The Paul-and-the-Law Encryption

By Andy C. Ho, PhD

It's the Fourth of July. You're savoring some baby back ribs your wife seasoned to perfection with her secret sauce—maple Dijon, cumin, chili powder, paprika, all the trimmings—which you expertly grilled to perfection. Your grill is sizzling with lots of succulent pork chops, the fat crackling and permeating slowly into the moist meat. Already on your fourth Bud, you suddenly recall your college French. With the loudest smack of your lips, you exclaim headily: ça met l'eau à la bouche! Makes your mouth water, you explain to your bemused kids. With that earthy, pungent aroma suffusing the hot summer air and curling its way from your grill all the way up to the heavens, you suddenly find yourself face-to-face with unexpected guests in your backyard—Jesus and Paul!  All you can blurt out is an effete "Cool." Sheepishly, you hand each of them an ice-cold beer. "Hold my beer," Jesus says to you brusquely. "So, you were chowing down on swine with these Gentiles back in the day, huh?" snorts a visibly disgusted Jesus, even as he gives Paul the side-eye. "Hold up, Man. I had my Gentiles follow the Law. I did!" Paul cringes.

Imagine a world in which Christians observed Passover instead of Easter, kept Tabernacles in place of Christmas, and adhered to kosher laws strictly. Based solely on Paul's authentic letters, this carefully argued work proves that he did direct Gentile Christians to observe the Law, and he never purveyed a Law-free gospel at all. This volume proposes that Paul strategically used both praise of but also disdain for the Law to subtly convey to his Gentile converts his covert instructions not to worship Caesar as Dominus et deus noster—our Lord and God—the imperial cult being mandated for all in Empire under penalty of death.

The Paul-and-the-Law puzzle, which has perplexed scholars for two millennia, is finally solved in this transformative work. If you thought Paul's was a Law-free gospel, diving into this volume will turn your world upside down.  Up for the challenge?

• Language: English
• Publisher: Brightcoach Scholarly Publishing
• Release date: Apr 1, 2024
• ISBN: 9789811893964

Andy C. Ho, PhD

Based in Singapore, the author is an independent scholar who commutes regularly to Bandarseri Coalfields, Selangor DE, Malaysia for work. Dr Ho helps selected PhD candidates of Asean citizenship who are working in the humanities or the social sciences in accredited Malaysian universities with  the developmental editing of their doctoral dissertations gratis. Dr Ho earned, among others, the MPPM at Yale; PhD at M.I.T.; and MA (Bib. Lang.) at SEBTS.                          

Book preview

The Paul-and-the-Law encryption:

When Gentile Christians in the Late Second Temple era were virtually Jews—but legally not

––––––––

Andy C. Ho

––––––––

SINGAPORE

© Copyright 2024 Andy C. Ho (Andrew Chinpeng Ho)

All rights reserved. This publication is in copyright. The registration number of this work at copyright.gov dated Feb 22, 2024 is: TXu 2-417-010. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction or transmission of any part of this work in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or the written permission of the author.

First published 2024

Includes bibliographical references

https://books2read.com/u/49azyW

Brightcoach Scholarly Publishing,

36, Jalan Bumbong, Woodlands, Singapore 739924

Unless indicated otherwise, quotations of the Bible  are the author’s translations.

Keywords:

1. Paul and the Law or Torah. 2. Works of the Law, under the Law, curse of the Law. 3. Circumcision of babies on the eighth day, and of adult proselytes. 4. Laws of kosher or kashrut food, and of clean and unclean or pure and impure conditions, things, animals, or people. 5. Late Second Temple era, Pharisees, and Oral Torah/Mishna /Talmud. 6. Jews and Gentiles in the Roman empire. 7. Imperial cult or Caesar worship; pagans, and idolatry.

––––––––

National Library Board, Singapore Cataloguing in Publication Data

Name(s): Ho, Andrew Chinpeng, 1956-

Title: The Paul-and-the-law encryption : when gentile Christians in the late Second Temple era were virtually Jews - but legally not / Andrew Chinpeng Ho.

Description: [Singapore] : [Brightcoach Scholarly], 2024.

Identifier(s): ISBN 978-981-18-9397-1 (hardback) | ISBN 978-981-18-9398-8 (paperback) | ISBN 978-981-18-9396-4 (ebook)

Subject(s): LCSH: Bible. Epistles of Paul—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Law (Theology)—Biblical teaching. | Gentiles in the New Testament.

Classification: DDC 227.06—dc23

Preface

Being concerned only with the conceptual constructs that may be found within Paul's genuine letters,  I've paid no attention to the social realization of those constructs. In attending to said constructs, I have tried to recover the Hebrew (or Aramaic) behind the Greek wherever necessary. I refer to all modern commentators in the present tense, even if they have passed on, because they continue to matter so much. I also mention views held in the traditional consensus in the present tense for the same reason. To avoid using ‘the Lord,’ or ‘LORD,’ I use the tetragrammaton where it appears in the MT and, out of deference to rabbinic sensitivities, I use ‘G-d’ instead of ‘God’ where the tetragrammaton is intended.

I have deliberately chosen to use the Hebrew and Greek phrases with their English translations in their first instances to disorientate readers so as to re-orientate them from a traditional mindset to a more Hebraic one, within which my argument might hopefully be discerned as sitting more appositely.  For example, if I were to use the English term ‘circumcision,’ it might predispose readers to reflexively imagine ‘surgical ablation of male prepuce’ per se when I intended  mīlâ ləšēm ḡîyyûr, the rabbinic institution to 'convert' Gentiles into Jews, which would be a Hebraic institution that involves more than just the surgical procedure, which female converts do not require anyway. However, when ‘the gospel of the circumcision’ is mentioned in close proximity to ‘the gospel of the foreskin,’ the use of the article before ‘circumsion’ and ‘foreskin’ would be disorienting enough to reorientate the reader in the English alone.

