Mecaskey 1

Hannah M. Mecaskey
HSST 2022: Ancient/Medieval Judaism
Prof. Mira Wasserman
Argument of Continuity/Change
5 November 2010

Paul and Nomos vs. Scripture in Torah

A Critical Re-reading of Romans 1-4.12

Introduction: Paul’s Identity and Note on Reading Paul

Writing from the context of the early rabbinic period, circa 40CE, the Apostle Paul is an excellent
example of continuity and change within Judaism. Self-identifying as a “Hebrew of Hebrews” from the
tribe of Benjamin,1 Paul also aligns his identity with the Pharisees, a prominent religious sect during the
late Second Temple period. While none of Paul’s identity claims are thoroughly verifiable, his epistles
demonstrate a deep familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures as well as Hellenistic thought. Using language
of logos and nomos to derive new interpretations of the Scriptures after his ecstatic experience with
Christ, Paul has frequently been credited as the originator of a Jesus movement which drastically departs
from Judaism.
As a follower of the New Paul tradition, a recent interpretive movement that has spent the last
fifty years re-examining Paul’s work from an Anti-Jewish perspective, I argue that while Paul does not
dismiss the Torah entirely, he alters his hermeneutical usage of it in such a way that omits Oral Torah and
negates observances particular to Jewish identity. Presenting a lens for my interpretation of Rom. 1-4.12
in distinguishing between Paul’s normative use of nomos (law) and his quotes from Written Torah, I will
clarify through a close reading of Rom. 1-4.12 how Paul maintains continuities with Pharisaic,
Hellenistic, and Rabbinic Jewish traditions, while also departing from these in dramatic ways. Realizing
what a controversial figure Paul has been in the history of Jewish-Christian relations, I would like to note
that every reading of Paul is very colored by the reader’s context. As Catholic Christian educated in
modern biblical scholarship through a Christian perspective, I am very self-conscious of presumptions I
bring to these texts, and will do my best to be reflective in my arguments.

Gonsell’s Distinction of Torah’s Regulations vs. Instructions

Peter Gonsell suggests that Paul appears to appeal to “law” inconsistently in Romans, seemingly
contradicting himself by declaring faithful in Christ freed from it while quoting from scriptural Law. 2
Gonsell suggests that resolution to this contradiction distinguishing between Paul’s use of “law as
regulation and Law as instructing scripture.”3 Gonsell interprets the differences in Paul’s usage of nomos
from quoting scripture by noting that though both concepts are rooted in Torah, nomos in Romans refers
to “written, controlling or authoritative regulations” 4 which are the bases of Israel’s covenant with God,
while Paul’s actual quotation of Torah as “written, authoritative instruction” 5 reveals God’s universal
desires for human future and behavior. By this interpretation, Gonsell suggests that Paul is not dismissing
his readers from Torah adherence entirely in his rhetoric, but rather advocating some kind of reading of
Torah for moral guidance. Following Gonsell’s argument, that Paul is not polemicizing against the whole
of the Torah, but rather drawing a radical distinction between those elements of Mosaic law which define

1
Philippians 3.5, English Standard Version.
2
Peter W. Gonsell. "Law in Romans: regulation and instruction." Novum testamentum 51, no. 3 (January 1, 2009):
252-271. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 4, 2010).
3
Ibid., 255.
4
Ibid., 253.
5
Ibid.
 Mecaskey 2

Israelite covenant from universal covenant between God and humankind, I will elucidate the ways in
which Romans 1-4.12 demonstrates these usages.

Romans 1: Beginning in Israelite Identity and Departing to God’s Behavioral Concerns

