall, transcendingwhatisapprovedbythecrowd,theytracktheabsolutetruthinits nakedself.ThesemenaretaughtbySacredScripturetobeconcernedwithpublic opinion,andtoabolishnopartofthecustomsordainedbyinspiredmen,greater thanthoseofourownday.

ForallthattheSeventhDayteachesusthepoweroftheun-originateandthe non-actionofcreatedbeings,letusbynomeansannulthelawslaiddownforits observance,kindlingfire,tillingtheearth,carryingburdens,institutingchanges, sittinginjudgment,demandingthereturnofdeposits,recoveringloans,ordoingall elsethatispermittedinnon-festalseasons.AndthoughitistruethattheFeastis asymbolofspiritualjoyandofthankfulnesstoGod,letusnotbidadieutothe annualseasonalgatherings.Andthoughitistruethatcircumcisionindicatesthe excisionofpleasureandallpassionsandtheremovalofthegodlessconceitunder whichthemindsupposeditselfcapableofengenderingthroughitsownpowers,let usnotabrogatethelawlaiddownforcircumcising.Forweshallbeneglectingthe Templeserviceandathousandotherthingsifwearetopaysoleregardtothatwhich isrevealedbytheinnermeaning.Weoughtrathertolookontheoutwardobservancesasresemblingthebody,andtheirinnermeaningasresemblingthesoul.Just aswethenprovideforthebody,inasmuchasitistheabodeofthesoul,sowemust attendtotheletterofthelaws. Ifwekeepthese,weshallobtainanunderstandingof thosethingsofwhichtheyaresymbols,andinaddition,weshallescapethecensure andaccusationsofthemultitude.16

PhilotellinglyatteststoavarietyofJewishattitudestowardthe“external”preceptsof theTorah–fromneglectingtoupholdingthem–allofwhichacknowledgethe abovedivisionandsharetheconvictionthatthetruemeaningofthecommandmentsisthe“internal”one.Philohimselfclearlyascribestothisconsensual appraisalandconfirmsthepriorityoftheinnermeaningoftheTorahprecepts. UnlikesomeofhisJewishcontemporaries,however,whomhecriticizesfortheir readinesstodropritualobservancealtogetheranddealdirectlywiththemendingof their“innerman,”17 Philo–aresponsiblememberofthecommunitywhorecognizestheconstraintsofourphysicalandsocialexistence–upholdsthevalidityofthe ritualsideofJewishtraditionasbefittingexternalmeansfor“graduallyeducating one’ssoul.”Nevertheless,theproblematictensionbetweenthetwodivisions(or interpretations)ofthelawlingers:AsaptlyobservedbyChristineHayes,while Philo’smoveaspiredtostrengthentheritualaspectoftheMosaicLaw,itcould inadvertently“enable preciselythatwhichPhilohereprotests.”18

16 Philo, MigrationofAbraham 89–93 (emphasisadded).

17 Ibid., 89–93

18 Hayes, WhatisDivineaboutDivineLaw?, 124 (emphasisinoriginal).

SuchdichotomistperceptionsseemtohavenotbeenlimitedtotheGreco-Roman Diasporaonly.Thoughevidenceconcerningtheearlyproto-rabbinictraditionis scarceandrelativelylate,itmayindicatethattheideaofatwofoldpartitionofthe bulkofreligiouspreceptswasknownanddulydiscussedintheLandofIsraeltoo. Sufficeittoquoteatraditionascribedtononeotherthanthesecond-centurycodifier oftheMishnaiclawhimself(m. Abot 2 1):19

R.JudahthePrincesaid:Whichisthepropercoursethatamanshouldchoosefor himself?Thatwhichisanhonortohimandelicitshonorfromhisfellowmen.Beas scrupulousaboutalightprecept( מצוהקלה )asofaweightyone( כחמורה ),foryoudo notknowtherewardallottedforeachprecept.Balancethelossincurredbythe fulfillmentofapreceptagainstthegainandtheaccruingfromatransgression againstthelossitinvolves.Reflectonthreethingsandyouwillnevercometosin: Knowwhatisaboveyou–aseeingeye,ahearingear,andallyourdeedsrecordedin abook.20

Onenotesapartialoverlapofterminologybetweenourearlythird-centuryMishnah andMatthew 5:19 (τῶ

,“theleastofthese/thelight commandments”)–anoverlapthatpointstotheterminology’searlyprovenance. Moreover,notunlikePhilo(andJesusinMatthew 5:19!),21 theMishnahvotesforthe importanceoftheeffortstofulfillpreceptsostensiblynotbelongingtothecoreofthe Torah.Thoughthereasonsmaybedifferent,the“peripheral”commandmentsare seenheretooasbeinginthefinalaccountexpedientforaperson’s“balanceof merits.”Andagain,likePhilo,theMishnahmirrorsanalternativeapproach,which itpolemicallyrejects.Finally,whilethedichotomyitselfemergesasasharedfeature ofawholespectrumoftraditions,itscharacter–namely,whatcommandmentsare seenasbelongingtoeithercategory–mayvaryconsiderably.Thus,asdistinctfrom Philowithhisdichotomybetweeninternal/spiritualandexternalmeaningofthe commandment,theMishnah–similarly,forexample,toJesus’stanceinMatthew 23:23 –seemstounderstandbothcategoriesaspertainingtotherealmofdeeds.22

19 Cf.Matt. 23:23 “Woetoyou,scribesandPharisees,hypocrites!Foryoutithemintanddilland cummin,andhaveneglectedtheweightiermattersofthelaw,justiceandmercyandfaith;theseyou oughttohavedone,withoutneglectingtheothers.”

20 TheEnglishtranslationofMishnaicmaterialinthispaperfollowsHerbertDanby, TheMishnah (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 1950).

21 “Whoeverthenrelaxesoneoftheleastofthesecommandmentsandteachesmenso,shallbecalled leastinthekingdomofheaven;buthewhodoesthemandteachesthemshallbecalledgreatinthe kingdomofheaven.”

