Mercy for All: Paul, Judaism, and the Salvation of “All Israel”

By Robert D. Anderson

This is a study in the interpretation of Paul with a focus on an interpretation of Romans 9 to 11 as a defense of God's faithfulness to Israel. The study begins with reviews of three historical approaches to studying Paul's relationship to the Judiasm of his era, the third anchoring Paul with the Judaism of his time (Second Temple Judaism). It then moves to an interpretation of his writings from a broad framework within that Jewish sociocultural paradigm. The study suggests that Paul's letter to the Romans provides a defense of Judaism, and Romans 9 to 11 provides an argument for God's faithfulness to Israel. Romans 11, particularly 11:25-32, presents a picture of Israel's redemption and how gentiles relate to Israel's redemption, through the mercy they have received via Israel. Gentiles are seen as instrumental in the redemption of Israel. Romans 11:25-32 should be read as a missional paradigm to Israel.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Dec 20, 2023
• ISBN: 9781666706369

Robert D. Anderson

Robert D. Anderson is an adjunct faculty member at Denver Seminary at the Washington, DC, campus. He has a BS in philosophy (Towson University), an MBA (Loyola University of Baltimore), an MA in biblical studies and a CAS in advanced biblical studies (St. Mary's Seminary and University), and a PhD in biblical studies (Graduate Theological Foundation). He is currently working towards and DMin at Northern Seminary. He is a member of the Society for Biblical Literature (SBL), the Institute for Biblical Research (IBR), and the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). He is a contributor to Amplify Christ (LifeStone Ministries) and has presented studies at both ETS and SBL (above).

Book preview

Mercy for All

Paul, Judaism, and the Salvation of All Israel

ROBERT d. aNDERSON

Mercy for All

Paul, Judaism, and the Salvation of All Israel

Copyright © 2023 Robert D. Anderson. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Wipf & Stock

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-6667-0634-5

hardcover isbn: 978-1-6667-0635-2

ebook isbn: 978-1-6667-0636-9

version number 051523

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version Bible (NRSV), copyright © 1989 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Preface

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

Chapter 1: Introduction—Paul within Judaism

Chapter 2: Historical Approaches to Paul’s Writings

Chapter 3: Historical Approaches—Not Judaism

Chapter 4: The Judaism of the Apostle Paul

Chapter 5: Paul and Israel: The Law and the Temple

Chapter 6: The Rhetorical Situation

Chapter 7: In Defense of Israel (Romans 9–10)

Chapter 8: Saving Israel (Romans 11)

Chapter 9: Conclusion: A Missional Mindset

Bibliography

This study is dedicated to my family, who I love and who has been patient with me in this process for many long years. Their support for this effort and my wife, Barbara’s, assistance in proofing the original document over many years has been invaluable. I cannot thank them enough. I also dedicate this to my grandchildren. May they diligently seek to understand the Christian Scriptures in their original context.

If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

—Phil 3:4–6

When Paul noticed that some were Sadducees and others were Pharisees, he called out in the council, Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead.

—Acts 23:6

Preface

This is a study in the interpretation of Paul, reading his letters through what I consider to be a Jewish paradigm. We call this view Paul within Judaism, although there are many nuances among scholars who both advocate and criticize the view. So, I will simply note here that this is my view, but I see myself as falling within that camp as a Christian. While it is popular in seminaries, there seems to be an absence of the focus within many churches, at least among evangelicals. We do give it lip service, generally with catchphrases like, Yes, I know Paul was a Jew, but . . . And that is where we get ourselves into trouble. We see Paul’s heritage as Jewish, but he became something else after his encounter with the risen Jesus. When we think that way, I believe we lose something of what Paul was doing in his ministry and writings, and our interpretation shifts to a more modern paradigm that makes Paul like me (the reader).

In essence, this book is my attempt to travel an exegetical path that many contemporary scholars are seeking, to read Paul’s letters through his own eyes and as the early believers might have read his writings. The study centers on Romans and my reading and interpretation of Rom 9 to 11 as a defense of God’s faithfulness to Israel, with a gentile mission toward Israel. However, there is much to understand about Paul before presenting this focus. Therefore, the study begins with reviews of three historical approaches to studying Paul’s relationship to the Judaism of his era. It argues that Paul is anchored with the Judaism of his time, Second Temple Judaism, and that his writings can be evaluated from a broad framework within that culture. Romans 9 to 11 provides an argument for Israel, with Rom 11, particularly 11:25–32, presenting a picture of Israel’s redemption and how gentiles relate to that redemption—through the mercy they have received via Israel.