I've not discussed the term ‘proselyte itself, the Greek being προσήλυτος as used in the LXX to translate גֵּר (gēr) who was a sojourner in the land (in Exod 12:48; 20:10, 1 Chr 22:2) who had attached himself to יהוה  the G-d of Israel.  By NT times, however, προσήλυτος was being used in Matt 23:15; and Acts 2:10; 6:4; 13:43 for a Gentile who had converted from paganism to Judaism, giving up his pantheon to turn to  יהוה. By that time, this process of ‘conversion’ would be identified as גִיוּר  (ḡîyyûr) or גֵּרוּת (gērût̲) and the ‘convert’ as a גֵר (gēr), the modern female form of which is גִיוֹרֶת (ḡīōrẹṯ). It ought to be immediately recognized that the rabbinic institution of  bərīṯ mīlâ for the Jewish baby boy was distinct and different from mīlâ ləšēm ḡîyyûr – but one imagines that the (adult) convert would also have had to learn about bərīṯ mīlâ too, if only because their male offspring would be subject to it if and when they brought one into the world in due course.

Dedication

For my beloved wife, Josephine C. Lang, PhD, a real-life Proverbs 31 woman.

אֵשֶׁת-חַיִל מִי יִמְצָא וְרָחֹק מִפְּנִינִים מִכְרָהּ.לאיא בָּטַח בָּהּ לֵב בַּעְלָהּ וְשָׁלָל לֹא יֶחְסָר.לאיב גְּמָלַתְהוּ טוֹב וְלֹא-רָע כֹּל יְמֵי חַיֶּיהָ.לאיג דָּרְשָׁה צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים וַתַּעַשׂ בְּחֵפֶץ כַּפֶּיהָ.לאיד הָיְתָה כָּאֳנִיּוֹת סוֹחֵר מִמֶּרְחָק תָּבִיא לַחְמָהּ.לאטו וַתָּקָם בְּעוֹד לַיְלָהוַתִּתֵּן טֶרֶף לְבֵיתָהּ וְחֹק לְנַעֲרֹתֶיהָ.לאטז זָמְמָה שָׂדֶה וַתִּקָּחֵהוּ מִפְּרִי כַפֶּיהָ נטע (נָטְעָה) כָּרֶם.לאיז חָגְרָה בְעוֹז מָתְנֶיהָ וַתְּאַמֵּץ זְרוֹעֹתֶיהָ.לאיח טָעֲמָה כִּי-טוֹב סַחְרָהּ לֹא-יִכְבֶּה בליל (בַלַּיְלָה) נֵרָהּ.לאיט יָדֶיהָ שִׁלְּחָה בַכִּישׁוֹר וְכַפֶּיהָ תָּמְכוּ פָלֶךְ.לאכ כַּפָּהּ פָּרְשָׂה לֶעָנִי וְיָדֶיהָ שִׁלְּחָה לָאֶבְיוֹן.לאכא לֹא-תִירָא לְבֵיתָהּ מִשָּׁלֶג: כִּי כָל-בֵּיתָהּ לָבֻשׁ שָׁנִים.לאכב מַרְבַדִּים עָשְׂתָה-לָּהּ שֵׁשׁ וְאַרְגָּמָן לְבוּשָׁהּ.לאכג נוֹדָע בַּשְּׁעָרִים בַּעְלָהּ בְּשִׁבְתּוֹ עִם-זִקְנֵי-אָרֶץ.לאכד סָדִין עָשְׂתָה וַתִּמְכֹּר וַחֲגוֹר נָתְנָה לַכְּנַעֲנִי.לאכה עֹז-וְהָדָר לְבוּשָׁהּ וַתִּשְׂחַק לְיוֹם אַחֲרוֹן.לאכו פִּיהָ פָּתְחָה בְחָכְמָה וְתוֹרַת חֶסֶד עַל-לְשׁוֹנָהּ.לאכז צוֹפִיָּה הילכות (הֲלִיכוֹת) בֵּיתָהּ וְלֶחֶם עַצְלוּת לֹא תֹאכֵל.לאכח קָמוּ בָנֶיהָ וַיְאַשְּׁרוּהָ בַּעְלָהּ וַיְהַלְלָהּ.לאכט רַבּוֹת בָּנוֹת עָשׂוּ חָיִל וְאַתְּ עָלִית עַל-כֻּלָּנָה.לאל שֶׁקֶר הַחֵן וְהֶבֶל הַיֹּפִי: אִשָּׁה יִרְאַת-יְהוָה הִיא תִתְהַלָּל.לאלא תְּנוּ-לָהּ מִפְּרִי יָדֶיהָ וִיהַלְלוּהָ בַשְּׁעָרִים מַעֲשֶׂיהָ.

א 10 Who can find a capable wife? Her value is far beyond that of pearls.

ב 11 Her husband trusts her from his heart, and she will prove a great asset to him.

ג 12 She works to bring him good, not harm, all the days of her life.

ד 13 She procures a supply of wool and flax and works with willing hands.

ה 14 She is like those merchant vessels, bringing her food from far away.

ו 15 It’s still dark when she rises to give food to her household and orders to the young women serving her.

