Book - Letter-Writer Paul by Tim Hegg PDF

The Letter Writer
Paul’s Background and Torah Perspective

The Letter Writer
Paul’s Background and Torah Perspective
Tim Hegg
TorahResource
Tacoma Washington • USA
Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from
New American Standard Bible Update

Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995
by The Lockman Foundation
All Rights Reserved
©2002, 2008 TorahResource

4105 N 25th St
Tacoma WA 98406 USA
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
First Edition published by First Fruits of Zion: 2002

Second Edition published by TorahResource: 2008
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Hegg, Timothy J., 1950 –
The Letter Writer: Paul’s Background and Torah Perspective /
Tim Hegg
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN–13: 978-0-9759359-2-7
1. New Testament backgrounds, Pauline studies
Library of Congress Control Number: 2002100956
Cover Design: Avner Wolff;
Logo design for TorahResource: Joshua Hegg
Manuscript leaf on cover is ∏46 of the

Chester Beatty Papyri, folio 30 verso, dated to the late 2nd or early 3rd Century
CE, and contains Romans 11:36–12:8.
To Paulette
My dearest friend
and
closest companion
Contents
Table Of Contents
Dedication......................................................................................... xi
Preface..............................................................................................xiii
References and Abbreviations.......................................................xv
Prologue: “What is Faith?”...........................................................xix
Chapter 1: Paul’s Background...................................................... 25
1.1 His Nationality..................................................................... 27
1.2 His Name.............................................................................. 30
1.3 His Family............................................................................. 32
1.4 His Education....................................................................... 35
1.5 His Death.............................................................................. 44
Chapter 2: Paul and His World.................................................... 47
2.1 His Affiliations..................................................................... 49
The Pharisees.......................................................................... 51
The Sadducees........................................................................ 54
The Essenes............................................................................. 56
Scribes...................................................................................... 59
2.2 Paul Within 1st Century Judaisms.................................... 60
The Use of Scripture.............................................................. 60
The Use of Tradition.............................................................. 61
Belief in the Resurrection...................................................... 62
Belief in Divine Providence.................................................. 63
Paul’s Calendar...................................................................... 64
2.3 Summary............................................................................... 64
Chapter 3: Paul’s Theology–Overview of Some Key Issues.. 67
3.1 Paul’s Faith-Community.................................................... 69
3.2 The “New” Paul................................................................... 73
A Brief Overview.................................................................... 73
3.3 Paul: Another Perspective?................................................ 80
vii
Contents
3.4 Pauline and Pharisaic Soteriology Compared................. 81
3.5 The Impact of the Damascus Road Experience
on Paul’s Understanding of Salvation.............................. 84
3.6 Paul’s Soteriology................................................................ 89
The Issue of Status in Paul’s Soteriology............................ 95
Paul, Gentiles, and Proselytes............................................ 101
Gentiles in Rabbinic Literature.......................................... 101
Paul’s New Perspective on Gentiles.................................. 104
Summary............................................................................... 108
3.7 Paul’s Ecclesiology............................................................ 109
Why Did Paul Use the Word “Church”?.......................... 109
Yeshua as the Head of the Congregation.......................... 114
God’s People and the Nation of Israel.............................. 120
Summary............................................................................... 121
3.8 Paul’s Bibliology: Scripture as the Word of God........... 122
The Rabbinic View of Scripture......................................... 122
Every Letter Important..................................................... 122
Inspiration and Canonicity.............................................. 123
What Qualified Books for the Rabbinic Canon?........... 127
What Books Actually were in the Rabbinic Canon?.... 129
Josephus.......................................................................... 129
The Lxx............................................................................ 131
Dead Sea Scrolls............................................................. 133
Apostolic Scriptures...................................................... 134
Rabbinic Literature........................................................ 135
The Relationship of Torah to the
Prophets and Writings......................................................... 136
Summary: The Rabbinic View of Scripture...................... 139
Paul’s View of Scripture...................................................... 140
What Bible Did Paul Use?................................................ 143
viii
Contents
Did Paul Have the “Gospels” and
Did He Consider Them “Scripture?”............................. 145
What Did Paul Think of His Own Epistles?................. 147
Summary of Paul’s View of Scripture............................... 148
3.9 Paul’s Christology: The Person of Messiah.................. 149
Messianism in 1st Century Judaisms.............................. 149
Messiah in Rabbinic Literature........................................ 150
“The Promise”.................................................................... 156
Paul’s Messiah.................................................................... 159
The Person of Messiah............................................... 159
Summary - The Person of Messiah.................... 167
The Work of Messiah................................................. 168
Yeshua’s Death...................................................... 174
Yeshua’s Death as a Sacrifice.............................. 176
Yeshua’s Death as Atonement............................ 179
Yeshua’s Resurrection.......................................... 185
The Ascension and Session of Yeshua............... 189
The Intercession of Messiah................................ 191
Yeshua’s Return and Reign as King................... 193
Summary - The Work of Messiah....................... 198
3.10 The Spirit of God in Paul’s Letters................................ 199
Paul’s Terminology............................................................ 199
The Spirit and the Eschaton............................................. 199
The Work of the Spirit....................................................... 201
Spirit vs. Letter................................................................... 205
Summary - Paul’s Pneumatology...................................... 208
Chapter 4: Paul and the New Covenant................................... 211
Chapter 5: Paul and the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)............ 233
5.1 The Core Issue at the Jerusalem Council........................ 235
5.2 Is the Torah a Burden No One Can Bear?...................... 237
ix
Contents
5.3 “Yoke” and “Burden” in the Sayings of Yeshua............ 241
5.4 The Four Requirements.................................................... 244
Were the Four Requirements Really
the Noachide Laws?.......................................................... 245
The Four Requirements as Fences
Against Idol Worship........................................................ 247
The Four Prohibitions as Aspects of
the Pagan Temple.............................................................. 253
(1) abstain from meat offered to idols....................... 253
(2) (abstain from) blood............................................... 254
(3) (abstain from) things strangled............................ 255
(4) (abstain from) fornication . ................................... 256
5.5 Summary............................................................................ 258
Chapter 6: Acts 21 & Paul’s Obedience to Torah.................... 261
Chapter 7: Chronology of Paul’s Life....................................... 269
7.1 Starting Points.................................................................... 272
7.2 Bigger Questions................................................................ 273
7.3 A General Chronology...................................................... 274
Chapter 8: A Final Appeal.......................................................... 277
8.1 Rethinking the Shape of the Church............................... 279
8.2 Paul and the Modern Church.......................................... 280
Bibliography ................................................................................ 283
Indexes........................................................................................... 291