22 Matt. 23:23:“Woetoyou,scribesandPharisees,hypocrites!Foryoutithemintanddillandcummin, andhaveneglectedtheweightiermattersofthelaw,justiceandmercyandfaith;theseyououghtto havedone,withoutneglectingtheothers.”Cf. Abot 1 1, 3 13 (“thefencearoundtheTorah”).The natureofthedichotomy–orhierarchy–indicatedinMatthew 5 warrantsfurtherdiscussion.See SergeRuzer,“AntithesesinMatthew 5:MidrashicAspectsofExegeticalTechniques,”inSergeRuzer, MappingtheNewTestament:EarlyChristianWritingsasaWitnessforJewishBiblicalExegesis (Leiden:Brill, 2007), 11–34.

Ifinthetractate Abotthe“light”commandmentsarepresentedas potentially expedientforGod’sapproval,anothertellingMishnaictraditionspeaksofthefateful eschatologicaltransformationoftheindividual–thatis,thegiftoftheholySpirit andtheresurrection–as conditioned bythesequenceofeffortsatfulfilling,inter alia,ritual(external,secondary)observances(m.Sotah 9 15):

R.PinhassonofYairsays:“Expediencybringstocleanness,cleannessbringsto purity,puritybringstochastity,chastitybringstoholiness,holinessbringsto meekness,meeknessbringstothefearofsin,fearofsinbringstorighteousness, righteousnessbringstothespiritofholiness(holyspirit),andtheholyspiritbringsto theresurrectionofthedead,andtheresurrectionofthedeadcomesthroughElijah ofblessedmemory.Amen.”

ThehistoricalcontexthereisthatofthedestructionoftheTempleandanticipation ofredemption.Yetitstandstoreasonthatthesinglingoutofcertainritualobservancesascrucialforobtainingrighteousnessandeventuallyredemptionislinked andpointtoanoldertopic–asdoesthepreviouslydiscussedmishnaicpassage.

Tosumup,allthereviewedsourcesexpressawarenessofoneoranotherkindof distinctionbetweenprimaryandsecondary(meaningof)Torahprecepts,thusallowingtocontextualizePaul’sargumentswithinbroaderJewishtrends.Whileinthefinal accountthesesourcesupholdthevalidityofthesecondary,forexample,ritual, commandments,theyindirectlyattesttothepossibilityofanalternativetendencyto dismissthosecommandmentsasnotcrucial–anattitudetheypolemicizeagainst.23 PaulinGalatiansthereforemaybeviewedasreflectingthatalternativetendency;and hisdaringmovecouldhavebeenhelpedbythefactthathefirstcametodiscussthe issuewhileaddressinganon-Jewishaudience,whichasnoted,wasperceivedfromthe beginningasnotobligedtotheritualidentitymarkersofJudaism.

IIITHECOREDEMANDSOFTHETORAHLAW

Havingrejectedtheauxiliaryvalueoftheritualprecepts,Paulstatesexplicitlywhat constitutesthetruecoreoftheTorahlaw,unswervinglyobligingintheMessianic era–namely,Leviticus 19:18 precept“loveyourneighborasyourself”(Gal. 5:14–15): “Forthewholelaw(ὁ γὰρπᾶς όμος)isfulfilledinonesaying(ἐ ἑ ὶ λόγῳ),‘You shallloveyourneighborasyourself’.Butifyoubiteanddevouroneanothertakeheed thatyouarenotconsumedbyoneanother.“Furtheron,inGalatians 5:22–23,the apostleclarifiestheexpectationsfrominterpersonalrelations,derivedfromthe Leviticus 19:18 directive:“love,joy,peace,patience,kindness,goodness,faithfulness, gentleness,self-control;withregardtosuchthereisnomeasure(limitations).”24

23 AtleastinthecaseofPhilo,itisclearthatwearenotdealingwithapolemicalresponsetoPaul,butin myopinionthesamegoes,e.g.,fortherulingfrom m. ʾAvot 2 1

24 Supposedly,anearlyreflectionoftheRabbinicterminologyofאיןשיעור (nomeasure/limitations)–e.g.,in y.Yoma 5.4.

Itturnsout,however,thatPaulisnotonlypessimisticwithregardtotheritual exercises’capacitytohelponeachievetheperfectionofthegreatlovecommand,but infactdeniestheabilitytofulfillitthroughanyeffortsofourown.Accordingtothe apostle,theverynatureofthefoundationaldemandsofthereligiouslawissuchthat weareunabletosatisfythemhoweverhardwetry–itisonlythroughtheinterventionofthedivineagencyoftheSpiritthatthemissioncanbeaccomplished.Inother words,ouronlyhopetoachievethetruerighteousnesspropagatedbylaw,namely,to fulfiltheaboveloftyaspectsoftheLev 19:18 precept–istobeendowedwiththe Spirit(Gal. 5:5–16, 22, 24–25):

ForthroughtheSpirit,byfaith,wewaitforthehopeofrighteousness. ... ButIsay, walkbytheSpirit,anddonotgratifythedesiresoftheflesh. .Butthefruitofthe Spiritislove,joy,peace,patience,kindness,goodness,faithfulness,gentleness,selfcontrol AndthosewhobelongtotheMessiahJesushavecrucifiedthefleshwith itspassionsanddesires.IfwelivebytheSpirit,letusalsowalkbytheSpirit. [emphasisadded]

Thus,whereasthevalidity(usefulness)ofthe“secondary”lawpreceptsisquestioned,withregardtotheindisputablecoreelementsoftheTorah-relatedrighteousnessitisourabilitytofulfillthemthatisnegated.Wewillreturnbelowtothemotif oftheSpiritasthegreatenabler,aswellastothatofJesus’satoningdeath,butfor nowsufficeittonotethatsuchanappraisalappearstounderminethewhole functionoftheTorahascovenantallaw.