The approach I have taken is missional, by which I mean that my study is an attempt to understand Paul’s mission to the believers in Rome, a community that was not founded by him. What I have tried to do is to place Paul within a Jewish mindset with respect to his understanding of Jesus as the Messiah, while understanding how he has maintained his vision of Israel’s redemption.

While this book is based on my dissertation, the target audience for this book is a broader audience that includes academics, pastors, and laypersons who have an interest in what Paul is saying from a culture that is much different than our own. Paul does write to churches, and it is the churches that need to understand his message to communicate it to the larger communities in which they reside. A primary task of Christian ministry is to understand a text within its own context so that we can translate it conceptually into our own. Therefore, it is my hope that this will enable pastors and laypeople to read Paul in a different way that is closer to his intent in writing to the various churches. While there are references and quotations from the Greek text, I have provided translations in English where appropriate.

However, in this preface I want to assist the reader with an understanding of style and references to simplify your reading.

Style and Exceptions

In general, styling for this study will follow the Wipf & Stock standards where available, with footnote references at the bottom of the page. Where formatting exceptions occur that are not documented by Wipf & Stock, The SBL Handbook of Style will be used. References to Scripture will use the inline formatting style.

Kindle Book Reader References

Some references are from electronic versions of books and commentaries found on the Kindle reading device or software. Often these do not use page numbers but location indicators. SBL suggests a range of locations within the whole of the document when the page number is not available. Therefore, in cases where the page number cannot be directly derived for books published to Kindle reading devices, the embedded references will be identified with the author’s last name, chapter title (or book name), and loc. with a reference or range of references within total locations for the book. For example, the following identifies a reference to Charles Hodges’ Commentary to the Romans.

Hodges, Romans, loc. 38–42 of 7143.

Other Electronic Book References

Scholars today have access to digital resources both on the internet and through electronic software packages. Occasionally, references from electronic sources do not include page numbers. When this occurs, I will use a locator (if possible), which may be a chapter number or some other reference. Documents on internet sites often do not contain page numbers. As such, see the bibliography for the URL reference.

When providing references to definitions in standard lexicons, I will use footnotes. Often with online versions of these lexicons there are no page numbers associated with the definitions—just a reference to the lexicon via an abbreviation. For example, Walter Bauer’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature is referred to as BDAG in common usage.¹ In the footnote, this designation is followed by s.v. (sub verbo: under the word) and the Greek word as it would first appear in the lexicon. For example, the footnote for the definition of λόγος would be as follows:

BDAG, s.v. λόγος.

Other lexicons will follow the same method. See the abbreviation list below for other references.

Multivolume Works

Some authors have commentaries that are multivolume works, where the range of chapters for a passage are included in the title. However, the page numbering is continuous across volumes. Examples of these would be the commentaries by James D. G. Dunn and C. E. B. Cranfield. In accordance with convention, references to these commentaries will be referred to by author, and change in title based on the volume and page number. If there is no title change, then the title and volume will be given. For example, Cranfield’s comments on Rom 9:1–5 from his second volume would be as follows:

Cranfield, Romans 9–16, 451–70.

Where an author (like Dunn) has multiple works that need to be separated, the volume identifier will be added to the page number, separated by a colon. For example, a quote from Dunn’s two volume commentary on Romans would be as follows:

Dunn, Romans, 1:250.

Biblical References

Biblical references in SBL style are generally provided inline as chapter and verse, with chapter and verse separated by a colon. Unless otherwise specified, English translation texts are provided in the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV). Where other versions are used, the version of certain references will be identified by the abbreviations given in the table below for simplicity. For example, the following reference is to Romans chapter 1, verses 16 to 17 in the English Standard Version:

(Rom 1:16–17 ESV)

Where quotes are not used, only the direct reference to a biblical text is given.

There are occasions where I may change the translation because I think a better translation of the meaning can be achieved with a minor variation of a published translation. Where I modify a translation with my own translation from the Greek, my modification will be noted with my initials within the parentheses with the base translation and bracketed in the text where appropriate.