Dedication
Dedication
Anytime a person endeavors to write a book, he owes a great deal
of thanks to many people. This is surely true in my case, because
often it was through friends that I was forced to ask otherwise
unasked questions, and seek valid answers.
I am grateful to Boaz Michael and all of the people at First
Fruits of Zion for publishing the 1st edition of The Letter Writer
and promoting its message. I thank the Almighty for our years
of friendship and camaraderie in the message of Torah. I am
also grateful that First Fruits of Zion so willingly allowed
TorahResource to undertake the publishing of this 2nd edition.
Having the full process “in house” has streamlined the tasks thus
requiring less time in my already full schedule.
In the 1st edition I was greatly helped by the suggestions
and comments of Daniel Lancaster and Michael Lebowitz, both
of whom read the original draft. Likewise, numerous readers
have pointed out errors in the 1st edition, allowing me to make
corrections in this 2nd edition, for which I am grateful. Of course,
whatever errors remain are solely my responsibility.
It was within the context of my community, Beit Hallel, that
The Letter Writer originally took shape. In the six years since the
1st edition appeared, our interaction together has continued to
sharpen my focus on the life and letters of Paul as we have studied
together and sought to live out the principles his inspired words
present. In a very real sense, the community life within Beit Hallel
has provided the wonderful opportunity to put the message of
Paul into daily living, and for that I am deeply grateful.
Since the printing of the 1st edition, my father (of blessed
memory) has left this life and obtained his rest in the very presence
of the Messiah. Though now absent from us, his life of faithful and
humble service continues to affect me in so many ways. Often in
my weekly visits with my mother, we reflect upon how much we
miss him, but also what a great example he continues to be for us
as one who demonstrated a true life of faith. I could never fully
express my thankfulness to God for my parents, Pearl and Oscar
Hegg, who gave to me the very foundations of faith upon which
my life is now founded.
The Almighty continues to bless us with His favor. We now
have three granddaughters: Rivka, Elliesheva, and Yofi. I know
xi
Dedication
personally the joy of seeing my childrens’ children (Ps 128:6)!
Indeed, nothing is of greater earthly joy to me than to spend
Shabbats with my family. Josh and Ava, Rivi, Ellie, and Yofi; Caleb,
Krannah, and Fenda—you all are the joy that strengthens me.
In the end, it is to my closest friend and companion that I owe
the greater debt of gratitude. Paulette, my wife, my ‘eshet chayil,
you constantly remind me by your careful life and perseverance
how Yeshua’s congregation is to love Him. I could never thank you
enough for the joy of the past 36 years! The prospect of growing
old with you is always filled with wonder and anticipation.
Thanks for putting up with long hours in the study. I love you.
Of course, it is to God and His Messiah, Yeshua, that I owe
the greatest thanksgiving. Abba, grant that this effort will cause
the sanctification of Your Name, and give glory to Your Messiah,
Yeshua. Ruach, blow upon the threshing floor of each reader’s
mind, that the grain may remain, and the chaff be blown away.
Tim Hegg
Av 5768
6 ‫ משלי יז‬.‫עטרת זקנים בני בנים ותפארת בנים אבותם‬
xii
Preface
Preface
One of the primary issues in New Testament studies today is the
place of Paul in the formation of the Christian church. Did he
simply advance the teachings of Yeshua (Jesus) as the Apostle to
the Gentiles, or did he begin something new? Some scholars have
gone as far as to say that Paul was a complete farce, deceiving
himself and those who read his epistles. Others have concluded
that Paul’s teachings were molded and reformed to fit a post-
Apostolic Christianity that needed to define itself away from the
synagogue.
As more and more of God’s people are returning to an
appreciation of the Torah as God’s design for His people, the
teachings of Paul are a constant matter for discussion. Did he,
as so many have claimed, think that the Law or the Torah was
actually something that would impede the success of the gospel
among the Gentiles? Was he convinced that Yeshua had initiated
a new era in which the Torah was no longer relevant to the daily
life of the believer and did he write to the congregations of his
day to convince them of this “new way?”
Or has Paul been misunderstood? Have his teachings been
interpreted from a prejudice fostered in the post-Apostolic church,
a prejudice which saw all things “Jewish” as inferior to the way
of the “gospel?” Is it possible that Paul never moved away from
a typical Jewish love for Torah and that we have read him with
theological eyes jaundiced by years of tradition?
In the books I hope to write (as the Lord gives grace and
ability), I want to focus on these questions by looking at Paul
himself—seeking to know as best we can what his background
was, his training, his worldview, and how these factors may
inform his writings. I want to look again at the history given to us
in Acts, and at Paul’s epistles themselves, and listen to what he
says about the Torah. In all, I want to look at three broad arenas:
1) Paul’s background and worldview, with particular attention to
his view of the Torah; 2) those sections of Paul’s epistles that have
historically been interpreted in such a way to make Paul appear

Note the good work of John Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder
of Christianity? (IVP, 1998).

Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity
(Barnes & Noble Books, 1998).
xiii
Preface
as anti-Torah, and 3) how a renewed understanding of Paul
impacts our lives and how God’s people can honestly implement
the Apostles’s teaching in their own communities of faith. The
Letter Writer will address only the first of these. If God is willing,
and with His help, I hope to write subsequent books to address
the others.
Since the 1st Edition of The Letter Writer, a great deal of Pauline
studies have focused upon the “New Perspective” and whether
it should be received or rejected. To interacted with the new
materials appearing on the subject would have gone beyond the
original scope of the book itself. Moreover, I realized that if I began
to add significantly to the text in this second edition (whether in
interacting with the new materials on the New Perspective, or
taking notice of the many new titles that have been published on
Paul in the past six years), it would end up being a project greater
than current time and energies allow. As a result, this second
printing of The Letter Writer is really not a “second edition,”
but is essentially a reprint with small amounts of editing. This
editing was mostly to correct typographical errors, but also, in
a few cases, to correct references to the supporting data, and to
refine and correct a few things along the way. The vast majority
of the material in this second edition, however, is identical with
the text of the first edition. But due to the edits I have made, as
well as changing some typographical issues, the pagination of
this second edition is significantly different from the first edition.
I would hope, therefore, that those who might reference The Letter
Writer in their works would be careful to distinguish whether
they are quoting the first or second edition.
In writing this book I have once again been made aware of
my many inadequacies. Yet in spite of my weaknesses, it is my
earnest hope that these words might lead many to reconsider
and even embrace God’s teaching, the Torah, for what it truly is:
Abba’s gracious and loving teaching in righteousness; Messiah-
centered instruction that calls the righteous to walk by faith.

xiv
Abreviations
References and Abbreviations

References to rabbinic materials follow standard conventions.
References to the Babylonian Talmud (Bavli) begin with lower
case “b” followed by a period. The tractate follows immediately in
italic script, and then the folio, e.g., b.Sanhedrin 98a. The Jerusalem
Talmud (Yerushalami) follows the same pattern, except with initial
“y,” e.g., y.Sanhedrin 1:2, 18d. Tosefta references are preceded by
a “t.” References from the Mishnah are preceded by “m,” e.g.,
m.Sanhedrin 1:2. Midrash Rabbah is abbreviated “Mid. Rab.”
followed by the particular midrash and the notations particular
to it, e.g., Mid. Rab. Canticles 1, §15, 1.
Citations from the Qumran materials also follow standard
notation. The first number is the cave or location in which the
manuscript was found, followed by the common name or number
given to it, e.g., 4Q285.
I use the accepted “BCE, before the common era” and “CE,
common era” to denote what is sometimes referred to as “BC,
before Christ” and “AD, Anno Domini, the year of our Lord.” I
do this for several reasons: (1) Yeshua was not born in year zero
or one, so using a “made up” year for His birth as a benchmark
is confusing. (2) I do not want to give even passive credence to
Constantine, who changed the calendar for political reasons and
brought great trouble upon those who honestly were seeking
God.
I also do not prefer the common labels “Old Testament” and
“New Testament” (see Chapter 4). Instead, I have incorporated
“Tanach” (which is an acronym standing for “Torah, Neviim
[prophets], and Ketuvim [writings]) denoting “The Torah, the
Prophets, and the Writings.” This was the common way to refer
to the canon of Scripture in Yeshua’s day. For the so-called “New
Testament” I have chosen “Apostolic Writings or Scriptures,”
since this description (though not perfect) adequately represents
the inspired writings of Yeshua’s Apostles.
I have also used “Torah” instead of “Law.” Since Torah
comes from the Hebrew root ‫יַָרה‬, yarah, which can mean “to point
out” or “to teach” (note the Hebrew ‫מֹוֵרה‬, moreh, “teacher”), to
translate it as “law” in every case can miss the point. In fact, it is
not always clear that Greek novmo~ (nomos) is a good translation
of the Hebrew ‫ּתֹוָרה‬, torah. Thus, when I use the word “Torah,”
xv
Abreviations
it may refer specifically to the first five books of the Bible (the
Pentateuch), the whole of Scripture (since God’s teaching comes
to us in the Scriptures), or of a specific passage in the books of
Moses. Whenever I am referring to the additional man-made
rules of the Sages under the general heading of “Torah,” I call
them “Oral Torah” to differentiate them from the “Written Torah”
or the word of God.
I have used the Hebrew name Yeshua rather than Jesus for
a number of reasons. Since I am attempting to emphasize the
Jewishness of Paul, it only seems appropriate to set my thoughts
within the context of the Judaisms of his day. Also, I want the
reader to be aware that the Messiah I am referring to is the one of
the Scriptures, not the fabricated Jesus of the later Constantinian
church. I capitalize “Word” when referring to Yeshua as the
“Word of God,” but use lower case “word” when the same phrase
refers to the Bible, i.e., “word of God.” This is only to maintain
the distinction between the Word incarnate, and the word in
Scripture.
I have generally used the name Paul rather than Sha’ul because
this is how he refers to himself throughout his epistles.
The following table of abbreviations will alert the reader to
shorthand terminology used throughout the book. I have chosen
to spell out the books of the Bible, using an ordinal rather than
cardinal (without intervening space) to indicate a first or second,
e.g., 1Timothy, 2Kings.
Abbreviations and Special Terms
Apostolic Writings The New Testament