ז 16 She considers a field, then buys it, and from her earnings she plants a vineyard.

ח 17 She gathers her strength around her and throws herself into her work.

ט 18 She sees that her business affairs go well; her lamp stays lit at night.

י 19 She puts her hands to the staff with the flax; her fingers hold the spinning rod.

כ 20 She reaches out to embrace the poor and opens her arms to the needy.

ל 21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household; since all of them are doubly clothed.

מ 22 She makes her own quilts; she is clothed in fine linen and purple.

נ 23 Her husband is known at the city gates when he sits with the leaders of the land.

ס 24 She makes linen garments and sells them; she supplies the merchants with sashes.

ע 25 Clothed with strength and dignity, she can laugh at the days to come.

פ 26 When she opens her mouth, she speaks wisely; on her tongue is loving instruction.

צ 27 She watches how things go in her house, not eating the bread of idleness.

ק 28 Her children arise; they make her happy; her husband too, as he praises her:

ר 29 Many women have done wonderful things, but you surpass them all!

ש 30 Charm can lie, beauty can vanish, but a woman who fears יהוה should be praised.

ת 31 Give her a share in what she produces; let her works speak her praises at the city gates

List of abbreviations

––––––––

* The full name of each tractate of the Mišnāh or the Talmûd̲ is used. The names Sīp̲ráʾ, Sip̲rê, T̲ôsép̲t̲áʾ, T̲ôsáp̲ôt̲, Yālqûṭ, etc. are not abbreviated.

* The DSS are cited by the Arabic numeral assigned to the cave in which a particular manuscript was found, followed by the letter Q for Qumran, the Arabic numeral assigned to that manuscript, then the Arabic numeral of its fragment concerned, if any, followed by the column number in Roman numerals, either upper- or lowercase, and finally the line number in Arabic numerals. For example, 1Q25 1 i 19 would refer to line 19 of the first column of fragment 1 of manuscript 25 from cave 1.

* The SBL academic style of transliteration for the Hebrew/Aramaic is used. The Greek is not transliterated.

* References to classical authors are made according to the OCD system.

PROLOGUE I

When Gentile 'Christians' were actually Jews (Rom 2:29)

––––––––

In Mediterranean antiquity, people could acquire new ethnic designations in the course of their lives and make use of old and new identities in different, or even the same, contexts.[1] However discombobulating this idea might be for people who take for granted that ethnicity is by descent and therefore immutable, ethnicity in Paul’s culture was a social constructivism, one constructed upon whose one’s gods were as well as the customs and traditions which today might be called ‘religious’ that were believed to appease those gods. But this implies that one could acquire a new ethnicity if one swapped one’s gods and cultic traditions for those of another people meant. Now, Paul’s converts were Gentiles[2] who had jettisoned their own gods to turn exclusively to Israel’s god, יהוה, and they then adopted Torah, which was Israel’s ancestral customs to serve יהוה and keep him happy (Deut 7:9–12). According to the logic above, by swapping their gods for יהוה, such Gentiles would have become Jews who were incorporated[3] into Israel’s covenant, who were thereby ‘righteoused’ before יהוה, whom they had come to believe had sent the Messiah in Jesus, and were thus ‘saved.’[4]

Because Paul’s Gentile converts swapped their gods for יהוה, their co-ethnics might have regarded them as having (treacherously) become Jews, albeit without rabbinic proselytism, the only institutionalized way for Gentiles in Empire to become Jews, legally speaking. Whereas only Jews, being Torah-observant by definition, would have regarded the worship of gods other than יהוה—including the divinized emperors of Rome—as idolatry, Paul’s converts who were supposedly Law-free Gentile Christians nevertheless also rejected Caesar worship as idolatrous. But since only Jews were exempted from the imperial cult,[5] some of Paul’s converts might well have considered becoming rabbinic proselytes since the latter were regarded by Roman authorities as fully Jews (according to the logic above) and thus exempted as well. In Rom 2:2, Paul did characterize his convert as τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος which, if translated as ‘the crypto-Jew,’ may evoke some nasty memories of antisemitism dating back to the Massacre of 1391 in Spain.[6] Better then to render it ‘the encrypted Jew’ who was, nonetheless, a Jew, and thus Torah-observant, by definition. This model, importantly, contradicts the traditional construal of Paul’s convert as the Law-free Christian.[7]

As a Gentile who became covenanted, i.e., incorporated into the covenantal community of ethnic Israel, sans rabbinic proselytism, Paul’s convert could remind one of the biblicalגֵּר  (gēr), who was ‘the stranger who sojourns among you’ in Exod 12:49. In biblical times, this was the Gentile residing in the Land who had turned away from their own gods to turn exclusively toיהוה  (Deut 10:12–21, 29:9–13) and, in the process, swap their own ancestral customs for Jewish ones as well. Usually translated ‘resident alien’, the biblical gēr acquired all rights and obligations of the אֶזְרָח  (’ézrāḥ; native-born), the latter being commanded in Torah to accept the former as part and parcel of the household, clan, tribe, and nation. Living with a Jewish paterfamilias, the gēr worked, played, rejoiced, and grieved together with everyone else in the community as kith and kin. Importantly, he was Torah-observant, there being just one Torah for gēr and’ézrāḥ (Exod 12:49). Thus, before rabbinic proselytism was ever institutionalized, the biblical gēr was the Gentile who became a Torah-observant Jew by joining themselves toיהוה  and his Israel.[8] Now, if Paul’s convert was analogized to the biblical gēr, then they would also have become Torah-observant Jews, and not Law-free Christian Gentiles as is usually assumed.