Paul begins his letter to the church in Rome by establishing the authority with which he is
speaking, to gain credibility with an audience he likely never met. Tracing the scriptural lineage of Jesus
through God’s promises to the prophets,6 Paul is concerned with both the spiritual and biological lineage
of Jesus in vs. 3 and 4: according to the Flesh of David and demonstrated to be God’s Son through
resurrection by “the Spirit of Holiness.”7 In this introduction of Jesus as his source of authority, Paul
subtly ties his message to the Hebrew Scriptures with which his audience may have some familiarity, and
introduces the theme of his letter, that Jesus enabled “the obedience of faith” 8 amongst all peoples and
nations. Having described the obedience brought by Jesus down from the prophets as for all people, Paul
adds an ordering of Jewish primacy to his message: first Jew, then Gentiles may believe. This seems to
begin Paul’s departure from an emphasis of biological ancestry to one of faith, for he closes by quoting
Habakkuk 2.4, ‘”The righteous shall live by faith.”’9
Language of wrath towards unrighteous behavior immediately follows, pivoting from Paul’s
quotation of the prophet Habakkuk, indicating God’s concern about human unrighteousness without
distinction between Jew or Gentile.10 Yet, perhaps Paul has the Jews’ ancestors, the Israelites, in mind in
vs. 21 where he talks specifically about those who persisted in ungodly behavior even though they knew
God. Describing the “foolishness” of those who claimed to be wise, turning their backs on God (vs. 22-
27), Paul begins to use language of law or transgressed covenant, describing the unrighteous as “receiving
in themselves the due penalty for their error.” 11 Whatever particular group or error Paul is referring to in
his rhetoric, he understands the consequences of disobeying God to be God reneging on God’s end of the
covenant, deterministically disposing the disobedient towards more sin. 12
Describing the manner of sin into which these forsaken people abandoned themselves, 13 Paul
paints a picture of these people realizing their transgression of God’s covenant, yet celebrating their
departure from it. I think it is important to note at the end of chapter 1 in Romans, Paul has only discussed
disobedience of God’s covenantal terms in moral vocabulary, which could apply universally to
humankind, rather than just the Israelite covenant with God the Jewish people claim.

Romans 2: Redefining God’s Requirements Without Circumcision

Assigning the task of judgment to God because of the universality of human guilt, Paul begins the
second chapter of Romans by setting the stage for his polemic against the nomos which defines the
Israelite covenant. Paul’s rhetoric takes a tone of rebuke with any who have judged, calling them to
repentance, for only God is worthy of judging.14 It actually seems that Paul is trying to redefine what
kinds of “works” God is interested in, saying that “He will render to each one according to his works,” 15
the righteous will receive “eternal life,”16 while the disobedient will face God’s wrath. 17 Having described
God as the judge of all human people on the basis of their moral behavior, Paul must qualify why he can
claim that there is no difference between Jew or Gentile under God’s judgment.
6
Romans 1.2, ESV.
7
Ibid, 1.4, ESV.
8
Ibid, 1.5, ESV.
9
Ibid., 1.17, ESV.
10
Ibid., 1.18-20, ESV.
11
Ibid., 1.27, ESV.
12
Ibid., 1.28, ESV.
13
Ibid., 1.29-31, ESV.
14
Ibid., 2.5, ESV.
15
Ibid., 2.6, ESV.
16
Ibid 2.7, ESV
17
Ibid. 2.8, ESV
 Mecaskey 3