Ant. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews
Avot The tractate Pirkei .Avot (Sayings of the
Fathers) contained in the Mishnah
Bavli Babylonian Talmud
BDAG W. Bauer, A Greek-Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, eds. W. F. Arndt and F.
W. Gingrich, 2nd ed. revised by F.
W. Danker (Chicago: University of
Chicago, 1979)
BAR Biblical Archeology Review
xvi
Abreviations
BASOR Bulletin of the American Society of Oriental
Research
BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs,
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907)
Chag HaMatzot Festival of Unleavened Bread
halachah how the Torah is to be lived out; the
accepted manner of obeying any given
commandment
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JPS Jewish Publication Society Bible (1976)
KJV King James Version Bible
Lxx Septuagint, the Greek translation of the
Tanach
midrash/midrashim Rabbinic commentaries
mitzvah/mitzvot commandment or good deed
NASB New American Standard Bible Update
NICNT New International Commentary on the New
Testament
NIV New International Bible
NTS New Testament Studies
Pesach Passover
Rabban Older Aramaic title meaning “our
teacher”
Shavuot Festival of Weeks; Greek “Pentecost”
Shema Deuteronomy 6:4 and parallel texts. The
Shema is the central confession of the
synagogue
Shemonei Esrei The Eighteen Benedictions of the
synagogue liturgy
Sifra Rabbinic commentary on Leviticus
Sifre Rabbinic commentary on Numbers and
Deuteronomy
Tanach The Old Testament
Targum/Targumim The Aramaic translations of the Tanach
TDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament (10 vols.;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 1964-76)
TDOT G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, eds.
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974- )
Tos. Tosefta (later additions to the Mishnah,
introduced in the Talmud with ‫ּת ַנ ְי ָא‬,
tanya)
xvii
Abreviations
Yalqut Yalqut Shimoni, a 13th century midrashic
anthology compiled by Simeon
HaDrashan and quoted by Rashi.
Yerushalami Jerusalem Talmud
xviii
What is Faith?
Prologue
Before venturing into the main body of this book in which we will
seek a fresh perspective on Paul, I want to explain what I mean
by the phrase “faith in Messiah” or “believe in God” (and similar
phrases using the word “faith” and “believe”).
I feel compelled to write this prologue on the subject of faith
or the act of believing because I think this most central concept
is often misunderstood. Yet it is a biblical phrase, and one which
Paul uses regularly.
The reason I think the concept of “believing in God” or having
“faith in Yeshua” is misunderstood is because in our Western way
of looking at things, “faith” is understood as a mental process, so
that “believing in God” means “agreeing mentally with what He
has said.” But while the idea of mental agreement is surely part of
the biblical concept of faith, it by no means exhausts the biblical
meaning.
One of the major difficulties we encounter in our discussion
of “trust,” “believe,” and “faith/faithful,” is that there is no
corresponding verbal form of “faith” in the English language.
We have no way of saying that one “faithed” or that someone
is “faithing” in God. Yet in both the Hebrew and the Greek
the word group expressing the concept of faith also contains
a verb built on the same root. To put it simply, noun and verb
are cognate. For example, the Hebrew verb ‫‘( אָמַן‬aman), “to be
supported” from which we derive the verb “to believe,” has
the corresponding noun ‫‘( א ֶמּונ ָה‬emunah), which means “faith” or
“faithful.” Likewise, the Greek verb pistevuw (pisteuo), “to believe,”
has the corresponding noun pivsti~, (pistis), which means “faith”

Note, for example, Galatians 3:26; Ephesians 1:15; Colossians 1:4;
1Timothy 1:14; 3:13; 2Timothy 1:13; 3:15. The use of a genitive as
the object of “faith” is also common, pivsti~ jIhsou` Cristou` (pistis
Iesou Christou), which can be translated either “faith (in) Yeshua the
Messiah” or “faith (of) Yeshua the Messiah.” Examples are Mark
11:22; Romans 3:22, 26; 4:16; Galatians 2:16, 20; 3:22; Philippians 3:9;
2Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 11:7; Revelation 14:12.

The qal only shows up one time in the Tanach (Lamentations 4:5),
and the root meaning of “supported” is actually derived from the
meaning attached to its usage in other derived forms. BDB offers
“confirm” or “support” as the root meaning of the verb.
xix
Prologue
or “faithful.” Unfortunately, many English readers do not realize
that “believing,” “having faith,” and “being faithful” all derive
from the same word group whether in the Hebrew or the Greek.
If we look more closely, the Hebrew verb ‫‘( אמן‬aman) is used
in the nifil stem (46x) with the general meaning “prove oneself
reliable” or “have stability,” “remain,” or “continue,” that is, “to
be faithful.” It is used nearly the same number of times (52x) in
the hifil stem with the general meaning “to believe in” (with ‫ב‬
marking the object of one’s faith or belief), or to say it another
way, “to put trust in.” The hifil stem often has a “causative” force,
so that it may connote “that which causes one to be faithful.”
This Hebrew verb includes the idea of “thinking,” for “belief”
or “faith” involves knowing the truth. Thus, we find Abram
“believing God,” which must mean that he accepted what God
had said as true. In other contexts, this same verb surely carries
the idea of “being convinced” as well as to “rely upon.”
The noun derived from the Hebrew verb ‫‘( אמן‬aman) is ‫א ֶמּונ ָה‬
(‘emunah, found 49x). Yet its primary function is not to describe
someone who has “been convinced” that something is true
(like our English “he’s a believer”), but rather someone who is
“reliable,” “honest,” “steady,” or who “conscientiously performs
his duties.” Thus the Hebrew noun that is cognate to the verb “to
believe” describes the quality of being “faithful.”
The classic example of this meaning is found in Habakkuk
2:4, a decisive verse for the Apostle Paul. Here, the famous
phrase “the just shall live by faith” must be understood from the
original context of Habakkuk to mean that the righteous person
lives on the basis of his faithfulness. In the time of Habakkuk, the
nation was being torn in her loyalties, whether to trust in God
and the covenant He had given, or to ally herself with the nations
for protection. Habakkuk’s statement is made with this in mind:
the righteous (those who have faith in God) will live (be protected
and sustained) by faith (by demonstrating a faithful trust in God
and His promises). It is this understanding of faith that Paul
carries into the argument of Romans and is sustained throughout

Genesis 15:6, cf. Job 15:22; Psalms 116:10.