ItispossibletotryinterpretingthisdeeplyseatedskepticisminGalatianstooas directedspecificallyattheGentiles–inaccordancewithabroaderJewishperspectiveonGentilesas“sinfulbynature,”reflected,aswehaveseen,inGalatians 2:15 (“Weourselves,whoareJewsbybirthandnotGentilesinners”).Accordingtothis interpretation,therefore,itisonlythroughtheinterventionoftheSpiritthatthe “Gentilenature”couldbereformedandtheGentilesbecomecapableoffulfilling theTorah’sgreatcommandment.However,asalreadythebeginningoftheslightly laterEpistletotheRomanstestifies,ostensiblyaddressingconcernsofbothGentile andJewishsegmentsofthecommunityinRome,25 thatbasicinabilitytocopewith theTorahaslawwasviewedbytheapostleascharacteristicofJewsaswell.

26

InRomans,that“finalaccount”ofPaul’swriting,27 characteristically,theissueof ritualmarkerssocentraltoGalatianstakesabackseat,28 withtheepistlefocusing

25 See,forexample,JohnMurray, TheEpistletotheRomans,vol. 1 (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans, 1959),xviii–xxii;NormanPerringandDennisC.Duling, TheNewTestament:AnIntroduction (San Diegoetal.:HarcourtBraceJovanovich, 1982), 187;JosephA.Fitzmyer, Romans:ANewTranslation withIntroductionandCommentary (London:Chapman, 1992), 31–34;cf.Gager, ReinventingPaul, 101,whowhilebelieving–inaccordancewiththeNewApproachtendency–thatRomanslikewise targetsexclusivelytheGentileaudience,concedesthatthisepistledoesspeak“aboutJews”too.

26 SeeRomans 2

27 SeeKristerStendahl, FinalAccount:Paul’sLettertotheRomans (Minneapolis:FortressPress, 1995).

28 See,forexample,Rom. 3:20.

insteadonthebasicincapacityofbothGentilesandJewstoproperlyrespondtothe coredemandsofGod’slaw.29 TheGentiles’failureisexplainedalreadyinRomans 1 asresulting–inaccordancewithbroaderpatternsofJewishpropaganda–from betrayalofthebeliefinoneCreator.AsfortheJewishfailure,highlightedinRomans 2 inrespecttooneDecalogueprecept,itreceivesitscomprehensiveexplanation lateron,inRomans 7 30 FindingunconvincingtheattemptstointerpretthereasoninginRomans 7 astargetingexclusivelythe“Gentilepredicament,”31 Itherefore sidewiththosewhodiscernherePaul’sgrimdiagnosisofthehumancondition, Jews included 32 Inthefinalaccount,whatiscentraltomyargumentisthatwhoeverare theexplicitintendedaddresseesofthereasoninginRomans 7,weshouldtakeinto account–themovealreadyprobedabovewithregardtoGalatians–theimplicit Jewishaudiencetoo.Theapostle’spessimisticappraisalischaracteristicallycomplementedwiththequantumleap,leadingfromtheearlierimpotencevis-a`-visthe demandsofthelawimposedfromoutsidetothenewmodeofexistence(Romans 7:4–6):

Likewise,mybrethren,youhavediedtotheTorah/lawthroughthebodyofChrist/ theMessiah,sothatyoumaybelongtoanother,tohimwhohasbeenraisedfrom thedeadinorderthatwemaybearfruitforGod. 5 Whilewewerelivingintheflesh, oursinfulpassions,arousedbythelaw,wereatworkinourmemberstobearfruitfor death. 6 Butnowwearedischargedfromthelaw,deadtothatwhichhelduscaptive, sothatweservenotundertheoldwrittencodebutinthenewlifeoftheSpirit. TheappearanceofthefavoritePaulineexpression“bearfruit”collatedwiththe centralityoftheSpirit,dulynotedintheearlierdiscussionofGalatians 5,indicates thatthe“freedomfromthelaw”heredoesnotatallmeanlawlessfrivolity.Itrather designatesanewstance“intheSpirit,”finallyenablingonetofulfillthecore Torahcommandments,whichwasimpossiblewhenone’srelationtothelawwas

29 RomansthuspresentsitselfasacontinuationofthediscussioninGalatians,withPaulstrivingto clarifyhispositionand“towardoffpotentialandactualmisreadingsofhis(earlier)arguments” (Gager, ReinventingPaul, 103).

30 Rom. 7:1 (“Doyouknow,brethren–forIamspeakingtothosewhoknowthelaw/Torah ”)isone moreindicationoftheepistle’sengagementwiththeconcernsoftheJewishcomponentofthe communityinRome;seenote 26 above.

31 As,forinstance,intheStowers’claimthat“thepersonaofRomans 7,”forwhosesakePaulperforms herethespeech-in-characteract,“canonlybeagentile”(StanleyK.Stowers, ARereadingofRomans: Justice,Jews&Gentiles (NewHaven&London:YaleUniversityPress, 1994), 277).Stowersbaseshis assessment,interalia,onhisobservationthatthe“sinaspower”patternofthought,is“nottypicalof theHebrewBible/OldTestament butrather ofHomerandGreekpoets”(ibid.,p. 272),ignoring later,andmorerelevant,Jewishevidence.Seealsonote 34 belowanddiscussionthere.Stowersviews RomansasawholeintermsofexclusivelyGentileintendedaudience(ibid.,pp. 32–33, pace,e.g., WernermG.Kummel, IntroductiontotheNewTestament, 17threv.ed.(Nashville:AbingdonPress, 1975), 307–10).