(Rom 1:16–17 ESV, RDA)

Any direct translation that I provide will be noted as follows:

(Rom 1:16–17 RDA)

The same format applies to other early church references, such as Clement. Other early literature separates sections by periods. This study follows that convention, except where quoting authors who may use different conventions or formats.

1

. Bauer et al., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Hereafter referred to as BDAG.

Acknowledgments

There are many teachers, colleagues, and friends who have encouraged me and contributed time and effort to my ongoing biblical studies. Dr. Timothy Allen provided invaluable assistance as my final advisor to bring the original dissertation to conclusion. Dr. Timothy Cargal, when he was at St. Mary’s Seminary, pointed me in the right direction for the study of Paul from a Jewish perspective. I would also like to thank those of the review committee from the Graduate Theological Foundation (GTF) who gave me good insight in areas to improve, and who allowed their reviews to act as recommendations for this work. Mostly, my thanks to Dr. Michael Gorman, who spent years assisting me in fine-tuning my skills in biblical studies.

Thank you to all who proofread and reviewed the initial draft of this document. Your feedback was very valuable. In addition, I would like to thank Mark Nanos for his fine work and insight in this area that also influenced my thinking. He also was willing to communicate and pointed me to updated essays for review. Steve Mason (University of Groningen in the Netherlands) also provided insight into the linguistic use of Judaism and how it affects our interpretation of Paul. Others are too many to acknowledge by name but provided milestones on this journey of discovery. Thank you to all for the contributions to this work.

Abbreviations

Standard abbreviation of lexicons, grammars, and some quotes may be provided either in footnotes or the body of the text. These generally follow The SBL Handbook of Style. Below are the most commonly used abbreviations, with exceptions to style noted.

Lexicons

•BDAG—Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich

•LSJ—Liddell, Scott, Jones, McKenzie

•Thayer’s—Grimm Wilke’s, translated by Joseph Thayer

•GNM—Friberg, Friberg, and Miller

•LN—Louw and Nida

•TDNT—Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

Grammars

•BDF—Blass, Debrunner, and Funk

•Wallace (exception)—Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics

Early Church Literature

•ANF—The Ante-Nicene Fathers

•NPNF—The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church

Common abbreviations used for Bible translations, Greek or Hebrew texts, versions of the Bible, or extrabiblical materials will follow the guidelines of The SBL Handbook of Style. These are given below:

•NA—Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland 27th Edition

•SBLGNT—The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition

•Byz.—Byzantine Greek Text of the New Testament (Robinson and Pierpont)

•LXX—Septuagint (general reference). This is the Greek text of the Hebrew Bible, which varies from the Masoretic text. If this accompanies an English translation, then the English is taken from Lancelot Brenton’s translation of the LXX (1851) unless otherwise specified.

•MT—Masoretic Text. Any Hebrew will be derived from modern editions of this text.

•ESV—English Standard Version

•KJV—King James Version

•MGI—New Testament Peshitta, Magiera translation (2005)

•MRD—New Testament Peshitta, Murdock Translation (1851)

•NAS—Bible, New American Standard Version (1977)

•NAU—Bible, New American Standard Version (1995)

•NOV—Nova Vulgata

•NRSV—Bible, New Revised Standard Version

•QBE—Dead Sea Scrolls, Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich (1999)

•RSV—Bible, Revised Standard Version

Exceptions will be referenced as appropriate.²

2

. In general, I have sought to follow the abbreviation guidelines from SBL Handbook of Style. However, some references may come from either software versions of texts provided by Faithlife/Logos or BibleWorks. While the BibleWorks product is no longer being updated, abbreviations of sources above may follow the BibleWorks convention where they are unique to the product. References from Logos or BibleWorks software packages will have the original copyright information in the bibliography as provided by the software.

