Brian Rosner on Paul and the Law (1)

Today's lecture is the first in the series of five, more detailed lectures (last Tues was an overview).

'Circumcision is nothing'...

There is certainly a complex subject and also one in which there is a good deal of 'taking sides'. Brian wants to offer a bigger view of the subject. It is the theological equivalent of Fermat's Last Theorem. Brian doesn't think he's giving us a 'solution to the problem', but rather a more worked out version of what others have said in passing.

'You would've thought we'd have it sorted by now' (Geogre Athas)

So how do we proceed?

Three methodological points.

1) look at ALL the evidence. IE< not just 'nomos'. What does Paul DO with law, and what doesn't he say about the law, and what does he say about other things that you'd expect him to say about the law?

2) use Biblical Theology. Jewish and intertestamental texts, and the way of using Paul's own terminology.

3) allow Paul to say one thing at a time. That is: when Paul says 'we aren't under law!' let him be a passionate rhetorician. A coherent but not systematic thinker. See Romans 5 - Paul sound universalistic, but if you read him patiently, you see that he isn't.

4) treat the law as a unity.

SO: some definitions.

Paul: "I mean both the Jew who was seized by Jesus Christ (Phil. 3:12) and became his apostle to the Gentiles and the letters he wrote which are collected in the New Testament. In a theologically conservative college this might seem like a formality. But it needs to be said, and carried through. It’s remarkable how most scholars work with a truncated Pauline corpus when looking at Paul and the law. And as we’ll see, some texts in the later Paulines shed much light."

LAW: what is the content of the study of 'the law'? BADG = three general meanings.

“The ‘law’ in Paul’s writings frequently refers to the sum of specific divine commandments given to Israel through Moses.” (Stephen Westerholm)

That is, 'law' denotes the Torah, or the Pentateuch in its entirety, not merely the legal material therein. Legal material in the Pentateuch doesn't decribe, say, most of Genesis and Exodus. Law is embedded in a historical narrative. 'The law' doesn't mean 'the laws'. Test case: Galatians 4:21 - Paul uses law to refer to the narrative of Hagar and Sarah.

There are two exceptions to this. Yes, nomos is not less than Torah. But sometimes: nomos is GREATER than Torah. Rom 3:19 (quotes from the Psalms)... 1 Cor 14:21 (from Isaiah). According to BAGD, this is nomos used in a wider sense employed on the principle that the most authoritative part gives its name to the whole. That is, it is a synechdoche. The text in Rom 3 is the conclusion to Paul's argument in that part of the letter. The law of Moses in the rest of the chapter functions as 'law'.

So,

Not, which bits, but as what?

"For Paul νόμος “is always the same collection of texts, but the import of those texts shifts dramatically in accordance with the hermeneutical perspective at each stage of the unfolding drama.” (Richard B. Hays)

The law is upheld by Paul not as a demand but as something else. Paul is positive about the law as prophecy or wisdom.

1 Cor 7:19: is Paul in contradictory mode? “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God.”

In this passage- - the big idea is 'stay as you are'. What matters is that you walk by faith, not your status. Circumcision and slavery are illustrations. These don't matter - it seems like a digression, but it isn't quite.

For Paul to say circumcision is nothing is truly remarkable. It was a sign of membership in the covenant community and virtually all Jews considered it a principal command. When Antiochus Epiphanes wanted to eradicate Judaism, one of the things he did was have all those who circumcised their children killed (1 Macc. 1:60-61). Philo firmly criticizes some who argued that the Mosaic laws (including that regarding circumcision) had merely symbolic significance and thus did not need to be literally obeyed (Migr. 89-93). Jubilees 15:33-34 warns against “children of Israel … [who] will not circumcise their children according to the law.” 1 Maccabees 1:15 denounces Jewish men who remove the marks of circumcision. As Räisänen points out, for a Jew to be selective about the law was tantamount to disobeying it. To abandon circumcision was as good as annulling the law. In Acts 21:20-21, Paul telling people not to circumcise their children = turning away from (the Law of) Moses. This is confirmed in Acts 21:27-29, where Paul accused of teaching “against our (Jewish) law.”

Paul is expressing a sharp paradox (in the words of NT Wright). Circumcision is nothing, but keeping God's commands is everything? So, is he FOR Moses or against him? So what does Paul mean here, by 'keep'? Is Paul doing a 'threefold division of the law' thing - dividing between moral, ceremonial, civil? This approach seems to fly in the face of Paul's absolute statements against the law. Not a paradox but a polemic (say Brian). In 14:37, Paul say 'what I am writing to you is the Lord's command'... so here: keeping God's commands can mean something else.

1 - there's a polemical repudiation here. Circumcision is NOTHING! is pretty radical.
2 - radical replacement.
3 - wholehearted reappropriation.

So: what does he want us to do? Various options put forward by scholars. Ciampa and Rosner note that 'flee porneia' seems to dominate this section. In the broader context of marriage + singleness, it makes sense. That is: marriage or singleness are nothing, but keeping sexual purity is what counts...

SO: repudiation/replacement/reappropriation: the following lectures will trace through these themes.

The pillars of Judaism: how was Paul's perspective on his Jewish faith changed in the light of his conversion? Three pillars: election, torah, temple. He seems opposed to these.

Of course, Christianity is not the only 1st cent sect to challenge these. See the Qumran community. There were several alternative temples running around!

That is, practices of reappropriation and replacement were around... there was already the conceptual possibility of the parting of the ways. What Paul does with the law seems to fit with how a group fissures from the original faith.

“Paul’s controversial view of the Law was inextricably bound up with the significance which he ascribed to Jesus as Messiah and with the challenge this issued to all the fundamental symbols of Jewish life.”

(W.D. Davies)

What about what Paul DOESN'T say? A Jew like Paul could be expected to refer to a number of practices that have to do with the law. Boasting, for example. But Paul never uses that language to Christian believers. His unconscious lexical choice: he never says 'we can boast in the law' 'we can walk by the law etc.



MPJ's questions:
1) use of intertestamental literature in 'biblical theology'?
2) what about law in Romans 2? Seems to be an implicit division. Right?