This chapter proceeds as follows. Section A discusses how the biblical gēr who foreshadowed Paul’s convert became covenanted as a Jew before there ever was rabbinic proselytism of which Paul forbade his converts from eembracing, so section B examines the religious conversion process by which a Gentile became the rabbinic gēr/προσηλύτος/proselyte, who was legally a Jew in Empire. Then, how commentators have thought about the incorporation of Paul’s convert into the covenantal community of ethnic Israel is scrutinized in section C, when I will argue that Paul’s convert was Torah-observant and thus truly a Jew—although foreskinned and not a Jew, legally speaking. This chapter then concludes.

A. Incorporating the biblical gēr into the covenant

In biblical times, Jews in the Land saw outsiders as eitherזָר  (zār), orנָכְרִי  (nọḵrî) also:נֵכָר  (nēk̲ār), the difference between the two categories being their orientation towards Israel and its god. Not only did the zār not submit toיהוה  but they also regarded Israel as their enemy (Ps 81:10; Job 19:15; Prov 27:2). By contrast, the nọḵrî was either indifferent to Israel and its god, or they could come to love them both. The former type of nọḵrî was never covenanted, so they never participated in Israel’s cultic activities mandated for Jews (Lev 22:25; Exod 12:43; Deut 15:3, 17:15, 23:21).[9] The latter type of nọḵrî would choose to לָוָה  (lāvāh; attach) themselves toיהוה  in virtue of which they were incorporated into the covenant. In the process, they became the gēr, this noun being derived from the verbגוּר  (ḡūr; to sojourn), so they were foreigners who became fellow sojourners with Jews (who were themselves called ḡərîm beforeיהוה  himself (in Lev 25:23; Exod 22:21; Pss 39:12, 105: 12–13).[10] When the term gēr was used with the termתּוֹשָׁב  (tôšāḇ; dweller) as inגֵּר־וְתֹושָׁ֥ב  (gēr-vəṯôšāḇ), the hendiadys meant a sojourner who dwelled in the Land, and was thus a ‘resident sojourner’ (Gen 23:4; Lev 25:6, 23, 35, 45, 47; Num 35:15; 1 Chron 29:15; Ps 39:12).[11]

Turning away from the gods of their ethnicity, the gēr was the nọḵrî who chose to attach (lāvāh) themselves to יהוה  exclusively, lāvāh being also used in Jer 50:5 for incorporation into the covenant: וְנִלְו֣וּ אֶל־יְהוָ֔ה בֹּ֚אוּ (vənilwû ʾel-יהוה  bōʾû; come and let us attach ourselves to יהוה). In Isa 14:1, the gēr was also said to beוְנִלְוָ֤ה (nīlvāh; attached to) andוְנִסְפְּח֖וּ  (vēnīspēḥū; will cling to) Israel, the root word סָפַח (sāp̲aḥ) meaning ‘to attach to’ as well. The gēr held fast to the covenant, loved the name ofיהוה  and served him wholeheartedly by way of observing Torah. They were told ‘I am יהוה, your G-d’ (Lev 24:22), a formulaic assertion usually reserved for the ’ézrāḥ, further evidence that the gēr was fully covenanted. Now, Torah-observance was determinative of that status because, as Glanville notes:[12]

Torah defines the character of the covenant family. The stone tablets of the covenant at Horeb (5.22) and the book of law of the covenant at Moab (31.26) contain Yahweh’s laws ... Deuteronomy addresses the community as contemporaries of Moses ... through whom the covenant with the patriarchs may be realized. ... The gēr is most emphatically caught up in the genealogy of Israel and grafted into the community as kin-in-blood ...

While the nọḵrî did not have citizenship,[13] and thus no clan associative rights such as land ownership,[14] they were free persons, not slaves.[15] So when they willingly attached themselves to יהוה, they became the gēr, whereupon Torah granted them all the rights and responsibilities of the ’ézrāḥ. Not allowed to own land as a nọḵrî, the gēr must have been acutely aware how land was a gift from יהוה, a lesson the ’ézrāḥ was also to re-learn annually in the company of the gēr during the three pilgrimage festivals mandated for all Jewish males of age. In Ezek 47:21–23, the ’ézrāḥ was told that those ‘ḡərîm who reside among you and have begotten children among you’ were to be accorded a patrimonial share in the land. Since there was no discernible difference between gēr and ’ézrāḥ once that happened, Na’aman is mistaken to call the gēr ‘dependent, landless, ... easily oppressed, [and] relegated to the fringe of society’.[16] While that might have been true of the nọḵrî, it did not apply to the gēr,[17] who would become thoroughly assimilated into the culture and cult (Deut 29:9–14 and 31:9–13), e.g., Doeg the Edomite was described as worshipping יהוה  when Saul ruled (1 Sam 21:8), as was Uriah the Hittite during David’s rule (2 Sam 11:11).