32 Cf.Fitzmyer, Romans,pp. 473–77,whereRomans 7 isunderstoodaspresentingthecaseofthe humanEgo.

thatofvis-a`-visexternallyorderedobligation.Infact,Paulhimselfcontinuesto clarifythematter(Romans 7:7-12):

Whatthenshallwesay?Thatthelawissin?Bynomeans! Yet,ifithadnotbeenforthe law,Ishouldnothaveknownsin. Ishouldnothaveknownwhatitistocovetifthelaw hadnotsaid,“Youshallnotcovet.” 8 But sin,findingopportunityinthecommandment, wroughtinmeallkindsofcovetousness. Apartfromthelawsinliesdead 10 thevery commandmentwhichpromisedlifeprovedtobedeathtome. 11 Forsin,finding opportunityinthecommandment,deceivedmeandbyitkilledme. 12 Sothelawisholy, andthecommandmentisholyandjustandgood. Didthatwhichisgood,then,bring deathtome?Bynomeans! Itwassin,workingdeathinmethroughwhatisgood [emphasisadded]

So,thelaw“isgood”anditopensone’seyes,teachingwhatsinis,but,unfortunatelythe lawdoesnotprovideonewiththecapabilitytoresistsin(cf.Romans 3:20).Moreover, inourencounterwiththejustdemandsofGod’slaw,sinmanagestoexploitourpervert nature(evilinclination?),33 turningthecommandmentintotemptationtodisobeyit. Theproblematicsideofthe“writtencode”isidiosyncraticallyemphasizedhere, thoughPaultakescaretopiouslyascribetheblamenottotheTorahitself,whichis holy,buttothedefectivehumancondition–andJewsareclearlynotexempted. Inthefollowingprogrammaticpassage,Paulfurtherelaboratesontheissue,this timepointingtoour“beingflesh”astherealculprit(Romans 7:14–25):34

Weknowthat theTorah/lawisspiritual;butIamcarnal,soldundersin. 15 Idonot understandmyownactions.ForIdonotdowhatIwant,butIdotheverything Ihate. 16 NowifIdowhatIdonotwant,Iagreethatthelawisgood. 17 Sothenitis nolongerIthatdoit,butsinwhichdwellswithinme. 18 ForIknowthatnothing gooddwellswithinme,thatis,inmyflesh.Icanwillwhatisright,butIcannotdoit. 19 ForIdonotdothegoodIwant,buttheevilIdonotwantiswhatIdo. 20 NowifIdo whatIdonotwant,itisnolongerIthatdoit,butsinwhichdwellswithinme. 21 So Ifindittobe alaw thatwhenIwanttodoright,evilliescloseathand. 22 For Idelight inthelawofGod,inmyinmostself, 23 but Iseeinmymembersanotherlaw atwar with thelawofmymind andmakingmecaptivetothe lawofsinwhichdwellsinmy members. 24 WretchedmanthatIam!Whowilldelivermefromthisbodyofdeath? 25 ThanksbetoGodthroughJesusChristourLord!Sothen,Iofmyselfserve thelaw ofGod withmymind,butwithmyfleshIservethe lawofsin 35

33 SeediscussioninSergeRuzer,“TheSeatofSininEarlyJewishandChristianSources,”in TransformationsofInnerSelfinAncientReligions,eds.JanAssmannandGuyG.Stroumsa (Leiden:Brill, 1999), 151–65

34 SeeEphraimE.Urbach, TheSages:TheirConceptsandBeliefs (Jerusalem:MagnesPress, 1987), 472, whoarguesthatsuchalocalizationofthesinfulinclinationinthebody–inotherwords,thedualism ofbodyandsoul–whilecurrent“intheHellenisticworld,andalsoinJewishHellenism,”wasnot characteristicoftherabbinicSages.

35 Whetherthe“I”ofthepassageprovidesaglimpseofPaul’sownautobiographicalexposureor representsthe“speechincharacter”rhetoricaldeviceonly,isanintriguingandmuchdebated question.Itis,however,irrelevantforthepresentdiscussion(emphasisadded).

Tellingisthevarietyofmeaningsinwhichtheword“law”( όμος)isused.First,the lawisGod’sTorahaddressedtoourinnerman,toourmind(nous)–thusitis “spiritual”(cf.Philo’spositiondiscussedabove).However,whendevoidoftheSpirit, ourresponsetoGod’slawis“carnal,”whichmeanstransgressingthecommandment wearesupposedtofulfill,thussuccumbingtothe“lawofourbodilymembers,” asinfulnegativeofGod’sholyTorah.36

AccordingtoPaul,thispitifulstancevis-a`-visGod’slawwillcontinueuntilthe body,which,asitwere,pullsusdown,ismetaphorically“puttodeath”overwhelmedbytheSpirit.ThebeliefinJesus’atoningdeath,combinedwiththenotion ofourbodies’metaphorical“deathtosin,”seemstoreflect–anddrasticallymodify–hereabroaderideathatuntiltheverymomentofphysicaldeathweall,eventhe righteousones,aredestinedtoincessantlystrugglewithsin.Thisis,forexample, howthisideaisexpressedintherabbinicalmidrash GenesisRabbah (9.5):37

“Andlo,verygood”(Genesis 1:31).[Whatisverygood?]Itisdeath.Whywasthe deathordained[even]forpiousones?[Because]allthetimewhentheyare[still] alivetheyspendfightingtheirevilimpulse.[Only]whentheydie,they[mayatlast] rest.

Thisdeath-centeredperceptionoffinaltransformationischaracteristicallycollated inPaulwiththebeliefintheliberatingfunctionoftheSpirit(Romans 7:24–8:4):

WretchedmanthatIam!Whowilldelivermefromthisbodyofdeath? 25 Thanksbe toGodthroughJesusChrist/theMessiahourLord!Sothen,Iofmyselfservethelaw ofGodwithmymind,butwithmyfleshIservethelawofsin. 8:1 Thereistherefore nownocondemnationforthosewhoareinChris/theMessiahtJesus. 2 Forthelaw oftheSpiritoflifeinChrist/theMessiahJesushassetmefreefromthelawofsin anddeath. 3 ForGodhasdonewhatthelaw,weakenedbytheflesh,couldnotdo: sendinghisownSoninthelikenessofsinfulfleshandforsin,hecondemnedsinin theflesh, 4 inorderthatthejustrequirementofthelawmightbefulfilledinus,who walknotaccordingtothefleshbutaccordingtotheSpirit.[emphasisadded]

OnenotesthatthecruxofPaul’sreasoningistheaspirationtofinallybeabletofulfill “thejustrequirementsoftheTorah.”38 TheTorahishelpless:evenifitstillhasavery

36 AsIsuggestedinanearlierstudy,Paulmaybehereawitnesstoapristinephaseinatrajectoryleading inlaterrabbinicsourcestotheideathateachbodilymemberistaskedwithfulfillingthespecific commandmentassignedtoitbytheTorah.SeeSergeRuzer,“TheSeatofSin.”