Though Paul understands God not to show partiality,18 he seems to continue to address the Roman
audience’s understanding of a Jewish preference in covenantal relationship with God. My understanding
is that though Paul’s audience is likely mixed, Jewish and Gentile Jesus-followers, the larger majority is
Jewish. I also understand that it is not likely that Paul founded this church-group, but rather one of the
other Apostles, whom Paul was likely in conflict with over the issue of Gentile inclusion without
circumcision in the Jesus movement. Reading from this perspective, I can reconstruct the presuppositions
of Paul’s audience by the tone with which he appeals to them: even though Paul claims that God will
judge all humanity on the basis of moral behavior, Paul orders the dispersion of both retribution and
blessing to “the Jew first and also the Greek.”19
From verse 12 to 29 of Romans 2, Paul sets up the perimeters by which he distinguishes the
nomos of the Israelite covenant from the instruction of the Torah. Leveling the playing field, Paul says
that having the Torah alone is not grounds for receiving eternal life- that is, the belief that all who follow
the rituals of the covenant between God and Israel, but rather doing the moral instructions of the Torah,
regardless of whether one has it or not, accounts for righteous obedience of God’s covenant with
humankind. The idea that God has a covenant with humankind regardless of the revelation of Torah itself
is introduced in Romans 2.14-16: Paul equates Gentile behavior that follows the Torah’s moral instruction
as Torah observance, calling such behavior “a law to themselves, even though they do not have the
law.”20 Paul contrasts this state which he describes as having “the work of the law [as] written on their
[Gentile] hearts”21 with those who are Jewish, claiming to teach and know the Torah, while transgressing
at the same time its moral instruction.22 Paul chastises the Jews in the community, saying “You who boast
in the law dishonor God by breaking the law.”23
Transitioning to the issue of circumcision, Paul discusses the equation of circumcision, a sign of
God’s covenant with Israel, to a keeping of the whole Torah, of which Paul has prefaced God’s concern
with its moral instruction. Thus for Jews, he says, circumcision is only valuable if they keep God’s moral
instructions—without obedience, circumcision is worthless. 24 For the uncircumcised Gentiles, however,
Paul equates obedience to the moral instruction of the Torah, even without knowledge of the Torah, as
same in value to physical circumcision. What Paul is doing here is demonstrating his preference of moral
obedience to God’s will (which cannot be solely identified with Torah obedience) to fulfilling obligations
of Israel’s covenant with God. Yet, Paul is not denouncing circumcision either, but distinguishing it from
God’s requirements of righteousness for all mankind to specifically God’s covenant with Israel. Paul
begins by merely reforming the concept of circumcision, saying that “no one is a Jew who is merely one
outwardly,” for circumcision is not only “outward and physical.” 25 However, the following verse more
radically defines Paul’s notion of Jewishness: quoting Jeremiah, Paul redefines circumcision as of the
heart, redefining Jewish understanding of inclusion within Torah community from the Israelite’s covenant
to a more universal one.

Romans 3: Covenant of Faith as Understood as Coming Out from Law While Not Negating it
Affirming the righteousness of God in spite of human transgression to covenantal relationships
with God, Paul directly addresses Jewish privilege with regards to covenantal blessing by God. Quoting a
cocktail of Psalms and Proverbs, Paul demonstrates that “the law” categorizes all people, both Jew and
Gentile as under sin. In this context where Paul has distinguished between “the law,” under which one
understanding of covenant with God can be found in the Israelite covenant and “the law” in terms of

18
Ibid., 2.11, ESV.
19
Ibid., 2.9,10., ESV.
20
Ibid., 2.14, ESV.
21
Ibid., 2.15, ESV.
22
Ibid., 2.17-23, ESV.
23
Ibid., 2.23, ESV.
24
Ibid., 2.25, ESV.
25
Ibid., 2.28, ESV.
 Mecaskey 4

God’s expectation for all humanity, “works of the law” 26 in Paul’s usage seems to refer to actions
pertaining to the Israelite covenant with God. Declaring to the Jews in the Roman congregation of the
Jesus movement that justification in God’s eyes does not come from “works of the law,” which could be
equated with circumcision mention in Paul’s reconstruction of what it means to obey God in Romans
2.28-9.
In verses 21-31 of Romans 3, Paul begins his most radical development of a theology in which
would recognize circumcision as a necessary part of covenant with God. I say this because Paul begins
this section, “now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law
and Prophets bear witness to it.”27 This demonstrates how self-conscious Paul is that he is developing
something new out of the Hebrew Scriptures, through he has not yet developed what he means by “the
righteousness of God.” Paul describes how righteousness comes apart from the law… “through faith in
Jesus Christ” without distinction of whether one is Jew or Gentile. 28 Describing how Christ comes out of
the law, Paul applies the cultic atonement metaphor of sacrifice to Jesus’ death on the cross, 29 picturing
the crucifixion as an activity of God to right some score that was kept when “in His divine forbearance He
had passed over former sins.”30 What Paul means by these “former sins” is debated amongst scholars, but
some think that Paul sees a similarity between Judea’s current situation under intensifying Roman rule
and the Babylonian exile. Using regulator language to describe the redemptive death of Jesus, Paul
attempts to picture how regulations of the Israelite covenant should be understood as secondary to a
covenant of faith which is mediated by moral instruction from the Torah.
Reiterating the elimination of Jewish privilege over Gentiles by re-affirming a law of faith, Paul
retains the moral instruction of the Torah rather than upholding regulations of the Israelite covenant (also
in the Torah) as requirements of this new understanding of covenant. Paul completely separates the
Israelite covenant from his understanding of God’s universal covenant with humanity, allowing those
who are Jewish to retain their particular covenant, but underneath the umbrella of a covenant of faith in
Jesus Christ, which requires moral behavior rather than circumcision. This is not an overthrowing of the
law, Paul assures his readers, but rather an upholding of the law. 31 It would seem that Paul’s mystical
experience of Christ on the road to Damascus has presented him with a new hermeneutic for interpreting
the Torah, and by which Paul feels he offers a faithful rendering of God’s requirement for mankind.