In emphasizing how tightly integrated into the body politic and cultic community the gēr was, the nounקֶרֶב  (qereb̲; inward parts/midst) was used as a preposition 41 times in Deuteronomy, e.g.,בְּקִרְבֶּ֑ךָ  (bəqir bek̲ā; among you) in 16:11, 23:16–17, 26:11, 28:4; orבְּקֶ֣רֶב מַחֲנֶ֑יךָ  (bəqereb̲ maḥănêk̲ā; in your camp’s midst) in 29:11.[18] The word qereb̲ was also used of the gēr feasting with the ’ézrāḥ (16:11, 26:11), and of his part in the covenant renewal at Moab (in Deut 29:9–15) where the groups involved included ‘tribal chiefs, elders, officers, all the men of Israel, your children, your wives’ (in 29:10) but alsoוְגֵ֣רְךָ֔  (vəg̲ērək̲ā; your gēr) in your camp’s midst (29:11). That Torah was maximally inclusive of the gēr was evident in its granting them the right to:[19]

:

bring sacrifices toיהוה  (Lev 17:8–9; 22:18; Num 9.14; 15:14)

consume the sacred portion of such sacrifices (Deut 14:29; 26:13)

access the Red Heifer ashes for corpse uncleanness (Num 19:10)

inclusion in the sabbatical year’s Torah reading (Deut 31:9–13)[20]

inclusion in corporate forgiveness for accidental sins (Num 15:26, 29).

be loved by the ’ézrāḥ ‘as yourself’ (Lev 19:33–34; Deut 10:18–19;

    Lev 19:18).[21]

be regarded as, protected like brother/sister (Deut 1:16–17, 24:17)[22]

glean from the harvest (Deut 24:19–21)

the third-year tithe of produce (Deut 14:28–29, 24:19–21; 26:12–15)

generous treatment (Deut 14:28–29)

interest-free loans (Deut 23:20)

justice (Deut 1:16)

due process (Deut 10:17–19)

access to the cities of refuge (Num 35: 15; Josh 20:9)

Torah also accorded the biblical gēr the duty to:[23]

keep the Sabbath, with mandated rest from servile work (Exod 20:10;

     23:12; Deut 5:14)

fast, with mandated rest from servile work on Yom Kippur (Lev 16:29)

offer the first fruits of the soil toיהוה  (Deut 26:11)

participate in the festivals (Exod 12:48–49; Deut 14:22–29; 16:1–17;        26:1–15)[24]

avoid eating blood (Lev 17:11–13)

be executed for idolatry or cursingיהוה  (Lev 20:2; 24:16)

not defyיהוה  on pain of being cut off from the community (Num 19:10)

Singled out for mention at covenant renewal, the gēr was indubitably incorporated into it and thus endowed with attendant rights and duties: ‘You stand assembled today, all of you, before יהוה, your G-d, the leaders of your tribes, your elders, and your officials ... and theגְרִים  (ḡərîm, pl., masc.) who are in your camp’ (Deut 29:10–12).[25] True, he was often listed alongside theאַלְמָנָה  (’almānâ; widow) and theיִתוֹם  (yāṯôm; orphan). But the triple lamed prefix inלַגֵּ֛ר לַיָּתֹ֥ום וְלָאַלְמָנָ֖  (laggēr lâyāt̲ôm vəlāʾalmānā)—for the gēr (ex-Gentile), the orphan (Jew), and the widow (Jew)—emphasized the individual and separate rights of each category of the weak and vulnerable (specifically to glean, in Deut 24:19–2, for instance). To be sure, the gēr was also said to belong to the paterfamilias as if they were chattel, e.g.,וְגֵֽרְךָ֙ (vəg̲ērək̲ā; and your gēr) in Deut 5:14, 24:14, 29:10, 31:12;גֵּרֹֽו  (gērô; his gēr) in 1:16);בִּשְׁעָרֶ֑יךָ  (bišʿārêk̲ā; within your gates) in Deut. 24.14; andבְּקִרְבְּךָ֗  (bəqirbək̲ā; in your midst) in Deut 23:16–17.

This, however, was unique to Deuteronomy that was undeniably inclusivist of the gēr. Since the gēr was a free person and no slave, the paterfamilias could not have ‘owned’ them like chattel: The second-person suffix must reference a strong association with the household,[26] such that "your gēr’ indicated how close the fictive kinship ties between gēr and ’ézrāḥ as paterfamilias were to be, akin perhaps to your son, or your daughter, (Deut 29:1–14, 31:10–12),[27] perhaps in the same sense that Israel was not the property ofיהוה  who "loves Israel as the divine father (e.g., Deut. 1.31, 10.15) ... [as] the paterfamilias, supplying the gēr with ... kinship protection and ... group identification ... (10.18)."[28]

Even so, some commentators assume that there was an impenetrable wall between Jew and Gentile, e.g., de Lacey asserts without any evidence that ‘ritual law’ kept Jew and ex-Gentile apart, and the gēr was never regarded as a ‘part of Israel,[29] while Bennett even argues for an attitude ... of non-assimilation."[30] In that the protagonist in Neh13.30 cleansed Israelמִכָּל־נֵכָ֑ר  (mikọl-nēḵār; from everything alien), it was the nēḵār who did not attach himself toיהוה  who was targeted: they remained attached to their gods even if they did not regard Israel as an enemy. In targeting that nēḵār and not the gēr, the Ezra-Nehemiah program did not break Torah, as is usually assumed.

Nevertheless, some commentators feel that gēr and ’ézrāḥ were never really equals, their main evidence being that the gēr was not allowed to participate in the Passover feast, which they say was meant only for the ’ézrāḥ.[31] That would, however, be mistaken since the uncircumcised gēr could, in fact, participate in the Passover feast as long as they did so without eating theפֶּ֛סַח  (pesaḥ) itself, which was a term referring specifically to the sacrificial lamb, not the festival per se (which was actually that of Unleavened Bread). See, for example, Deut 16:2וְזָבַ֥חְתָּ פֶּ֛סַח לַיהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ צֹ֣אן  (vəzāb̲aḥtā pesaḥ laʾd̲ōnāi ʾĕlōhêk̲ā ṣōʾn;‘Therefore, you shall sacrifice from the flock the pesaḥ to יהוה, your G-d.) For the gēr who wanted to be able to eat the pesaḥ, all males in their household would have had to have been circumcised long enough for the surgical incision to have healed for them to eat the pesaḥ on the appointed day (Exod 12:48).