37 TheEnglishquotationisfromthe MidrashRabbah,ed.andtr.byH.Freedman(London:Soncino Press, 1939).SeediscussioninSergeRuzer,“TheDeathMotifinLateAntiqueJewish Teshuva NarrativePatternsandinPaul’sThought,”in TransformationsofInnerSelf,eds.Assmannand Stroumsa(Leiden:Brill, 199), 151–65,esp. 158–62

38 IncontradistinctiontowhatwasuntilonlyafewdecadesagothetraditionalviewofPaul,which ascribedtotheapostletheconvictionthatthedawnofthemessianicerainitsveryessenceheralded adivorcefromtheJewishreligiousoutlookcenteredontheTorahanditscommandments. StatementsontheTorah’s(partial)validityandabsoluteholinesswerecorrespondinglyexplained awayassecondaryand/ordictatedbytheneedsofthemission.Thisappraisalhadalonghistoryin theologicalthought–bothamongChristians,whoembracedthispositionastheirownandamong

importantfunctiontoaccomplish–namely,tohighlightandstrengthentheawarenessofone’ssins(Romans 3:20)–italsoexposesonetothecunningoftheevil impulseand,mostimportant,doesnotprovidethemeanstoovercomehumanity’s built-insinfulinclinationsandfollowGod’scommandments(Romans 9:31).

Attheendofthechapter,IwillreturntothecharacteristiccollationofJesus’ atoningdeathandthegiftoftheSpiritastwocomplementing“enablers.”Rightnow, however,Iamgoingtoasktowhatextentthispessimisticappraisalofourinherent abilitytocopewithGod’sTorahaslawwasPaul’sidiosyncraticcontributiontothe religiousdiscourseor,alternatively,areflectionofanintuitionofamuchbroader currencyintheJewishworld.

ItgoeswithoutsayingthatthecallfortheearnestefforttotrytofulfillTorah commandmentsasthesurepathtorighteousnesswascharacteristicofJewish covenantaloutlookasawhole,towhichtherearemultipleattestations.Thetelling passagefromMishnah Abot 2.1,addressedabove,isafineexampleofsuchan outlook.AninfluentialtrendinrabbinictraditionalsoviewedtheTorahasantidote totheevilimpulse,evenifitseffectivenessisnotalwaysthorough.39 However,bythe timePaulwasaddressingthetopic,asubstantiallydifferentintuition,derivedfrom anessentiallypessimisticappraisalofaperson’sabilitytograduallybuildtheedifice ofrighteousnessbyhis/herownefforts,hadalsobeenvoicedinJewishtradition.It wasevenenticinglysuggestedthatthispessimisticappraisalwasintrinsictothe Pharisaicreligiousoutlook,whichpropagatedtheexpansionofthescopeofthe commandmentsbymeansofreinterpretation(OralTorah)totherealmofintentions(”theinnerman”)–ademandthatfurtheraggravatedtheimpossibilityofthe task.40 Laterrabbinicsourcesalsobearwitnesstosuchatendency,withthesometimesinevitableconclusion,mentionedabove,thatnothingshortofdeathcancure one’ssinfulinclination.Ihavedealtatlengthelsewherewithrabbinicresponsesto thisconundrum;41 itwillsufficetosayherethatinsuchacontextavarietyof remediesweresuggested,suchas:trustinlast-minuterepentance,trustinGod’s mercifulbenevolence,andbeliefintheexpiatingfunctionofone’sdeath.

Ineschatologicalthinking,however,thisbasicallypessimisticassessment engenderedaspirationsforthelast-daystransformationofthenatureofman’s stancevis-a`-visGod’slaw.Thistendency,infact,goesbacktoclassicalbiblical Jews(thosewhopaidattention),whodisapprovedofit,includingJudeo-Christiansoftheearly centuries.Itsvariousmodificationshavealsobeenadopted, mutatismutandis,bymanyinfluential scholars.Forareview,seeGager, ReinventingPaul, 3–42.Characteristically,evenAlanF.Segal (“Torahand Nomos inRecentScholarlyDiscussion,” SR 13:1 (1984):pp. 9–27)subscribedtothisview atanearlierstage,claimingthat“PauldeliberatelyrevaluedTorah”following“hisradicalconversion experience”(ibid., 27).Thescholarseemstohavelatermodifiedthisassessment;seeAlanF.Segal, PaultheConvert:TheApostolateandApostasyofSaulthePharisee (NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversity Press, 1990).

39 SeeUrbach, TheSages,pp. 472–73, 483–85

40 EllisRivkin,“PharisaicRevolution,”inEllisRivkin TheShapingofJewishHistory:ARadicalNew Interpretation (NewYork:Scribner, 1971).