1

Introduction—Paul within Judaism

It may be a fair statement that the apostle Paul has received more study and interpretation throughout the history of the Christian church than Jesus himself. Of course, there is good reason for this. Of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, fourteen have, at various times, been attributed to him. Interpretations of Paul’s understanding of the meaning of Jesus and salvation have shaped Protestant theology from the Reformation until today. Paul is often viewed as the model of the Christian conversion experience, having initially rejected the preaching of Jesus and persecuting the followers of Christ (Acts 9:1–2; Gal 1:13–14) and, finally, dying for his Lord in martyrdom as noted in Clement’s first letter to the Corinthian church.¹

Paul is important to understanding how the first-century Christian church developed and what the early church believed. In his book Reading Paul, Michael J. Gorman amended the famous quote on writing books by adding a reference to Paul—Of the making of books on the apostle Paul there is no end.² He answers the query of why he should write his book by suggesting that in the modern academic environment, we often do not read Paul as our contemporary, but simply as an ancient figure, one who, perhaps, has no bearing on our contemporary situation. Quoting Malina and Pilch, Gorman expresses this view as follows: Modern Christianity in all its forms has little to do with the ancestral expressions in the Jesus groups of Paul’s day.³ He notes that the authors are right to try to help readers enter the world of the first century with Paul. Likewise, if we are to read Paul as Scripture, then in some sense we need to make Paul our contemporary.⁴ That is not to say we must modernize Paul. That is the danger that Krister Stendahl warned against in his essay The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West, where he demonstrates the error of imposing an introspective persona on Paul’s dilemma in Romans.⁵ Rather, we must seek to place ourselves as contemporaries of Paul in his time. According to Stendahl, we must see ourselves as part of that newly born community of believers, understanding God as they understood God, and then begin to see how their understanding of God can be contemporaneously brought forward to inform us in our situation. Joel Green puts it this way, with my explanatory addition in brackets:

The first question, then [in the interpretation of the Bible as Scripture], is not what separates us (language, diet, worldview, politics, social graces, and so forth) from the biblical authors, but whether we are ready to embrace the God to whom and the theological vision to which these writers bear witness.⁶

In the twenty-first century, we live in a world that is still defined by violence and the quest for domination. The world is plagued with economic uncertainty in a global community more tightly integrated than ever before. Yet despite an interdependent world community, new forms of materialism, imperialism, and even tribalism have become evident. If the church is to speak to this world and provide guidance into a new type of life, which we call the life of God, how are we to model this life and where must this life be exhibited? It is my proposal in this study that Paul’s understanding of Israel and the messianic gentiles’ relationship to Israel in the first century provide insight and a model of behavior that can inform the churches of today that are embedded in a pluralistic society, where religions and philosophies compete for the hearts and minds of people who influence the greater society at large.

For much of the two millennia since the birth of Jesus, the Christian church has had a rocky relationship with its parent religion, Judaism. This is evidenced in writings from Marcion (via Irenaeus and others) to Rudolf Bultmann, where some Christian perspectives toward Judaism were confrontational, even, in some cases, leading to violence against those who claim to worship the God of Abraham, who is the same God claimed by the Christians. While it is arguable that he is a source of this animosity, Paul’s writings have been used in part for the justification of both hatred and violence, particularly toward Judaism. This seems almost an absurdity, since Paul’s own testimony states that he was a Jew, a member of Israel, one of the circumcised (Phil 3:1–6), and, according to the testimony of one biblical author, one who practiced the sacrifices of Judaism even after becoming a Christian (Acts 21:20–26). That Paul was a follower of Jesus is evident from his own writings, where he claims to have received a vision of Jesus Christ from God, and that God had called him to a specific ministry (Gal 1:16). If you were to ask any theologian, biblical scholar, or church historian how we should classify the ethnic background of Paul, you would receive a unanimous agreement that his background was Jewish, although they might disagree on the type of Jew. Yet the evidence of Pauline interpretation throughout history shows that his writings have not always been viewed as those of a Jewish teacher, but as one who departs from mainstream Judaism. Past Jewish scholars have separated themselves from Paul, declaring the theology that is derived from his writings to be a fundamentally different type of religion. According to Pamela Eisenbaum, Leo Baeck saw Christianity as diametrically opposed to Judaism, with Paul leaving Judaism behind when he became a Christian. Other Jewish scholars, such as Martin Buber, Richard Rubenstein, and Joseph Klausner, also saw a separation of Christianity and Judaism based on Paul’s teachings.⁷