The uncircumcised gēr could participate fully in all Passover festivities, save for consumption of the pesaḥ lamb, all manner of kosher food and drink being presumably also served, of which only bitter herbs, and unleavened bread were mandated (Exod 12:8). In short, the gēr was not barred from the feast at all.[32] All in all, the Exod 12:48 circumcision requirement for the gēr desiring to eat the pesaḥ lamb was more of a unique requirement for that feast rather than a general condition that all other texts ought to have but failed to enumerate. Likewise, the gēr could/would also have participated in the festival of Tabernacles, even living in booths for seven days had they so desired, just that it was not mandated for them. These two caveats apart, all of Torah applied equally to gēr and ’ézrāḥ. [There was one other caveat dealt with in section 2 below regarding a specific type of gēr, the type said to beבִּשְׁעָרֶ֑יךָ  (bišʿārêk̲ā; within your gates), i.e., one who did not reside in one’s locale permanently (Deut 24:14), who was permitted to eat carrion prey that the ’ézrāḥ wasn’t.] Although only three caveats existed, Glanville feels that Torah’s "binary strategy [was] to integrate the resident outsider [gēr] to a large degree without casting aside the distinction between foreigner and Israelite."[33] In fact, that distinction was arguably completely erased in Torah. Upon attaching themselves to Israel and their god, the gēr was bestowed with this fictive kinship to become a Jew and at last a brother rather than an other.[34]

B. Incorporating the rabbinic gēr into the covenant

In Empire, circumcision was metonymic for Jews such that Roman authorities and citizens would have considered no convert a ‘true’ Jew unless and until the male Gentile was also circumcised.[35] In Paul’s era, rabbinic proselytism orמִילָה לְשֵם גִיּוּר (mīlâ ləšēm ḡîyyûr; circumcision for the purpose of/with the intent of conversion) was the institutionalized way for Gentiles to convert (their ethnicity) to become Jews and be thereby incorporated into the covenantal community of ethnic Israel. By Paul’s time, the term ‌͏gēr, the root word of ḡīyyūr, was already being used for the rabbinic proselyte rather than the biblical figure. For instance, when ‘many people of the Land became Jews’ in MT Esther 8.17, the hithpael participle ‘became Jews’ wasמִֽתְיַהֲדִ֔ים  (mit̲yahăd̲îm), but this was changed in T̲árg̲ûm Estêr 8:17 toמִתְגִיֻּרּיִן  (mit̲ḡîyyûrîn), the hithpael participle of גִיּוּר, which translated the Hebrewגּוּר  (gûr; to sojourn) to the Aramaicגִיּוּר  (ḡîyyûr), meaning to convert someone to Judaism, to make a proselyte.[36] Moreover, when ‌͏gēr had come to mean the rabbinic proselyte, ’ézrāḥ would no longer be juxtaposed against ‌͏gēr but againstימבכוך דיעוב  (pagan), or כוכבים עבדי  (heathen), i.e., Gentiles instead (b. Zebaḥim 35b). What in turn was metonymic of rabbinic proselytism itself was, of course,נָמַל  (nāmal; to circumcise), i.e., to surgically ablate the foreskin, a procedure mandated for Gentile adult males to become Jews. But how was this possible at all if that particular Torah requirement was timestamped to the eighth day of life of the Jewish baby boy?

In Gen 17:11–12, circumcision was required specifically of ‘the home-born’ baby boy but also ‘he who is purchased from a foreigner who is not of your seed’. The latter who was obviously not Jewish was also unlikely to have been an infant (eight days old). Could Gen 17:12 therefore be understood as implying that even Gentiles who had come of age could also be incorporated into Israel as long as they were circumcised, even past their eighth day of life? While that timing was not specified in MT 17:14, which added that ‘Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall beכָּרַת  (kārat̲; cut off) from his people’, LXX did timestamp it explicitly as ‘the uncircumcised male, who shall not be circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin on τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ὀγδόῃ (the eighth day), that soul shall be cut off from his people.’

By the LXX’s restrictive reading, which was also that of Jub 15:25–26, only native-born Jews could ever have observed the torah of circumcision in its entirety, Jewishness would have been by descent only, and mīlâ ləšēm ḡîyyûr would not have been efficacious.[37] Given the LXX and its vorlage’s antiquity, Gen 17:14 would have been circulating with the phrase ‘on the eighth day’ early in the Hellenistic period.[38] But since the MT omitted ‘on the eighth day’, perhaps 17:14 was also circulating in the same period without said phrase too. Thiessen argues that rabbinic proselytism was possible precisely because of the absence of a link in MT 17:14 between kārat̲ and the timing of circumcision.[39]

If this meant that there were two schools of thought in Paul’s era, some may have accepted circumcision as efficaciously transforming Gentile adult males into Jews. In the diaspora, this option was indeed acted upon in Greco-Roman culture,[40] what with even Paul confessing in Gal 5:11 that he also ‘once preached circumcision’, i.e., mīlâ ləšēm ḡîyyûr, for his own converts early post-Damascus. Later, however, he came to believe that Gentiles could become Jews while remaining foreskinned, just as some rabbis taught too (b. Yebamoth 46b). Even then, Garroway argues, the initiatory rite for Paul remained that of circumcision, though no longer the surgical variety but the spiritualized one called circumcision of the heart.[41]

In Rom 2:26–29, circumcision being necessary for incorporation into the Abrahamic covenant, Paul claimed that the Spirit transformed his Gentile converts to bear the mark of circumcision not in their (male) genitalia but in the heart. Claiming that ‘circumcision [is not] something external and physical ... circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit’ (2:28, 29), Paul added that ‘if the foreskinned keeps the requirements of the Torah, will his foreskin not be regarded as circumcision?’ (2:26). What may escape notice here was Paul’s critical assumption that his Gentile converts he called the encrypted Jew did keep ‘the requirements of the Torah’. This means that they did not remain as Law-free Gentiles.

