The Jewish Annotated New Testament (157 page)

Paul saw himself wholly within Judaism, as one who was assigned a special role in the restoration of Israel and the nations (Rom 11.1–15; Gal 1.13–16). He was a reformer, one who sought to redress what he believed to be an oversight (his own, formerly, and that of his fellow Jews, still); he was not the founder of a new religion, even if things later turned out otherwise. When he related his calling, he explained that he thereafter no longer lived in Judaism in the same way that he had before (Gal 1.13–16). Indeed, he had been one seeking to stamp out this new movement, and now he became an unmatchable force in its success. Paul does not write that he no longer lives in Judaism, but that he has changed
the way
he lives Judaism.

Paul did not leave Judaism, neither the Jewish way of life nor Jewish communities. He rejected, however, his former opposition to the assertion of the nascent Christ-movement that non-Israelites became equal members of the family of Abraham without becoming members of the family of Israel. He now believed that what Judaism awaited, that day when the nations would turn from idols to worship Israel’s God, had begun in the end-of-the-ages resurrection of Jesus. For Paul, the resurrection was a sign that the messianic age had been inaugurated.

Thus, Judaism, Paul believed, should announce that it was time for the nations to turn to Israel’s God, the one and only God, through Jesus. The Gentiles do not become Israel when that day arrives; rather, they must remain members of the other nations, just as was expected (see Isa 2.2–4; chs 65–66). But they do become fellow members of the Jewish way of life, that is, of the Jewish communities and their religious practice of Judaism. Jews remain Jews in that day, which was so fundamentally obvious for Paul and his contemporaries that it was not even a topic of his discussions; it was simply assumed. It is evident in the logic of his instructions to non-Jews, e.g., in 1 Cor 7.17–24, when he says his “rule” in all his assemblies is for everyone to remain in the state one was in when called, the circumcised in a circumcised state, and the foreskinned in foreskinned state, but in whichever state one is in, it is essential that one “obey the commandments of God.” When this instruction is coupled with Paul’s attestation (Gal 5.3) that anyone in a circumcised state is obliged to observe the whole Torah, it is evident that Paul presumes all Jewish Christ-followers would remain faithful to their Jewish covenant identity by the observance of Torah.

Moreover, Paul’s statement that he has been disciplined in the synagogue with forty lashes less one on five occasions (2 Cor 11.24) indicates that both he and the authorities who administer such punishment understood him to be under the jurisdiction of the Jewish communities. The infraction for which he was disciplined was likely his claim that his Gentile converts were full members of the family of Abraham, and not merely guests. Thus, adjustments (new
halakhot
) had to be made by these Jews to accommodate the non-Jews eating together with them as equals, such as how to arrange seating at meals without the usual hierarchical arrangements in order to demonstrate that the messianic banquet had begun for Israel
and
the nations.

This issue of table fellowship between Jews and Gentiles is at the center of the disagreement between Peter and Paul in Antioch. (See “Food and Table Fellowship,” p.
521
.) According to Paul (Gal 2.11–14), Peter (called “Cephas” here, the Aramaic word for “rock” that was the equivalent of “Peter”) at first shared table fellowship with non-Jews but then, when representatives of the Jerusalem community came to visit, withdrew. Paul accuses Peter of withdrawing not because of the food served, but because of the way non-Jews were being treated as full members at the table apart from commitment to become Jews. The challenge does not come from the kosher menu committee, but from those who advocate circumcision (i.e., proselyte conversion) of these non-Jews if they are to be seated within this Jewish subgroup as full members of the Jewish community at large. The argument Paul makes is based on Peter’s agreement about the gospel, the proposition that these non-Jews are now equal in standing before God with Jews like Peter and Paul, through their mutual commitment to the God who raised up Jesus. But Peter’s withdrawal undermined what they both taught; thus Paul accused him of hypocrisy, thereby making these non-Jews question whether what they have been taught is in fact what these Jews believe, or whether it would be better to become proselytes and avoid such discrimination in the future. The issue was one of consistency in teaching and practice: if Gentiles wishing to join this Jewish subgroup community did not have to become Jews first, then Jews who were members of the community would of necessity treat them as equals, and not as those who were outside the community (Gal 2.14).

Paul’s letters arguably indicate that he lived in a Torah-observant manner, including eating according to the prevailing halakhic conventions for an observant Jew. But that is not the way he has been most commonly interpreted. Rather, his urging of non-Jews to remain non-Jews, and his own self-deprecating comments about the supposed superiority of his standing as a Jew relative to their own questionable standing in the larger Jewish communities, has led many to suppose that Paul was demeaning the value of Jewish identity and behavior, of Torah as well as Israel. If, however, we look at the rhetorical context of his comments, we see that in all his extant letters they are directed to non-Jews. Such an audience is by definition not under Torah obligations as if they were Jews, and, Paul maintains, they are not to become Jews. This makes clear the highly situational nature of his arguments, which are actually based on citations from scripture and on the enduring value of Torah to guide their lives (cf. Rom 3.31; 15.4; 1 Cor 10.11; Gal 5.14). In order to facilitate this alternative, it is useful to add “for Christ-following non-Jews” to virtually all of his statements of instruction to non-Jews; otherwise, the universalizing of Paul’s comments about circumcision and Torah-observance will appear to be inclusive of Jews, of everyone, and thereby miss his ethnically nuanced points. These provide for continued Jewish identity and Torah observance for Jesus-following Jews, alongside of Torah-respectful behavior for Jesus-following non-Jews.

Moreover, this understanding of Paul corrects the common view of 1 Cor 9.19–22:

For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law [lawless ones] I became as one outside the law [as a lawless one] (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law [the lawless]. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some.