Psalm 27:13.

Genesis 15:6; Exodus 4:31; Deuteronomy 9:23.

cf. Romans 1:17.
xx
What is Faith?
the book.
The Greek word pivsti~ (pistis) also carries this same idea of
faith which is demonstrated by faithfulness. We know this because
the Lxx translators regularly chose this Greek word to translate the
Hebrew ‫‘( א ֶמּונ ָה‬emunah). The other Greek words that occasionally
translate ‫‘( א ֶמּונ ָה‬emunah) likewise show the connection between
“faith” and “faithful”: i{sthmi (histemi) “to stand” (or some
compound of i{sthmi) and ajlhvqeia (aletheia) “truth.” But the fact
that pivsti~ (pistis) is the normal Greek word used to translate the
Hebrew ‫‘( א ֶמּונ ָה‬emunah) in the Lxx shows us that the translators
recognized an intrinsic meaning of “reliable” or “faithful” in the
word and not merely “to agree with” or “to be convinced.”
Of course, since the words for “faith” and “faithful” involve
the idea of “truth,” the Apostolic Scriptures sometime use pivsti~
(pistis) to mean “a body of truth” or “that which is to be received
as the truth.”
Very close to the Greek noun pivsti~ (pistis) is the adjective
pistov~ (pistos) which has similar meanings. Sometimes it takes
on a passive sense, and thus means “trustworthy,” “faithful,”
“dependable,” and “inspiring trust or faith.” When it takes an
active sense it means “trusting,” “cherishing faith or trust.”
So what do the Apostolic authors mean when they speak
of “faith in Yeshua” or “faith in God?” If we give the word its
Semitic background as we should, we can never divorce the
sense of “faithfulness” from the meaning of “agreeing with
the truth” or “being convinced by the truth.” To put it another
way, the Apostles never envisioned a situation where someone
was accredited as having genuine “faith” but whose life did not
evidence “faithfulness.”
This goes back to the very words of Yeshua as recorded in the
Gospels. Regularly He is described as “seeing” people’s faith.
Now when Yeshua heard this, He marveled, and said to those

who were following, “Truly I say to you, I have not found such
great faith with anyone in Israel.” 10
And behold, they were bringing to Him a paralytic, lying on a

bed; and Yeshua seeing their faith said to the paralytic, “Take

e.g., Jude 1:3.
10
Matthew 8:10
xxi
Prologue
courage, My son, your sins are forgiven.” 11
And Yeshua seeing their faith said to the paralytic, “My son,
your sins are forgiven.”12
The very fact that Yeshua is described as “seeing their faith” is

indicative of how the Apostles defined faith. Faith simply could
not exist as a hidden thought of the heart. Believing and the fruits
of this belief were so inextricably bound together that neither
could exist apart from the other. Yeshua could “see” the genuine
faith which a person had because that faith was demonstrated by
the person’s actions.
This has all but been lost on our modern-day religious
communities. “Faith” is considered almost exclusively to
mean that one is “convinced” of this or that without regard to
any outward action. Yet the very words used by the authors of
Scripture indicate this was not their meaning. What both the
Hebrew and Greek word groups tell us plainly is that the internal,
mental activity of genuine faith always shows itself in outward
obedience: “faith” and “faithfulness” are bound together as two
sides of the same coin.
This division in the Western worldview of the “internal”
(which is called “faith”) from the “external” (which is called
“faithfulness”) is foreign to the biblical way of looking at things
because it is foreign to a Hebrew understanding of “faith/
faithfulness.” Since the Bible was written by Hebrews and those
who had come to adopt the Hebrew way of looking at the world,
it only makes sense that the biblical teaching on “faith” would
flow from a Hebraic perspective.
It is not as though Yeshua neglects to challenge the intellectual
thoughts and beliefs of His disciples. He does ask them “who do
men say that I am?”13 Peter’s answer, “You are the Messiah, the
Son of the living God” is creedal. Likewise the Apostolic Scriptures
can speak of “the faith delivered to the saints” (meaning a body
of truth)14 and of “keeping the faith.”15 Paul teaches that there is
11
Mathew 9:2.
12
Mark 2:5
13
Matthew 16:13ff.
14
Jude 1:3.
15
Revelation 14:12.
xxii
What is Faith?
“one faith” by which he means “one object of our faith,” that is,
16
Yeshua. He is the focus of our faith, and in Him all our statements
of belief cohere.
But when Yeshua describes true saving faith, He does so in
terms of what one does, not what one thinks. It is not the one
who has his theological creed in order that stands at the day of
judgment, but the one who has visited Yeshua in prison, clothed
Him when He was naked, and gave Him food to eat when He
was hungry.17 Yeshua does not say “Why do you call me Lord,
Lord, and not confess what I have taught you.” Rather He says,
“Why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do what I say.”18 It is by
“keeping His commandments” that we demonstrate our love for
Him,19 not by reciting our creed. This is because for Yeshua as
well as His Apostles, genuine agreement with the truth is only
known by actions that align with the truth.
So having faith in God or believing in Him involves a
dedication to obeying Him and living to please Him. A life of
obedience to the Torah is a life of faith, because obedience flows
out of faith and is the only true proof of its existence. Genuine
faith never remains as a thought in the soul or heart. It always
manifests itself through obedient life-action.
I hope you will keep this in mind as you read the following
pages, especially the section on Paul’s theology. Paul clearly taught
that right-standing before God was on the basis of faith alone. But
when I say “faith alone,” I hope you now understand that I mean
genuine faith—faith that gladly accepts whatever God has said
and manifests itself through a life of obedience to Him. The “faith
alone” which Paul enjoins upon each one of us is, as I hope to
demonstrate, a faith which embraces God’s Torah as always and
inevitably leading to and extolling Yeshua our Messiah.
16
Ephesians 4:5.
17
Matthew 16:13ff.
18
Luke 6:46, cf. Matthew 7:21.
19
John 14:15.
xxiii
Prologue
… looking for the blessed hope

and the appearing of the glory
of our great God and Savior,
Messiah Yeshua;
who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us
from every anti-Torah deed and purify for Himself
a people for His own possession
zealous for good deeds.
Titus 2:13-14
xxiv
Chapter One
Paul’s Background
Paul’s Background: His Nationality
Chapter 1: Paul’s Background