Apart from the surgery itself, what was also required in mīlâ ləšēm ḡîyyûr was טְבִילָה  (ṭəb̲îlāh) or full body immersion in aמִקְוֶה ‎ (mīqveh) or immersion pool of water. By Paul’s time, this step was actually dispositive[42] for both genders (m. Miqvaʾot 8.5; 9.1–4) in order they were ‘cleansed of their Gentileness’, i.e., their idolatrous backgrounds (m. ʿEduyyot 5.2; m. Pesaḥim 8.8).[43] When the proselyte stepped out of the pool, they were said to beכְקַטַן שְנוֹלַד דַמי  (k̲əqaṭan šənôlad̲ d̲amî; as a little child born)—born again as a Jew (b. Yebamoth 22a). In 47a, this person was ‘born again’ as a Jew in a way ‘analogous’ to how the ‘ézrāḥ was a Jew, i.e., by birth.[44]

There was one other requirement in mīlâ ləšēm ḡîyyûr, i.e.,קַבָּלָת הַמִּצְווֺת (Qabbālāt̲ hammiṣvōt̲)—taking on the yoke of Torah—the proselyte formally accepting in the presence of witnesses their obligation to be Torah-observant thereafter (t. Demai 2.2–7). In b. Yebamot 45b–48, the formal declarative moment was seen as optional, however. Once all three requirements were fulfilled, the Gentile had become a full Jew (b. Nedarim 2.4, b. Yebamoth 47b), which was why rabbinic proselytes were buried with Jews, whereas god-fearers were not.[45] Or, while Gentiles were not to pay the Temple tax, the rabbinic proselyte did pay just like ‘Levites, Israelites ... but not women, slaves, and minors’ (m. Šeqalim 1.3, 6). In Empire, a proselyte was accorded the legal standing of a Jew, e.g., the proselyte was said to be ‘like one who is native born’ in Justin, Dial. 123.1 (mid-second century CE).

It was not in Palestine but in the Diaspora that gēr/προσηλύτος came to mean the rabbinic proselyte, such usage being evident in Rome’s catacomb graffiti.[46] While gēr in the MT was translated προσηλυτος in the LXX, the latter’s meaning was evolving in the time the LXX was coming into being to indicate the rabbinic proselyte specifically. For this reason, if the context implied that it was not the biblical gēr, i.e., one who was permanently resident in one’s locale, that was meant, then gēr was not rendered as προσηλυτος but as πάροικος instead where πᾰρᾰ- (beside) +‎ οἶκος (house) meant ‘dwelling beside’.[47] For example, while both’ézrāḥ and gēr were not to eat נְבֵלָה֙  (nəḇēlāh; carrion prey) in Lev 17:15, the’ézrāḥ was permitted in MT Deut 14:21 to offer it toגֵּ֨ר אֲשֶׁר־בִּשְׁעָרֶ֜יךָ  (gēr ʾăšer-bišʿārêk̲ā; the gēr who is within your gates), rendered in the LXX as τῷ παροίκῳ τῷ ἐν ταῖς πόλεσίν instead. Perhaps just passing through, such a πᾰ́ροικος was simply spending some time in your walled city without intending to reside with you permanently. The πᾰ́ροικος was a nọḵrî who might well have attached themselves to יהוה exclusively elsewhere where they usually resided. Simply passing through, they nevertheless had to eat, of course, but being without their usual social support system, that basic human need trumped any duty to avoid becoming ‘unclean’ in eating carrion. In this light, LXX Deut 14:21 was likely an acknowledgement that the meaning of προσηλύτος was evolving into that of ‘religious convert’.[48]

In rabbinic proselytism, the προσηλύτος dropped their Gentile familial ties to take up new fictive kinship bonds with Jews. Paul’s near-contemporary and diasporic Jew, Philo, argued that Gentile ἐπηλύται (incomers) and προσήλυτοι (proselytes) joined the Jewish community ‘by conversion’ as ‘by birth’. By turning to יהוה  in ‘the worship of the one and truly existing G-d’ (Philo, Virt. 10), they honored τοῦ ἑνὸς θεοῦ (the one G-d) in exclusion to their gods. In Philo, Spec.1.51, the προσηλύτος was physically circumcised. In 1.51–52, Jewish identity replaced the Gentile one of τοῦ προσεληλυθέναιμ, for they had become citizens of καινῇ καὶ φιλοθέῳ πολιτείᾳ (the new and godly commonwealth), forming kinship ties with Jews (1.52), becoming equal in rank and rights as τοῖς αὐτόχθοσι (the native-born), and so were fully incorporated into ethnic Israel. Having jettisoned their families (συγγενεῖς), country (πατρίδα) and friends (φίλους) – δι᾽ ἀρετὴν καὶ ὁσιότητα (for the sake of virtue and religion), they ought ‘not to be denied ἑτέρων πόλεων (another citizenship) or other οἰκείων (family) and φίλων (brotherly) ties’ (1.52). Since proselyte and native-born both ‘honored the one G-d’ alike, their interpersonal bonds were to always remain unbroken (1.52). They were to receive instruction in Torah (1.314), serve יהוה, i.e., obey Torah (1.303), and be punished if they broke Torah, just like the native-born (1.54). For Philo, the rabbinic proselyte was kin and thus to be accorded the same rights and responsibilities of real kin. In Philo, Virt. 102–104, ethnicity and religion were mutually dependent and inseparable, so the rabbinic προσηλυτος was remodeled in their ethnicity into a genuine Jew. The native-born was to love the proselyte more than just friends (φίλους) and family (συγγενεῖς), indeed ‘as themselves both in body and soul’, so that the community might become ἓν εἶναι ζῷον (a single living organism), i.e., a unified fellowship (103).