This statement has overwhelmingly been read to mean that Paul compromised Torah-observance to “become like” non-Jews in order to gain them to Christ, as well as to mimic the behavior of Torah-observant Jews to win them. But Paul does not write that he
behaves
like each one he seeks to gain. Rather, he explains that he
relates rhetorically
to each according to the premises from which each works. Paul does not worship idols or eat idol food to “become like” Greeks in order to win them to Christ. That would be deceptive, mimicking another’s propositional values if not actually sharing them, tricking someone into a move that will result in a new identity that is other than it was represented to be. This has often, and rightly, been pointed out, based on the traditional interpretation. Rather, we should look at it as we look at what is expected in a philosophical discussion: one philosopher seeking to persuade another will make a case based on that philosopher’s premises, in an effort to show that they can lead to a very different conclusion. Paul does not seek to convince the “lawless” from Torah or Roman law or even the general principles of lawfulness, but from the principles to which the lawless would appeal to justify their behavior, and similarly, he seeks to convince the lawful from law, including, in the case of Torah-observing Jews, from Torah, and in the case of Roman-law-observing citizens, from Roman law.

An example from Acts, the earliest biographical sketch of Paul, though written several decades after his ministry, illustrates this point. In Acts 17.16–34, Luke describes a scene in which Paul sought to convince Greek philosophers in Athens about the God of Israel and Jesus. Whether the account in Acts accurately represents a historical event in Paul’s life or not, it is pertinent to note that the author describes Paul relating to these worshipers of other gods in their own terms. He shows Paul beginning from these philosophers’ own premises, even praising them for their religious inclinations, and then seeking to bring them to understand that there is a god not made with hands whom they should be worshiping. He includes criticism of the making of statues along the way, but that is after he has made the case from their premises. He quotes a Greek poet in this argument, but not anything from Torah (whereas, when speaking to Jews earlier in this chapter, Luke portrays Paul citing Torah; vv. 1–3; cf. 13.32–43). In contrast to the prevailing views of later interpreters of Paul, including those who denounce him as an apostate, this example supports the idea that an early interpreter of Paul understood him to continue to be faithful to Jewish practices, but to adjust his arguments to different audiences in order to win them to his understanding of the significance of Jesus.

Paul’s theological basis for the policy of maintaining ethnic and gender and other forms of difference—but at the same time upholding that this difference does not legitimate discrimination in the assemblies of Christ—is based explicitly on the Shema (Deut 6.4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD [is] our God, the LORD alone” or “The LORD [is] our God, the LORD [is] one”). Note that in translation “is” must be supplied (Hebrew does not require that each sentence contains a verb), so there is no tense in the original outside of context. Paul is arguing that up to the present God has been our (Israel’s) God, but is from henceforth to be the one God of all the other nations with the arrival of the awaited day (so too
Sifre
on Deut 6.4 [
piska
31]; Rashi on Deut 6.4 still maintains a similar interpretation roughly a millennium after Paul). Paul claimed this was a present reality: he believed that day had indeed dawned, and it was the responsibility of these groups to demonstrate the truth of that proposition by remaining different, yet equal: “since God is one” (Rom 3.29–31; 4.9–12; 15.5–12; 1 Cor 8.5–6; Gal 3.28–29). He believed the end of the ages that the prophets foretold, when the wolf will lie down with the lamb, not becoming a lamb but not eating the lamb either, was fulfilled when the members of the nations will join alongside of Israel in worship of the One God within the assemblies of Jesus-followers who are thus called to practice righteousness together (Isa 65.25; cf. 65–66; 2.2–4). This awaited time of “shalom,” of concord within the community and relief from enemies, is what Paul claimed was now to take place, at least in the assemblies of followers of Christ.

Paul was, however, adamant that Christ-following non-Israelites must not become proselytes to Judaism (i.e., males must not be circumcised). That is, they must not become Jews or Israelites, but they nevertheless become co-participants with Jews/Israelites in the community of those set apart to the One God. (Similarly, for other Jewish teachers against proselyte conversion, albeit for different reasons, in rivalry with those who do teach it, see the discussion of King Izates in
Ant
. 20.38–42.) That nuanced position of difference without discrimination is easy to misunderstand, and thus could be largely responsible for the traditional portrayal of Paul as anti-Torah and anti-Judaism.

Humans can seldom live according to such utopian ideals, yet Paul appealed to his assemblies to rely upon God’s Spirit in their way of life together (Rom 8; 1 Cor 2; 12; Gal 5.16–6.8). That, Paul believed, would bear witness to his fellow Jews who did not share his convictions (yet) that something had changed. Paul anticipated that these fellow Jews would thereafter join with him in declaring this news to the nations, undertaking with Paul Israel’s special calling as God’s heralds (Rom 11).

JUDAIZERS, JEWISH CHRISTIANS, AND OTHERS

Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert

In recent years the so-called parting of the ways question—when and how did “Judaism” and “Christianity” turn into two distinct and separate phenomena—has been approached in new ways. We have learned to recognize more clearly how Christian and Jewish authorities were trying to secure clearer boundaries between the two traditions. We have also learned to differentiate the official position from how the people whom they were addressing may have behaved and believed. For instance, as late as 386 CE John Chrysostom, the Christian bishop and author of
Adversus Judaeos
(sermons “Against the Jews”), can thunder at his audience about the dangers of attending synagogues and succumbing to “the evils” of the Jewish holiday observances. This vitriolic attack is a clear indication that people in his Christian communities in Antioch on the Orontes were attracted to and frequented Jewish synagogues. While Chrysostom would have liked his flock to consider this as a dangerous blurring of boundaries, his audience—for all we know—may have considered attendance at synagogues as perfectly compatible with their Christian beliefs.