1.1 His Nationality
Paul was a Jew, that much is clear.20 He refers to himself as a

“Hebrew of Hebrews” in Philippians 3:5, a phrase which has
been understood in a number of ways. Some have suggested
Paul was pointing to his pure bloodline, meaning both his mother
and father had traceable lineage. Others have suggested that by
calling himself a “Hebrew of Hebrews” Paul was identifying
himself with those who were outwardly zealous for the Torah.
What exactly did Paul mean when he called himself a “Hebrew
of Hebrews?” Let us look more closely at the wording of Paul’s
short autobiography in Philippians 3:5 to see what clues might
unlock the meaning.
We should first note that the phrase “Hebrew of Hebrews” is
the final member in a list of four attributes:
circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of

Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews;
J. B. Lightfoot insightfully noted that the list is in ascending

order.21 That is to say, “Hebrew of Hebrews” is last, functioning
as an emphatic conclusion to the list as a whole. Consider each
component and the way it is connected to the one preceding. The
fact of being circumcised the eighth day shows that his parents
were obedient to this Torah commandment, but does not rule out
the possibility that they were converts to Judaism, since proselytes
would also have circumcised their sons. Thus, Paul adds “of the
nation of Israel,” by which he clarifies that his lineage is from
native born parents, not proselytes. But even as Israelites they
may have been from an unfaithful tribe, so Paul states “of the tribe
of Benjamin.” Yet even those whose lineage was unimpeachable
and who hailed from a celebrated tribe often succumbed to
the Hellenistic influences in which they lived, adopting both
20
Some have, of course, disputed this. Maccoby thinks Paul was a
convert to Judaism, and that he simply fabricated his lineage for the
sake of credibility (Maccoby, Op. cit., 95ff).
21
J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (Zondervan, 1953),
146.
27
Chapter 1
the customs and language of the Greco-Roman culture. To this
Paul enjoins “Hebrew of Hebrews,” indicating that he came
from a family that maintained its Hebrew culture and language,
one which had not given in to the Hellenistic influences of the
day.22 So it may well be that the phrase “Hebrew of Hebrews”
was used by Paul to identify himself and his family as observant
of a traditional Jewish life-style, one which retained Hebrew or
Aramaic as the mother-tongue, and in which the Torah played the
central role of faith and life in general.
Why did Paul think it important for his readers to know
these facts about his life-style? In the context of the Epistle to
the Philippians he is clearly teaching that right-standing before
God cannot be gained by appealing to one’s lineage or ethnic
status. What is more, it is his primary point in this context that
his own lineage and culture gave him no advantage when it
came to forgiveness of sins. On the contrary, Paul is countering
the position of some who were apparently teaching that salvation
was given only to those who were native Israelites or Gentiles
who became proselytes. Paul is thus establishing, once again,
that right-standing before God could be achieved only through
the reckoned righteousness of Yeshua, gained by faith and not
through ethnic status. Who better to make this point than one
whose lineage and family life was impeccably orthodox?
Yet when it came to gaining right-standing before God, Paul
considered his lineage and Jewish life-style as having absolutely
no advantage. “But whatever things were gain to me, those things
I have counted as loss for the sake of the Messiah.” Paul had come
to understand that it was not who he was, nor what he had done,
that gave him right-standing before God, but who the Messiah is,
and what He had done and continues to do. For Paul, status in
life had no bearing whatsoever on being declared just before the
court of the Almighty.
Yet even though his life in Torah could never be the basis
for his justification before the holy God of Israel, Paul never
considered his heritage, and even his Torah-pursuant life-style,
as a disadvantage or a burden to be cast away. Having come to
recognize the central issue of faith, Paul had turned from trusting
in the privileges of his ethnicity. Though excelling more than his
22
cf. Jerome Murphy-O’Conner, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford, 1996), 36-
37.
28
Paul’s Background: His Nationality
contemporaries in matters of Torah, Paul had come to realize that
apart from faith these things could only bolster pride.
Yet after Paul had come to understand the righteousness which
comes by faith in Messiah, he would see the Torah he loved and
the Torah life-style he lived as all pointing to Messiah, constantly
expounding His person and work and calling the obedient child
of God to think and live as Yeshua did. He knew firsthand that
the Torah was a safeguard which a loving Heavenly Father had
given His children.23
But at the core Torah-obedience continued to be the manner
in which Paul demonstrated his love for God, a love that had
taken on new dimensions having recognized the love of God
demonstrated in Yeshua. Having been forgiven much, Paul loved
much.24 And his love for God was shown through obeying Him.
There may also be another reason he identifies himself as a
“Hebrew of Hebrews”—one whose mother-tongue was Hebrew
and who was therefore fully conversant with the Tanach and
with Torah-living: he wanted his readers to understand that he,
perhaps even more than his detractors, was comprehensively
schooled in the Torah. He therefore had equal or even greater
right to teach them about how God declares a sinner righteous.
His understanding of the Tanach, gleaned initially through years
of study and then illumined by the Spirit as he turned to embrace
Yeshua, was the basis for Paul’s emphasis upon justification by
faith. If his detractors were going to accuse him of one thing or
another, never could they make stick the notion that Paul was
unlearned in the Scriptures. As a “Hebrew of Hebrews,” the
Tanach had been his life since the day he was born.
Who were the ones disturbing Paul’s readers with false
teaching? We cannot be sure, but they no doubt represented
the widely-held belief that only Israel and those who attached
themselves to Israel by becoming proselytes had a place in
the world-to-come.25 Spiritually awakened, Paul had come to
understand through the study of the Torah, and particularly of
the life of Abraham, that right-standing with God comes through
23
Note the use of ‫ׁשמ ֶֶרת‬
ְ ִ ‫( מ‬mishmeret, “a guard”) in Genesis 26:5, in the
list that includes ‫( מִצְֹות‬mitzvot). ‫( ח ֹֻקת‬chukot), and ‫( ּתֹורֹות‬torot).
24
cf. Luke 7:47..
25
cf. m.Sanhedrin 10:1; b. Sanhedrin 90a; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian
Judaism (Fortress, 1977), 147ff.
29
Chapter 1
faith, not ethnic status displayed through works of the Torah. Thus
faith was the avenue by which both Jew and Gentile enjoyed the
blessings of the covenant, not some initiation rite or observance
of outward ceremony. For Paul to affirm that he was a “Hebrew of
Hebrews” reinforced his heritage of Torah study and observance
and offered his readers valid reasons why they should trust his
teaching.
1.2 His Name
When we first meet the man we know as Paul, his name is Saul
(Hebrew, Sha’ul). We are introduced to Saul as the young man at
whose feet the witnesses laid down their garments at Stephen’s
stoning.26 He is referred to by the name Saul until Acts 13:9 where
Luke informs us that Saul was also called Paul. From that point
on in Acts his name is Paul, except where Luke recounts Paul’s
encounter with Yeshua on the road to Damascus.27 Why did he
have two names, and why did the name Paul win out over Saul?
The popular notion that Saul changed his name to Paul when
he became a follower of Yeshua is entirely unfounded. Luke only
informs us that Saul was also known as Paul, not that he took this
Roman name as an adult. In fact, there is good evidence that both
names belonged to Paul from his birth.
For instance, from the account of Paul’s arrest we learn that he
was born a citizen of Rome:
And the commander answered, “I acquired this citizenship with