41 Ruzer,“TheDeathMotif”;“TheSeatofSin,”in TransformationsofInnerSelf, 151–65, 367–91.

prophecy,withafamousexampleprovidedbyJeremiah,whospeaksof a“changeofheart”imposedbyGod“fromoutside”–andnotthesteadfast effortsinvestedinpiousritualactions,templesacrificesincluded–astheonly waytorighteousness,remissionofsinsandredemption(Jeremiah 31:31–34):

31 “Behold,thedaysarecoming,”saystheLORD,“whenIwillmakeanew covenantwiththehouseofIsraelandthehouseofJudah, 32 notlikethecovenant whichImadewiththeirfatherswhenItookthembythehandtobringthemoutof thelandofEgypt,mycovenantwhichtheybroke,thoughIwastheirhusband,says theLORD. 33 ButthisisthecovenantwhichIwillmakewiththehouseofIsrael afterthosedays,”saystheLORD:“IwillputmyTorah/lawwithinthem,andIwill writeitupontheirhearts;andIwillbetheirGod,andtheyshallbemypeople. 34 Andnolongershalleachmanteachhisneighborandeachhisbrother,saying,–‘KnowtheLORD,’fortheyshallallknowme,fromtheleastofthemtothegreatest, saystheLORD;forIwillforgivetheiriniquity,andIwillremembertheirsinno more.”

ItisonlythisinnertransformationenforcedbyGodthatmakestheobservanceofthe corestipulationsofGod’scovenantpossible.42 Characteristically,inanotherfamous oracle,thatofEzekiel,thiseschatologicaltransformationisfurtherdescribedin termsofreceivingthegiftofSpirit(Ezekiel 36: 24–29):

24 ForIwilltakeyoufromthenations,andgatheryoufromallthecountries,and bringyouintoyourownland. 25 Iwillsprinklecleanwateruponyou,andyoushall becleanfromallyouruncleannesses,andfromallyouridolsIwillcleanseyou. 26 AnewheartIwillgiveyou,andanewspiritIwillputwithinyou;andIwilltakeout ofyourfleshtheheartofstoneandgiveyouaheartofflesh. 27 AndIwillputmyspirit withinyou,andcauseyoutowalkinmystatutesandbecarefultoobservemy ordinances. 28 YoushalldwellinthelandwhichIgavetoyourfathers;andyou shallbemypeople,andIwillbeyourGod. 29 AndIwilldeliveryoufromallyour uncleannesses;andIwillsummonthegrainandmakeitabundantandlayno famineuponyou.[emphasisadded]

Comparedto m.Sotah 9.15 quotedabove,thepassagefromEzekieloutlinesan invertedsequence–insteadoftherighteousness,forgivenessofsins,giftoftheSpirit andredemptionasthecrowningoutcomesofearnesteffortstofulfillGod’sprecepts, includingtheritualonesfocusedonthecleanness-uncleannessdichotomy,thevery abilitytoactrighteouslyispresentedhereasconditionedbythepriorinterventionby Godthatchangesoneessentiallywiththe“strokeofthespirit.”Thisperception

42 Ithasbeensuggestedthat,infact,Jeremiahalreadydidnotviewcertainelementsoftheritual–namely,thosepertainingtoTemplesacrifices–aspartoftheobligatorycorestipulations.See MosheWeinfeld,“JeremiahandtheSpiritualMetamorphosisofIsrael,” ZAW 80 (1976): 17–56, esp.p. 32,whoproposesthattheprophetmighthaveperceivedthenewcovenantasassociatednot withformalstatutesbutexclusivelywiththe“circumcisionoftheheart.”Jeremiahmighthavealso expressedabroaderprophetictendencytoharborreservationstowardthepriestlyaspectoftheJewish religion.

wouldbelaterpickedupinthe RuleoftheCommunity,drasticallymodifiedin accordancewiththeQumranicdoublepredestinationbelief.Apowerfulexpression ofthatpatternofreligiousthinkingisfoundintheclosingsectionofthe Rule (1QS 11 7–17):43

TothosewhomGodhasselectedhehasgiventhemaseverlastingpossession;until theyinherittheminthelotoftheholyones. 8 Heunitestheirassemblytothesonsof theheavens ... tobeaneverlastingplantationthroughoutallfutureages. 9 However, Ibelongtoevilhumankindtotheassemblyofwickedflesh; theassembly ofworms ... ofthosewhowalkindarkness ... 10 Fortoman(doesnotbelong)his path,nortoahumanbeingthesteadyingofhisstep;sincejudgmentbelongsto God, 11 andfromhishandistheperfectionofthepath.Byhisknowledgeeverything shallcomeintobeing,andallthatdoesexistheestablisheswithhiscalculationsand nothingisdoneoutsideofhim. 13 hewillfreemysoulfromthepitandmakemy stepssteadyonthepath; 14 inhisjusticehewillcleansemefromtheuncleannessofthehumanbeing andfromthesinofthesonsofman, ... sothatIcanextolGodforhisjustice ... Blessedbeyou,myGod,whoopenstheheartofyourservanttoknowledge! 16 Establishallhisdeedsinjustice, tobeeverlastinglyinyourpresence,asyouhave caredfortheselectedonesofhumankind. 17 Forbeyondyouthereisnoperfectpath andwithoutyourwill,nothingcomestobe. [emphasisadded]

Accordingtothe Rule,theGod-imposedtransformationis(a)theonlypossible avenuetoachievingtherighteousnessand(b)conditionedonthepredestined election.Theflesh-spiritdualismcharacteristicoftheDeadSeaScrolls,aswellas ofPaulinRomans 7, 44 isonlyhintedathere(the“flesh”beingincapableof followingGod’swill,line 9,cf.Matthew 26:41);theSpirit,however,isclearly perceivedelsewhereinthesamescrollasbothcleansingtheperson’s“innerman” whenthelastdayscome,andrevealingGod’sultimatemysteries(1QS 4 20–23):

Meanwhile,Godwillrefine,withhistruth,allman’sdeeds,andwillpurifyfor himselftheconfigurationofman,rippingoutallspiritofdeceitfromtheinnermost part 21 ofhisflesh,and cleansinghimwiththespiritofholinessfromeveryirreverent deed. Hewillsprinkleoverhimthespiritoftruthlikelustralwater(inorderto cleansehim)fromalltheabhorrencesofdeceitandfromthedefilement 22 ofthe uncleanspirit. InthiswaytheuprightwillunderstandknowledgeoftheMostHigh, andthewisdomofthesonsofheavenwillteachthoseofperfectbehavior. Fortheseare thoseselectedbyGodforaneverlastingcovenant 23 andtothemshallbelongallthe gloryofAdam.[emphasisadded]

Theheavenlymysteriesrevealedtothose“refinedbyGod”areidentifiedasanew interpretationoftheTorahprecepts,pertainingtothepre-eschatological“ageof

43 TheEnglishtranslationofQumranicmaterialinthischapterfollowsWilfredG.E.Watson inThe DeadSeaScrollsTranslated,ed.F.Garcı´aMartı´ne(Leiden:Brill, 1994)(electronicversion).