Among Christian scholars who saw this separation we certainly could point to Luther, whose work seems to dominate the analysis of the Jewish authors above. Charles Hodges, a nineteenth-century theologian, suggested that the Jewish religion was one of form, but was destitute in spirit. In fact, Hodges suggests that Paul’s primary adversaries were the Jews.⁸

Paul also had a self-declared mission to the gentiles, and some scholars have questioned whether the theology that resulted from his writings could truly be understood within the realm of Jewish thinking given that mission. For example, Michael Bird suggests there was no overt missionary activity among the gentiles that mirrored what Paul saw as his calling.⁹

Paul’s understanding of Jesus the Messiah and the Messiah’s role with respect to both Israel and those who are not-Israel can certainly affect how we read Paul, and this has become one of the key questions in Pauline studies. Did Paul’s understanding of God remain within the framework that we call Second Temple Judaism, or did he convert to something else that resulted from his understanding and experience with the risen Christ?

This study seeks to address this question from the perspective of what I believe is Paul’s understanding of Israel and concludes with an analysis of Rom 11:25–32.

²⁵ So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the gentiles has come in.

²⁶ And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, Out of Zion will come the Deliverer; he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.

²⁷ And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.

²⁸ As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; ²⁹ for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. ³⁰ Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, ³¹ so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. ³² For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.

This passage is the conclusion to the core argument in Romans concerning Israel and the gentiles, which is found in Rom 9–11. While some scholars, such as Sanday and Headlam, find this passage to be separate from his main argument,¹⁰ others such as Douglas Moo see these three chapters as integral to Paul’s argument that precedes them.¹¹ Krister Stendahl in an article on Justification suggested that Rom 9–11 was actually the core of Paul’s argument in Romans.¹² The text certainly concerns the anguish that Paul feels for his kinsmen, the Jews, who did not believe in the Messiah (Rom 9:1–5). If Stendahl is correct, and if Rom 11:25–32 is Paul’s conclusion to this section, then it stands as a positive statement concerning Judaism and the relationship the church must have with its parent religion. Indeed, it may provide a key to understanding Paul’s mission with respect to gentiles and to Israel.

The thesis for this study is as follows:

Paul remains well within Judaism in his beliefs, his calling, and his mission. As such, the letter to the Romans provides an affirmation of the Jewish covenant, with a focus on the salvation of all Israel. This view of Paul is contextually responsible with respect to his cultural background, the social setting of his audience, and the historical context in which he writes. Therefore, Rom

9

–

11

should be interpreted in the light of the three paradigms that would govern Paul’s understanding of the gospel of God—the Jewish covenant, God’s faithfulness to Israel in the light of that covenant, and the Jewish belief in the Messiah. Romans

11

:

25

–

32

should be read literally as the redemption of Israel, and it provides an instrumental view of the community of believers, with respect to Israel as the Jewish people of God, and the relationship of the community of the faithful to the synagogue community of Rome.

Many Christians often view Romans as unique in the New Testament, treating it as a compendium of Christian doctrine, as per Philipp Melanchthon,¹³ or at least a summary of Paul’s thinking concerning salvation. This was the prevailing view from the second through the eighteenth centuries and, as such, was seen as important for devotional or homiletical purposes. Indeed, it has inspired much theological speculation and analysis. However, in modern analysis, this uniqueness has been challenged, and two emphases have dominated the study of Romans. The first is an emphasis on the historical circumstances that caused the letter to be written to believers in Rome. The second emphasis has been to treat Romans as a letter and not as a theological compendium. Paul’s other letters are circumstantial, and there is no reason why this letter would be any different.¹⁴ The question that we should be asking is, If Romans is a letter to a particular group of people within a particular historical circumstance, and if Paul’s desire is to evoke a change in behavior within that group, how should we be interpreting Paul’s message? With respect to my thesis, this question must be posed with respect to the character of the author and the audience and with respect to Paul’s overall mission for Israel as it applies to a community he has not yet met.

It is the intention of this study to demonstrate that within Paul’s letter to the Romans, Israel remains a Jewish entity that Paul understood as being redeemed or delivered by the Messiah. However, it is gentile participation in the promise to Abraham that brings about this redemption of Israel. There is one primary covenant that governs the blessings of God, and that is the covenant with Abraham. This provides the criteria and the means by which the covenant with Israel is renewed and restored. Paul’s expectation is not that all gentiles become Jews, or that Jews must become like gentiles. Instead, he sees a mutual instrumentality for salvation given to both in the Messiah. It is through this mutual participation in salvation that Isaiah’s vision for both Israel and the nations would be fulfilled.