In Philo, Virt. 214, Abram was a gēr in Canaan who had given up his πατρίδα (fatherland), γενεὰν (race) and πατρῷον οἶκον (paternal home). Having jettisoned his pantheon, Abram ‘discovered the one true G-d [for he was] the first person spoken of as believing in G-d’, (212–219), who then founded τοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνους (the Jewish nation), so that he was not just the first convert but also the standard bearer for all προσήλυτοι thereafter (219). This meant that Jewish ethnicity was capacious enough to incorporate all who would imitate Abraham,[49] i.e., discover the G-d of Israel, give up on all other gods, believe only in יהוה, and serve him faithfully (Philo, Spec. 1.52). But while Abraham was his archetypical προσηλυτος, Philo did not claim Abraham’s genealogy for the rabbinic proselyte as Paul did for his convert.[50]

Indeed, in Hellenistic culture, an individual’s identity was supple and pliable such that the barbarian could become a ‘Hellene’ if they were educated in the Greek language, got acculturated to Greek culture, and was assimilated into Greek society.[51] As noted in Isocrates, Panegyricus 50: ‘The designation Hellene seems no longer to be a matter of descent but of disposition, and those who share in our education have more right to be called Hellenes than those who have a common descent with us.’ Put somewhat differently, Hellenism gave lie to the modern reflexive notion that biological descent implacably determines ethnicity.

In Hellenism, one’s ethnic identity was instead constructed upon one’s dispositions and inclinations, which may be molded or remodeled by one’s education and upbringing, and also developed and consolidated through habitual activities and behaviors such as Greek banqueting, or sports. In that culture, humanity was ‘us’ Hellenes, people who spoke Greek, versus ‘them’ barbarians, who spoke no Greek, any differences among the various groups of the latter being of no significance to ‘us.’ For diasporic Jews in that Hellenistic culture, it was also as true that ‘us’ Jews were different and distinct from ‘them’ Gentiles, the differences among the various groups of the latter being of no significance to ‘us’ as well. In addition, Diasporic Jews also adopted the other Hellenistic concept that ‘they’ could become ‘us’ through mīlâ ləšēm ḡîyyûr, by which ‘they’ adopted ‘our’ culture which, above all, included ‘our’ G-d.[52] In Justin, Dialogue with Typho 46–47, the rabbinic προσηλύτος was a Gentile integrating into τὴν ἐννόμον πολιτείαν (the commonwealth-in-Torah). In sum, the Gentile’s ethnicity being swapped for a Jewish one was not a religious transaction as might be imagined today but simply them entering a foreign πολιτεία (Israel), whereupon they gave up their own ancestral traditions for the foreign customs (or ‘laws’) of Israel called Torah.

C. Incorporating Paul’s convert into the covenant

In Mediterranean antiquity, people saw themselves as family groups headed by their gods, in which co-ethnics supposedly shared blood ties with their gods who ‘ran in the blood,’ and therefore with one another.[53] Upon this conceit of shared blood, Frederiksen argues, discrete civic lineages were traced back to a common divine ancestor [such that] connections between heaven and earth were configured precisely along ethnic lines.[54] Since each god always oversaw a particular territory, each god was always embedded in a specific ethnicity. This suggests that while translating τὰ ἔθνη (the nations) as ‘Gentiles’ to suggest ‘ethnicity’ might have been comprehensible to ancients, today’s alternative translation of τὰ ἔθνη as ‘pagans’ to suggest ‘religion’ would not have been so.

Now, when they jettisoned their gods to commit themselves to the god of Israel exclusively, which was when they also dropped their own customs/traditions which pleased their gods to adopt Jewish ancestral practices (Torah) that pleased יהוה instead, it would have been the treachery of changing ethnicity and deserting ancestral customs for foreign laws,[55] (and rupturing one’s relationships with the gods and one’s own people.[56] Importantly, these gods:[57]

thickly inhabited the ancient city, structuring human time, space, and social relations. Dedicated festivals, celebrating seasons and days sacred to divine patrons, celestial and imperial, punctuated the civic year. The venues of these celebrations—the theatre, the circus, the stadium, the amphitheater—held altars to and images of these gods. Household calendars and domestic space replicated in miniature these civic structures, where celebrations of the family ... also invoked and honored presiding deities [that were present] also on insignia of office, on military standards, in solemn oaths and contracts, in vernacular benedictions and exclamations, and throughout the curricula of the educated.

Moreover, this ‘religious’ connotation extended beyond the household level to higher ones—city, clan, nation, even empire—so that "not only households but also [city, clan, nation and even empire