Romans 4.1-12: Covenant of Faith not new with Christ but Based in Ancestor of Judaism, Abraham
To demonstrate that he is in fact upholding the law, Paul roots his new hermeneutical tradition in
Abraham, “our forefather according to the flesh” 32 for all of Jewish descent who hold on to the Israelite
covenant. Proof texting Abraham as the father of the Covenant of Faith, because his belief brought
justification before any action, Paul seems to be reacting to some understanding of Judaism amongst the
Roman congregation which seems circumcision as a work which God responds to by paying a wage. 33
Using Psalm 32 as an example of scriptural authority to understand God as concerned with a sinful
condition rather than ceremonial condition, Paul argues that God blesses sinless person regardless of
circumcision.
Returning to Abraham, Paul hinges his argument that Abraham was justified by faith on the fact
that Abraham was not circumcised until after he had been declared justified. 34 Interpreting this fact to
understand Abraham as “the father of all who believe without being circumcised,” 35 Paul’s hermeneutical
26
Ibid., 3.20, ESV.
27
Ibid., 3.21, ESV.
28
Ibid., 3.22, ESV.
29
Ibid., 3.24-26, ESV.
30
Ibid., 3.25, ESV.
31
Ibid., 3.31, ESV.
32
Ibid., 4.1, ESV.
33
Ibid., 4.4-5, ESV.
34
Ibid., 4.10, ESV.
35
Ibid., 4.11, ESV.
 Mecaskey 5

preference of the Abrahamic covenant over and against the Mosaic covenant becomes evident. While
Abraham received circumcision as “a seal of the righteousness he had by faith while yet
uncircumcised,”36 the most crucial part of Abraham’s heritage to Paul is not his circumcision, but rather
opening up the possibility for the uncircumcised to be counted righteous by God without ever receiving
circumcision.37 Having explained Paul’s arguments in Romans 1-4.12 as a defense of Gentile
righteousness without circumcision through faith to Jewish followers of Jesus, Paul’s arguments
themselves offer many points of divergence and continuity from what we might discern as “Judaism”
according to early rabbinic characteristics in the late Second Temple Period.