This mutual instrumentality and empowerment provide the model of social interaction where communities embedded within each other serve the greater good in the light of the Spirit’s enablement. It is within this coexistence that the presence of God is best seen, and the church can work in concert with the cultures in which it is embedded to bring about the kingdom of God.

In terms of Paul’s writings, I will primarily use the undisputed letters of Paul—Galatians, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon—in support of the arguments presented. In doing so, I am seeking to be pragmatic in confining the scope of the study. To expand my study to other books of the Pauline corpus would involve a justification for inclusion of the disputed works of Paul. Since the focus of the study is within Romans, the other texts of the undisputed letters will be used primarily to support aspects of Paul’s theology from materials that are fully accepted by the academic community and that are significant for establishing Paul’s position on the issues of my investigation within the Romans text.

Another New Testament book that will be used in support of the argument is the Acts of the Apostles. This book, generally attributed to Luke, provides a narrative for Paul’s journeys, speeches, and actions with respect to the communities he encounters throughout Asia Minor (modern day Turkey), Greece, and Jerusalem. This will be treated as a secondary testimony since it is not directly written by Paul. There is debate as to the consistency of this testimony with Paul’s own writings,¹⁵ but it is my opinion that there are aspects of the Lukan narrative that may inform us of Paul’s understanding of Christ and the pattern of his ministry. A thorough analysis of the historicity of the book of Acts and its consistency with Paul’s own writings is well beyond the scope of this project and will not be included. Every testimony is from a perspective; however, the perceived inconsistencies between the testimonies of Luke and Paul may be more of a misunderstanding of Paul than a true difference in context, particularly in the areas required by this study. While the study could progress without reference to passages in Acts, it is my opinion that Acts can operate as a secondary witness to Paul’s life and theology—one that is far closer historically to Paul than modern interpretations.

Literature from the Second Temple period, the period of Paul’s writings, will be examined where applicable. This includes text from Qumran, Philo, Josephus, and other Jewish writings, as well as secular Roman and Greek literature where applicable. Modern and contemporary studies in Paul and Second Temple Judaism will also be used where appropriate.

For much of the study of Romans, I will be using a methodological solution offered by Bruce D. Chilton, with principles of metalepsis as defined by Richard Hays. This method was adapted by Delio DelRio in his study of Paul’s relationship to the Isaiah Targum and is outlined below.¹⁶ DelRio adds a step after number two in my list below where the intertextual approach is applied to both Paul and the Targums, when both are compared to the original text of Jewish scriptures. Since this study does not include a comparison of the Targums to Paul, this step has been eliminated. I will be using the Septuagint (LXX), unless otherwise noted.

One of the fundamental questions that could be raised at this point is whether this approach to the text of Romans is even valid. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson note in their introduction to their Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament that New Testament authors are somewhat flexible in their use of Old Testament texts and allusions. Some, like Matthew, may give explicit references, while others may pack multiple allusions into their text. Interdependencies between New Testament authors, as with the Synoptic Gospels, may also affect how the text is being interpreted, providing an additional referential layer that must be examined. Others adopt a typological hermeneutic, where passages that are attributed to God, the king, or even Israel itself are attributed to Jesus as the Messiah. Likewise, passages that are attributed to Israel are read as though they are attributed to the church. Prophetic fulfillment is often loosely applied with reference to Jesus. There is an ongoing debate between those who believe that the context of the text from the Jewish scriptures is, in some sense, brought forward into the interpretation of the use of that text in the New Testament, and, as Beale and Carson put it, those who think the NT writers resort to prooftexting.¹⁷ This, of course, is the danger we all face. We tend to adapt Paul to our own lives and thinking instead of hearing Paul within his own context. Knowing this is a problem we all face, we should proceed carefully in our exegesis of Paul’s use of scripture.