44 SeediscussioninDavidFlusser,“TheDeadSeaSectandPre-PaulineChristianity,”inDavidFlusser, JudaismandtheOriginsofChristianity (Jerusalem:Magness, 1988), 23–74.

wickedness”inthe DamascusDocument 6,whereasboththenecessityoftheinitially enforcedactionoftheholySpiritforobtainingrighteousnessanditscardinaleffect aspreventingonefromsinningagainstGodinthefutureareagainhighlightedinthe Qumranic ThanksgivingHymns (1QH 4 17–26):

[Igiveyouthanks,Lord,]forthespiritsyouhaveplacedinme .toconfessmyformer sins,tobowlowandbegfavour 19 for[...]ofmydeedsandthedepravityofmyheart. BecauseIwallowedinimpurity,[Iseparatedmyself]fromthefoundation[oftruth] andIwasnotalliedwith [ ] 20 Toyoudoesjusticebelong,blessingbelongstoyour Nameforever![Actaccordingto]yourjustice, 21 free[thesoulofyourservant,]the wickedshoulddie!However, Ihaveunderstoodthat[youestablish]thepathofthe onewhomyouchoose 22 andintheinsight[ofyourwisdom]youpreventhimfrom sinningagainstyou, yourestorehishumilitythroughyourpunishments,andby yourord[ealsstreng]thenhisheart. 23

[You,Lord,prevent]yourservantfromsinningagainstyou ... 25 [...] foryour servantisaspiritofflesh Blank 26 [Igiveyouthanks,Lord,because] youhavespread yourholyspirituponyourservant [...]hisheart ... [emphasisadded]

Theemphasisonelection/giftoftheSpiritasthepreconditionforfulfillingthe TorahpreceptsisexpressedwithparticularforceandclarityinQumranictexts–not least,thankstoitsbeinglinkedtheretothedoublepredestinationconcept.45 However,itstandstoreasonthatoutsideofthisidiosyncraticlinkage,thelate SecondTemplerevivaloftheintuitionfoundalreadyinEzekiel 36 wasnot restrictedtotheirsectarianeschatologicallyorientedmilieu.46 Paulthenmaybe viewedasanimportantwitnesstothistendency.

IVCONCLUSION

MyreadingsuggeststhatinbothGalatiansandRomans,Paulrepeatedlyaddresses thechallengeofthe όμος (law)componentofJewishreligion.Theapostle’s rhetoricallyamplifiedstatementsthereattesttoavarietyofnonharmonized

45 Moreover,thegiftoftheSpiritfeaturesinsomeQumranictextsasaself-definitionofthecovenanters. Thus,forexample,infragmentsofthe DamascusDocument foundatQumran,“theanointed/ messiahsbyhis/theholySpirit”or“themessiahsof(his)holySpirit”(משיחירוחהקודש / משיחירוח קודשו )serveasthecommunity’scollectiveself-definition(See 4Q266 ii, 2:12 (=CD-A 6)and 4Q 270 ii, 2:14).Inotherpassages,ashortertitle,“theanointedoftheholiness”( משיחיהקודש ),denotesthewhole communityofthecovenanters–asdistinguishedfromtheQumranicpriestlyelite,thosebelongingto the“Aaronicanointingsee,e.g., 4Q266 iii, 2:9; 4Q2672, 6; 4Q269 iv, 1:2;seeSergeRuzer,“TheNew Covenant,theReinterpretationofScriptureandCollectiveMessiahship,”inidem, MappingtheNew Testament, 215–39

46 ThefollowingpassagebyPhiloseemstoindicatethatasimilaremphasis,albeitwithout acharacteristiclinktotheSpirit,wasprobedalsoinanon-eschatologicalHellenisticJewishcontext: “Godhas promotedgoodlynaturesapartfromanymanifestreason,pronouncingnoactionof theirsacceptablebeforebestowinghispraisesuponthem. ... theprophetsaysthatNoahfoundgrace inthesightoftheLordGod(Gen 6:8)whenasyethehad donenofairdeed,etc.”(Philo, Leg. 3.77–79).

appraisals–fromtheTorahpreceptsbeing“goodandholy”toconstitutingan obstacleonthewaytotruerighteousness.Inaccordancewiththelatteremphasis, thecenturies-longChristiantraditionascribedtoPaultheconvictionthatinthe messianicera,followingJesus’ssalvificdeath,theJewishreligiousoutlookcentered ontheTorahanditscommandmentsbecomesobsolete.Tryingtocopewiththe apostle’sstatementsontheTorah’s(partial)validityandabsoluteholinessthis traditionexplainedthemawayas,forexample,dictatedbythetacticalconstraints ofthemission.Variousmodificationsofthisappraisalhavealsobeenadopted, mutatismutandis,bysomeinfluentialmodernscholars.47

Therehavebeenalsoanumberofinroadsinrecentresearch,alleviatingthis pictureofPaul’ssubstantialreversaloftheattitudetotheTorahlaw,includingthe law’sritualaspects.Mostprominently,thescholarspropagatingtheso-calledNew ViewofPaulforcefullyarguedforacontext-relatedinterpretationofPaul’scriticism ofTorahritualpreceptsasdirectedexclusivelytowardGentiles.Ifso,thereisno reasonatalltoviewitasradical–andnoreasontothinkthathecalledforannulling theTorahobligationsoftheJews.TheissueofTorahobservanceordeeds-grace controversycanmoreoverbeviewedasnotpartoftheinitialcoreoftheapostle’s teachingofmessianicsalvation,butratheroneofthesecondarythemesevokedin responsetovaryingcircumstances–mostnotably,theappealtonon-Jewishaddressees.Thisstudyapproachedtheissuefromadifferentangle.NotdenyingPaul’svery particularcircumstances,itaimedatdiscerningintheapostle’sreasoning areflectionofbroaderJewishawareness–withinthecovenantalnomismoutlook–oftheproblematicsideofthelawasreligion’sfoundationalaspect.