a large sum of money.” And Paul said, “But I was actually born
a citizen.” (Acts 22:28)
How could Paul claim to be both a “Hebrew of Hebrews” as well

as a citizen of Rome by birth? We know that citizenship could be
granted by edict of an emperor without special enactment of the
Roman Senate28 and that it was not uncommon for Jews to have
Roman citizenship.29 One could not actually “buy” citizenship.
26
Acts 7:58.
27
Acts 22:7ff; 26:14.
28
A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New
Testament (Oxford, 1963), 145-46.
29
Josephus mentions several Jews, residents at Ephesus, who were
citizens of Rome (Ant. xiv. 10.13), as well as certain Jews who, though
30
Paul’s Background: His Name
What Lysias claims to have “acquired with a large sum of money”
must refer to the bribe given to the intermediaries in the imperial
secretariat of the provincial administration who put his name on
the list of candidates for enfranchisement.30
When citizenship was granted, it was customary to take the
first two names (praenomen and nomen) of the benefactor and to
retain one’s original, single name as the cognomen (surname). Thus
Claudius Lysias who boasted of purchasing his citizenship most
likely received his status at the hand of the emperor Claudius.
Since, however, we never see Paul referred to with anything but a
single name, and since no emperor had the name Paulus, we may
assume that both Saul and Paul functioned as cognomen for Paul,
given to him at his birth.31
A number of scholars have suggested that the name “Paul”
was chosen because its pronunciation was close to, and even
sounded like, the Hebrew Sha’ul,32 which he no doubt received at
the time of his circumcision. Others have noted that Paul, himself
of the tribe of Benjamin, was given the Hebrew name Sha’ul at his
birth after the name of the most illustrious member of that tribe in
their nation’s history, Israel’s first king.33
Therefore, since Paul was a Roman citizen from his birth
according to his own testimony, it is certain that he received a
Roman name as a necessary part of his Roman citizenship. The very
document (called a professio) certifying his citizenship would have
had his Roman name inscribed in it. The professio, corresponding
to our modern passport, was made of small wooden diptychs, two
small wooden boards hinged together, inscribed on the inside
Roman citizens of the equestrian order, were illegally scourged and