The intertextual approach is not new. Augustine of Hippo recognized that reading Scripture required both a spiritual reading (one that grasped the spiritual meaning of the text) and a literal/historical reading as the interpretive context, what Augustine called a reading ad litteram and proprie. He also understood that Paul’s personal history was necessary to understand his theology of grace and that this task was difficult given human fallenness.¹⁸ Yet we often ignore the contextual side of Paul’s use of scripture when we read what he writes. That occurs when we read bare words and are not willing to enter into the labor of seeing the context of Paul’s own use of scripture. As such, people have interpreted text based on language parallels, drawing on words and word usage in other contexts.

Paula Fredriksen, commenting on Augustine’s view, noted that language is intrinsically retrospective—meaning emerges and can only emerge through the act of recollection. It is mediated through images, signs, and words that memory reflects upon.¹⁹ While it was common in the early church to read the Jewish scriptures figuratively, particularly with reference to Jesus as the Christ, Augustine noted in Christian Teaching 2.10 and 2.15 that the text was also propria, referring back to things to the narrative’s own framing of what actually happened in a moment of history, just as the text related. That is, the text means what it says, with very positive statements about Israel, the law, and obedience to the law. Hence, an ad litteram approach to the text provided the interpretive framework for Augustine’s theological arguments.²⁰ The same would apply to Paul’s use of Jewish scripture in his own writings. The bare words cannot alone convey meaning. They must be reflected upon by Paul’s own recollection of how they were used in his community.

Reflecting on this, DelRio notes that in 1961, at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Samuel Sandmel argued that there is a danger in drawing conclusions concerning intertextual relationships based on language parallels between the New Testament and Jewish literature. Rather, it is the context of the parallels that should be considered when comparing the texts. Likewise, Timothy K. Beal, building on Julia Kristeva’s theory of intertextuality, argued that this approach provides an intersection between textual surfaces and cultural readings. This approach provides meaning through both the literary and historical factors of a text. Per DelRio, Understanding this dynamic of an intertextual relationship between two texts necessitates a reading approach that moves beyond the simple recognition of similarities towards an ability to reconstruct, even if only in part, the larger discussion. The larger intertextual discussion is referred to here as the intertextual field.²¹

Adopting Hollander’s concept of metalepsis, Richard Hays has made considerable advances in the field of intertextual study, particularly with the use of Jewish scripture by Paul. In this conceptual framework, a reference of one text by another should result in a larger transfer of material context from one to another. Hays has analyzed Paul’s quotes and allusions to Jewish scriptures with the idea of a resonance of the original text within the larger chamber of the text making the reference. As such, when a quotation or allusion is made, the entire context is brought into the text making that allusion. The interpretation is shaped by the rhetorical function of the older text within the newer framework.²² As DelRio notes, The presence of parallels or polemic in the rhetorical function of common material, especially in larger blocks of content, as opposed to a parallel of material in isolated vocabulary or themes, establishes a more intricate or higher level of relationship, because rhetoric indicates a level of organized intent beyond the unconscious use of cultural terms and phrases.²³

This methodology is very important to the study of Romans, especially Rom 9–11. In his greeting to his audience, Paul declares himself to be set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures (Rom 1:1b–2). Considering the number of citations and allusions to the Jewish scriptures in Romans, Paul is leveraging his scriptures in a significant way to teach and persuade his audience. We need to engage these passages where appropriate to understand what Paul is trying to say within his own Jewish cultural context and his scriptural context. Given this, I will be analyzing such citations and allusions by Paul as follows, adapting DelRio’s methodology without reference to the Targums:

1. Identify the source, the text or combinations of texts from LXX or Jewish scriptures, that is cited or alluded to by Paul. This allows us to properly identify the referent in its own context, whether Hebrew, Greek, or another source language, determine whether this is a direct citation or an allusion, determine the type of literature being used, and determine the level of resonance to the original text as used in Paul’s writing. This step is a prerequisite for step 2.

2. Examine the larger context of the reference in the Jewish scripture to determine the meaning in the original context. This allows us to examine the narrative and themes alluded to in the larger context of the original text. We need to go beyond just an examination of key terms and see how the quote or allusion functions rhetorically in its original context. This allows us to recognize what and how the material and concepts are being transferred to the new context.

3. Apply an intertextual approach using principles of metalepsis to the reading of Paul with reference to his use of the Jewish texts. This involves examining additional context or themes from the original text and reviewing whether and how that content is being applied in Paul’s writings. The fundamental question here is, How does the original context shape the interpretation of the new context being presented by Paul?