Paul’s Continuity With and Change From Jewish Tradition

As stated earlier, it would seem that Paul understands himself as authentically Jewish by his self-
descriptions, even more specifically; Paul has described himself as a Pharisee and can be held
accountable to what we know of their practices and beliefs as well. Since more is known about the
Rabbis, the religious descendents of the Pharisees, than the Pharisees themselves, I will also compare
Paul’s methodology and conclusions to Rabbinic thought. Existing within a very Hellenized period of
Judaism, Paul would have been very influences by Hellenized thought, so as much as possible, I will
elucidate these instances from his overall arguments and reasoning in Romans 1-4.12.
Beginning with his claim of Pharisaism, how does Paul show signs of similarity/departure from
this sect? Josephus seems to indicate that the Pharisee party was very concerned with biblical law and its
application, both in the forms of Written Torah and Oral Torah (as the later Rabbis would identify these
tenets). Paul demonstrates a great concern for the Written Torah, but does polemicize against the
ritualistic aspects of Jewish law (such as circumcision in this context) as no longer necessary to covenant
with God because of the availability of faith in Jesus. Paul’s reinterpretation of law seems to either reject
Oral Torah completely, which departs from Pharisaic tradition, or reinterpret Torah in such a way as to
nullify the need to be circumcised, which is commanded of Israelite men in the Torah. However,
distinctive belief of the Pharisees are very apparent in Paul’s writing, including the resurrection from the
dead,38 existence of Spirits and angels, and in the coming of the Messiah. For Paul, however, the future
eschatological coming of the Pharisees’ Messiah is realized in Jesus, spurring his theological departure
concerning certain distinctively Jewish observances.
Hellenism contributed greatly in Paul’s conceptions of Judaism. Incorporating Greek
philosophical methods of communication into his writing, Paul relied heavily on rhetoric. Paul also
utilized allegory and metaphor while writing in Greek, most notably his “circumcision is a matter of the
heart,”39 which was also used by Philo of Alexandria to normalize the custom of circumcision from
apparent barbarism to sophistication.40 In that way, Paul’s atonement metaphor in Romans 3.25-6 also can
be interpreted as an attempt to sophisticate cultic rituals which may have transgressed Hellenistic senses
of decency. Similarly, Paul was able to utilize the Hellenistic Jewish way of speaking of monotheism, in
which logos and sophia were understood as emanations of God, to expand his own thinking concerning
Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Linguistically, Paul uses a very Hellenized style, though some of his content,
specifically concerning Jesus, differs from that of his contemporaries.
Finally, Paul demonstrates similar usage of Scripture to the emerging Rabbis, but also maintains
major differences with regards to his interpretation. While the Rabbis relied upon both Written and oral
Torah to derive their applications of scriptural text, Paul seems to rely only upon scripture through a
Hellenized lens of interpretation. Dealing with issues ancestry, rules for inclusion and requirements for
righteousness, Paul’s subject matter is very similar to the Rabbis, as is his method of teasing out

36
Ibid.
37
Ibid., 4.12, ESV.
38
Ibid., 2.7, ESV… “eternal life..”
39
Ibid., 2.28, ESV.
40
John M. G. Barclay. “Paul And Philo on Circumcision: Romans 2.25–9 in Social and Cultural Context.” New
Testament Studies, 44 (1998): 536-556.
 Mecaskey 6

interpretations from minute details in the text. However, where the Rabbis prioritize biological ancestry
from Abraham, Paul introduces Abraham as a Patriarch of faith ancestry in a non-biological way. This
eliminates for Paul the need to be circumcised for inclusion in the Jesus movement, though the Rabbis
maintain circumcision is necessary for inclusion in the Abrahamic line. Righteousness for Paul is
adherence to the moral instruction of the Written Torah alone, while the Rabbis include prescriptions of
both Written and Oral Torah.

Conclusion
Having demonstrated how Paul distinguishes within even the Written Torah between
prescriptions of Jewish identity and righteousness before God, it becomes clear how differently Paul’s
message to the Romans diverges from that of his rough contemporaries, the Pharisees, other Hellenized
Jews, and the early Rabbis. Using Hellenistic rhetoric, allegory and metaphor to argue from the Hebrew
Scriptures, Paul determines that circumcision is not necessary for inclusion in the covenant of Abraham.
Rather, what is necessary is faith in Jesus Christ, demonstrated through obedience to the moral instruction
of the Written Torah in order that one might hope to be resurrected from the dead. While Paul is indeed
demonstrating his Pharisaic roots with concern about afterlife and the Messiah, his interpretation of these
concepts parts ways with the Pharisee party. And though he argues about the same issues as the Rabbis
and even in the same manner, Paul reaches conclusions which lay the groundwork from an entirely
different understanding of identity: early Christianity.

Works Cited:
Barclay, John M. G. “Paul And Philo on Circumcision: Romans 2.25–9 in Social and Cultural Context.”
New Testament Studies, 44 (1998): 536-556.

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

Gruenwald, Ithamar. "Paul and the nomos in light of ritual theory." New Testament Studies 54, no. 3 (July
1, 2008): 398-416. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 4,
2010).

Moo, Douglas J. "Law", "works of the law", and legalism in Paul." Westminster Theological Journal 45,
no. 1 (March 1, 1983): 73-100. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed
November 4, 2010).

Barclay, John M. G. “Paul And Philo on Circumcision: Romans 2.25–9 in Social and Cultural Context.”
New Testament Studies, 44 (1998): 536-556.