The So-Called Jew in Paul's Letter to Romans

Rafael Rodriguez, Matthew Thiessen, Rafael Rodriguez, Matthew Thiessen

• Publisher: Fortress Press
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781506401980
• eBook ISBN: 9781506401997
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

Decades ago, Werner G. Kummel described the historical problem of Romans as its "double character" concerned with issues of Torah and the destiny of Israel, the letter is explicitly addressed not to Jews but to Gentiles. At stake in the numerous answers given to that question is nothing less than the purpose of Paul's most important letter. In The So-Called Jew in Romans, nine Pauline scholars focus their attention on the rhetoric of diatribe and characterization in the opening argumentation that figure appears or is implied. Each component of Paul's argument is closely examined with particular attention to the theological problems that arise in each. In addition to the editors, chapters of the letter, asking what Paul means by the "so-called Jew" in Romans 2 and where else in the letter's contributors are Runar M. Thorsteinsson, Magnus Zetterholm, Joshua D. Garroway, Matthew V. Novenson, and Michele Murraywith a response by Joshua W. Jipp.

2

The Non-Jewish Interlocutor in Romans 2:17 and the Salvation of the Nations: Contextualizing Romans 1:18–32

Magnus Zetterholm

Runar Thorsteinsson’s hypothesis that the interlocutor in Rom 2:17 is “a person of gentile origin who wants to call himself a Jew”^[1] is, of course, highly interesting as a hermeneutical key to Rom 1:18–32. Thorsteinsson fits quite well into the scholarly tradition known as “the radical perspective on Paul”^[2] or “the Paul-within-Judaism perspective.”^[3] Scholars who adhere to this research paradigm share the assumptions that Paul’s “religion” should be considered one of many manifestations of Second Temple Judaism, that his main interest was the gentile nations, not the Jewish people, and that he consequently addressed predominantly non-Jews. That is to say, Paul’s intended audience is chiefly non-Jewish. Thus, scholars working within this radical new perspective on Paul are exploring whether it is possible to understand Paul on the assumption that he was firmly rooted within Judaism and was as loyal to Jewish traditions as any other first-century Diaspora Jew.

If the assumption that Paul was a representative of first-century Judaism is correct, his interest in the salvation of the nations is, consequently, part of Jewish salvation history. Paul never converts to “Christianity,” simply because “Christianity” does not yet exist, but aims at relating members of the nations to Judaism without obliterating their ethnic identity, that is, without demanding that they should convert to Judaism. The conflicts within the early Jesus movement, accordingly, did not concern the role of the Torah in a Jewish setting. The issue at stake was, rather, the status of non-Jews. Should members of the nations convert to Judaism, and as a consequence of this observe the Torah, or should they observe the Torah without converting to Judaism? Or should non-Jews turn to the God of Israel without converting to Judaism and without engaging in Torah observance, as Paul seems to argue?^[4]

One important consequence of applying the above-mentioned assumptions when interpreting Paul and the development of the early Jesus movement is an increased focus on the non-Jews within the movement. If Jesus-believing Jews generally agreed on the continued validity of Judaism (in this case, Jesus-oriented, messianic Judaism), including Torah observance for Jews, the much-discussed problem of “Jewish-Christianity” seems to vanish completely.^[5] When the problem of “Jewish-Christianity” disappears from the scene, together with the presumed conflicts between “Jewish-Christian legalism” and Paul’s “law-free gospel for all humanity,” the problems of the socio-religious identity of non-Jewish followers of Jesus and the relations between Jews and non-Jews within the movement enter the scene instead.^[6] Thus, one essential consequence of “the Paul-within-Judaism” perspective is the shift in focus from a general conflict over the validity of the Torah between various factions of the early Jesus movement to a conflict over how to relate to non-Jews within the movement.

The conclusion that the early Jesus movement in all essentials was a Jewish movement with an interest in the salvation of the nations is an important step forward (compared to more traditional scholarship) and creates a significantly more complex picture that brings us closer to the truth about the historical situation. Still, for traditional readings of Paul, the most fundamental perspective has been a simplistic dichotomy between “Judaism” and “Christianity.” As I have argued elsewhere, the problem with this view is that it is almost entirely built on an amalgamation of normative theology and New Testament scholarship.^[7] A “Paul-within-Judaism perspective” is far more likely to capture the original ideas of the historical Paul.

According to traditional Pauline scholarship, Paul converted to Christianity on the road to Damascus and thereby left his Jewish heritage, which he came to “regard as loss because of Christ” (Phil 3:7).^[8] The “Christians” emerged as a third race, separate from Jews and non-Jews, and Paul’s message was directed at this new group.^[9] His teaching about the Torah was universal and concerned both Jesus-believing Jews and non-Jews. For “Christians,” “Christ is the end of the law” (Rom 10:4).

The idea of an inherent conflict between Judaism and Christianity can indeed be considered one of the most successful memes of Western civilization.^[10] While this meme’s origin probably is to be found in a religio-political context during the first century ce,^[11] it has evolved effectively during two thousand years and exploited the cultural environment so successfully that it has replicated and evolved, not only in a theological context, but also, for instance, in the fields of biology and politics during the Nazi era. This powerful meme has indeed determined a great deal of Pauline scholarship and is, no doubt, the reason why the interlocutor in Rom 2:17 commonly has been understood as “the typical Jew.”^[12] The notion of the inferiority of Judaism has also affected the interpretation of Rom 1:18–32. Since the addressees are not clearly named, a major difficulty of this passage is to determine about whom Paul is speaking.

There are basically two main positions represented among scholars. Some believe that Paul has all of humankind, both the nations and the Jewish people, in mind in 1:18–32. Other scholars, however, believe that Paul is specifically addressing non-Jews in 1:18–32, and only in 2:1–3:20, turns to the Jews. Both of these positions are heavily influenced by the idea that Paul rejected Judaism and started a new “religion”—Christianity—and that he is involved in a project of criticizing Judaism in general and Torah observance in particular. The main problem in Romans is the Jews, as Günther Bornkamm has so tellingly articulated:

Paul’s opponent [in Romans] is not this or that section in a particular church, but the Jews and their understanding of salvation, which was still extremely influential in the early Jewish-Christian church, particularly in Jerusalem. Paul’s polemic is therefore not mere shadow-boxing. In a way the Jew symbolizes man in his highest potentialities; he represents the “religious man” whom the Law tells what God requires of him, who appeals to the special statute granted him in the plan of salvation, and who refuses to admit that he has failed to measure up to God’s claim to him and is in consequence abandoned to sin and death.^[13]

The common denominator of these two ways of understanding the passage in question is that there is a strong connection between the interpretation of 1:18–32 and the identity of the interlocutor in 2:17. We will look more closely at some of these readings below.

The Wrath of God and its Consequences—for Whom?

By quoting the prophet...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Table Of Contents
• Contributors
• Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans: The Problem of Identification
• The Non-Jewish Interlocutor in Romans 2:17 and the Salvation of the Nations: Contextualizing Romans 1:18–32
• Paul’s So-Called Jew and Lawless Lawkeeping
• Paul’s Gentile Interlocutor in Romans 3:1–20
• Romans 5–8 in Light of Paul’s Dialogue with a Gentile Who “Calls Himself a Jew”
• The Self-Styled Jew of Romans 2 and the Actual Jews of Romans 9–11
• Romans 2 Within the Broader Context of Gentile Judaizing in Early Christianity
• What are the Implications of the Ethnic Identity of Paul’s Interlocutor? Continuing the Conversation
• Ancient Sources Index
• Authors Index