4. Identify and analyze the thematic and verbal similarities and differences between the two texts. We cannot simply assume that Paul is using the text from the Jewish scriptures in the same manner as the original author. An analysis of the parallels allows us to review and examine both common themes and differences that may be occurring due to the rhetorical situation. Verbal parallels and similarities may be applied, but also may not be determinative of the meaning. Differences should be noted and assessed to see how they apply to each text.

5. Analyze the rhetorical use of the material that is common to Paul and the original text. The questions here are, How does the original text play into the argument presented in Paul’s text with respect to the rhetorical situation being addressed? Is Paul raising the text to generating a common understanding of a theme or concept, or is he contrasting what he is saying to show a difference in thematic character? Is the use of this text with respect to Paul’s nature apologetical or polemical? Can a direct relationship, in the light of the rhetorical use, be determined?²⁴

I recognize that even with this methodology, interpretations will differ. In addition, an intertextual analysis is only part of the overall exegesis of a text. The study must also engage the linguistic elements of the text, the textual and cultural context, the flow of the arguments, and the rhetorical situation that informs the writings of Paul. All of these are open for discussion and have yielded various interpretations of the text. Therefore, the reader should understand that the interpretation of Paul provided in this study is a result of my synthesis of prior studies and the various tools and elements involved in an exegetical reading of the text.

Outline of the study

This study will consist of four parts.

1. A brief introduction to the study with the methodology used (this chapter), and the history of the interpretation of Paul with respect to Judaism (chapters 2 to 3). This section is not comprehensive but will give examples of how Paul has been interpreted with respect to Christianity’s parent religion.

2. Paul’s Judaism as seen in the letters and the Acts of the Apostles—(chapters 4 to 5). This is to examine various texts that might support a view of Paul from within Judaism and texts that have been used to suggested otherwise.

3. Paul and the salvation of Israel in the letter to the Romans (chapters 6 to 8). This section provides an interpretation of Romans, particularly Rom 9–11, viewing Romans not just as a defense of Judaism but as a missional mandate for gentiles to be united with Jews in the redemption of Israel.

4. A brief look at Romans 12–15 with respect to what Paul is telling them (or us) to do as a response to his prior arguments. What is Paul saying to us today as a contemporary contextualization and application (chapter 9)? Here I briefly examine the principles applied by Paul, looking at modern missions and how Paul can provide us with a method for serving others.

In part 1, this chapter introduces the study and presents a definition of the interpretive problem being addressed. I have defined the methodology I will use for analyzing references to Jewish scripture within the Pauline corpus. Chapters 2 and 3 will discuss with more detail the history of two modes of interpreting how Paul understood the reality of the church and its relationship to Judaism, providing examples from both history and contemporary exegesis. I classify these as the contra-Jewish (adversus Iudaeos or contra Iudaeos) view and the non-Jewish view. The contra-Jewish mode of interpretation uses Judaism as a foil against which Christianity is presented, with the works of the law seen as contrary to the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Christianity is seen as both supersessionist and antagonistic to Judaism in some theological way. This view has roots in the second century but has been present through much of the history of the church. Paul’s writings are often used in support of this view, as we will see with Marcion and others. Often, writers do not themselves support a contra-Jewish paradigm but provide a basis for others to interpret Paul in a way that becomes contra-Jewish in character. Augustine may be an example of this, although he fits better in the not-Jewish view. The not-Jewish view affirms continuity between Judaism and Christianity, preserving the ancestry of Christianity in Judaism. However, it still sees a departure of Christianity from Judaism, placing Christianity outside of the Jewish faith. Augustine will be reviewed here, with a defense of Jews. In addition, some modern studies that have led to this conclusion will be reviewed. Both views treat Christianity as superseding Judaism in some way or moving Christianity outside of its origins in Judaism.

The question to be addressed, however, is not whether Judaism and Christianity separated. They clearly did at some point since we have two distinct religions today. The question is whether Paul himself separated from Judaism in his life and writings. Therefore, part 2 of this study (chapters 4 and 5) presents a different understanding of Paul, seeing him as remaining within Judaism, with the redemption of Israel clearly in mind. This section will discuss what I call the sectarian-Judaism mode of interpreting Paul. In this mode we affirm that Paul remains