IstartedwithadiscussionofPaul’s“worksoftheTorah/law”usagefeaturing prominentlyinGalatians,whichgivessupporttothesuggestionthatthisphrase shouldbeunderstood,similarlytoitsHebrewparallelintheDeadSeaScrolls,in alimitingsenseofritualmarkers.Thecontextoftheepistleindicatesthatthoseare thedistinguishingpositiveritualmarkersofJudaism,circumcisionetal.thatPaul triestodiscouragehisGentileaddresseeswithintheJesusmovementfromadopting. Theapostle’sargumentisthattheritualelementsofthelaware,infact,nothelpful inourattemptstoachievetruerighteousness.Theposition,thatthoseareonlythe coredemandsoftheTorah–embracementofmonotheisticfaithandworshipandof propermorals–andnotthedetailsofrituallawthatareexpectedfromGentileGodfearers,was,infact,currentamongHellenisticJews.Paulthereforemaybeviewedas ridinguponanexistingtendency.Thoughtheapostles’polemicalstressonthe dilemmaofeitherJewishritualorJesus’atoningdeath,isdefinitelyhissingular trademark.

Isuggested,however,thatPaul’sinsistencethat“secondary”ritualobservancesdo notcontributetoachievingtruerighteousnessepitomizedintheTorah’sfoundationaldemands,“Loveyourneighborasyourself”(Leviticus 19:18),wasalsoaimedat

his“hiddenaudience”–thoseJewishmembersofthemovement,whoseinfluence ontheGentilefellow-travelersheistryingtorepel.Toclarifythatintra-Jewishlogic oftheargument,IreviewedanumberofearlyJewishsourcesattestingtothe variegateddivisionsoftheTorahlawinto“primary”and“secondary”sections. Thoughinthefinalaccount,allthesesourcesupholdthe“righteousnessvalue”of the“secondary”(external,ritual)observances–forexample,asassistinginfulfillmentofthefoundationalmoraldemands–theyclearlybetraythebackdropdisagreementsandpolemic.ThisstrengthenstheprobabilitythatPaul’snegationofthe ritual’sauxiliaryvalue,firsttriggeredbytheconcretepolemicalsituationvis-a`-vishis Gentileaddressees,wasinthefinalaccountmeanttohaveabroaderappeal.Since intheintra-Jewishdiscourseitwaslikewiseamatterofcontention,Paulmighthave consciouslyrelatedtosomeaspectsofthiscontention.

However,itturnsoutthatPaul’sdoubtswithregardtotheusefulnessofthe ritualpreceptsforouraspirationtoachieverighteousnessarepartofhismore substantialskepticism.Theapostleinfactarguesthatoneisincapableof fulfillingtheTorah’sfoundationalmoraldemands,those“justrequirementof thelaw,”throughone’sowneffortsatall.IntheEpistletotheRomans,he furtherelaboratesonthat,blamingour“beinginflesh”forthebasicimpotence incopingwithGod’slaw.Thechaptershowsthatsidebysidewithmore optimisticappraisalsoftheman-versus-Torah-as-lawconundrum,thispessimistic onewasnotunknowninbroaderJewishtradition,representing,moreover, along-standingtendencywithinit.

Havingbrieflyrelatedtorabbinicresponsestothispessimisticappraisalofhuman naturethatfocusedonmechanismsofrepentanceandGod’sforgiveness,Inoted thattraditionsofeschatologicalflavoralternativelyattesttotheaspirationforthelastdaystransformation.TheyareoftenexpressedintermsofreceivingtheSpirit,which wouldfinallymakefeasiblethefulfillmentofGod’scommandments.Accordingto myreading,PaulinheritedfrombroaderpatternsofJewishthoughtnotonlythe pessimisticdiagnosisofhumanconditionvis-a`-visGod’sdemandsinthe“externally imposed”law,butalsotheeschatologicalsolutionoftheproblemthroughthegiftof theSpirit.OneofthecharacteristicfeaturesofPaul’sargumentisthecouplingof thisinheritedmotifofbroadercirculationwiththe“sectarian”argument,ascribing thesameenablingfunctiontoJesus’ssalvificdeath.

Inthefinalaccount,myinvestigationbringsmetotheconclusionthatthecruxof theapostle’sreasoningwasnottheannulmentoftheJewishreligiousoutlook centeredontheTorahanditscommandments.Itwasrathertheperceptionofthe deeplyproblematicnatureofthehumanpredicamentinfaceofGod’swillas epitomizedinthecodeoflaw.Thisseasonedpessimismwascoupledwiththe eschatologicalhopefortheinnertransformationinducedbytheSpiritthatwould finallyenableustoliveuptothejustdemandsofGod’sTorah.Withregardtoboth thesemotifs,aswellastotheperceptionofthehierarchicaldivisionbetween peripheralandcoreprecepts,Paul’swritingsmaybeviewedasanilluminating

witnesstobroaderintuitionsofJewishtradition.Theapostle,however,retainshis idiosyncraticsingularitythankstotheadditionoftheatoningdeathoftheMessiahas acomplementingenablerofthateschatologicalmetamorphose,and,ofcourse,to theconvictionthatthismetamorphoseisalreadysomehowpresentamonghis addressees.