crucified by Florus shortly before the Jewish war (Jewish Wars ii.
11.9).
30
A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 154-55.
31
The cognomen Paulus is rather unusual in the archives of Roman names.
Only three well-attested senatorial families of the first century CE
have been found: Aemilii Pauli, Vettenii Pauli, and Sergii Pauli. A
few other families have been found using the cognomen as well. cf.
A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 153-54.
32
Ibid., 153.
33
F. F. Bruce, New Testament History (Doubleday: Anchor Books, 1972),
236.
31
Chapter 1
with the person’s birth information and identification.34 Whether
these were carried or stored in the family archives is not known.
Paul certainly, as a Roman citizen, would have had one, and if
given at birth, it would have contained his Roman cognomen,
Paulus.
But why did Paul favor his Latin name over his Hebrew one?
Never in any of his epistles does he identify himself by his Hebrew
name Sha’ul. Never does he refer to himself as “Saul, an apostle
of Yeshua the Messiah.” Why would this “Hebrew of Hebrews”
have opted exclusively to use his Roman name rather than his
Hebrew one?
Far from suggesting that he had forsaken his Hebrew heritage,
the use of Paul instead of Saul makes perfect sense for one who
was called to minister to Gentiles.35 Paul’s message of the grafting
of Gentiles into the tree of Israel (Romans 11) and of the two
(Jew and Gentile) becoming one new man (Ephesians 2:15) is
demonstrated by Paul the Jew who was willing to be called by
his Latin name. He was showing that while one’s name might
indicate status within the cultures of Israel or Rome, it provided
no such basis for right-standing with God. Peace with God comes
by faith in Messiah for all, whether Jew or Gentile. And in the
very person of Paul himself, the “Hebrew” and the “Roman”
were united.
1.3 His Family
Little is known from the Scriptures about Paul’s family, but Luke
alerts us that he had a sister and nephew in Jerusalem (Acts
23:16). The notice in Romans 16:13, where Paul refers to the
mother of Rufus as his own, has been understood to suggest that
34
A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 149.
35
It is interesting to note that in the classical Greek of Paul’s day, there
existed a Greek verb which sounded much like the Hebrew “Sha’ul.”
Greek sau`lo~ (saulos) and corresponding verb means “conceited” and
especially to refer to a “haughty gait,” and was used to describe the
“loose and wanton gait of prostitutes.” [T. J. Leary, “Paul’s Improper
Name” NTS 38(1992), 467-469; cf. Liddell and Scott, Greek-English
Lexicon (Harper, 1872), 1335.] Perhaps the name itself just did not set
well in the ears of Greek-speaking people.
32
Paul’s Background: His Family
Paul’s mother had been widowed and remarried. This marriage
produced Rufus, Paul’s step-brother.36 But the title “mother” had
a much broader sense in the ancient times. It is not unusual to
find the word denoting a woman whose stature in the community
demanded high respect.37
Jerome, in his commentary on Philemon, wrote of Paul’s
parents:
We have heard this story. They say that the parents of the
Apostle Paul were from Gischala, a region of Judea and that,
when the whole province was devastated by the hand of Rome
and the Jews scattered throughout the world, they were moved
to Tarsus, a town of Cilicia; the adolescent Paul inherited the
personal status of his parents.38
In another of Jerome’s writings he suggests that Paul was born

in Gischala, but this historical note is less trustworthy.39 Gischala,
called “Gush Halab” (‫ )גּוׁש חַל ַב‬in Hebrew,40 was a city in Galilee
approximately 12 miles north and slightly west of the Sea of
Galilee.41 Rashi equates it with the city named Tekoa in 2Samuel
14:2.42
Moreover, Jerome indicates that Paul’s parents were forced
to move from Gischala to Tarsus by the Romans. It is true that
after the Romans took control of the Holy Land in 63 BCE they
enslaved various parts of the land and shipped the inhabitants
36
M. F. Baslez, Saint Paul (Paris: Fayard, 1991), 34-5 as noted by Murphy-
O’Conner, Op. cit., 45.
37
BDAG, p. 649. cf. also Mark 3:33-34; Matthew 12:49-50; John 19:27.
Note also the comments of Murphy-O’Conner, Paul, 45. As an aside,
I was interested to note, while visiting Liberia, West Africa, that all of
the older women of the community in which I stayed were referred
to with the title “mother.”
38
Comm. in Ep. ad Philem. on vv. 23-4, quoted from Murphy-O’Conner,
37.
39
De viris illustribus 5.
40
Gischala is mentioned in Mid. Rab, Canticles viii.1. Gischala is called
‫( גוּשׁ חַל ַב‬gush chalav) in Hebrew, meaning “fat ground,” cf. ‫ גוּשׁ‬in
Jastrow, Dictionary of the Talmud (‫חורב‬, Jer., n.d.), 228.
41
b.Menachot 85b where a story is related of a merchant purchasing 118
menahs of oil in Gischala (Gush Halab).
42
Rashi’s notes at b.Pesachim 43a.
33
Chapter 1
abroad.43 These deportations of Jewish slaves are recorded in
61, 55, 52, 4 BCE, and 6 CE,44 making it very possible that Paul’s
parents were relocated in just such a deportation to the city of
Tarsus.
Paul tells us himself, however, that he was born in Tarsus.45
This means that if Jerome’s information is taken as accurate,
Paul’s parents moved to Tarsus (either by forced deportation or by
answering a call to help open the Roman frontier) before he was
born. Some have suggested that in a city like Tarsus a tentmaker
or leather worker would be of great value to the Roman outpost,
since the Roman soldiers often lived in tents.46
Indeed, the notice in Acts 18:3 that Aquila and Paul were
both tentmakers suggests that Paul’s father was also a tentmaker,
since it was common for a son to take up his father’s trade.47 The
word translated “tentmaker,” (skhnopoiov~, skenopoios) could also
mean “leather-worker”48 and since tents were often made of
leather, tentmaking could comprise a great deal of what a leather-
worker did. But the word could also imply “saddler” and even
“shoemaker.”49 Still, whether Paul acquired this trade from his
43
cf. Josephus Jewish Wars 1.180; 2.68 for examples.
44
Murphy-O’Conner, Paul, 39; Josephus, Jewish Wars 1.157–8, 177, 180;
2.68.
45
Acts 22:3; cf. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 155.
46
F. F. Bruce, History, p. 235, cf. n. 3.
47
Note the words in Jacob Z. Lauterbach, trans., Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael,
3 vols (JPS, 1933), 1.166: “In this connection the sages said: By the
law of the Torah a man is obligated to circumcise his son, to redeem
him if he be a first-born, to teach him Torah, to teach him a trade, and
to get him a wife. R. Akiva says: Also to teach him to swim. Rabbi
says: Also to teach him civics.”
48
Michaelis, “skhnopoiov~” in TDNT, 7:394. Tents were also made of
a heavy fabric woven from goat’s hair, called ִ ‫( ִקיל ְקי‬kilki) by the
Rabbis and known as cilicium by the Romans, since it was mostly
manufactured in Cilicia. In Israel today the bedouins still make their
tents from goat hair woven in this manner, cf. note on Acts 18:3 in
‫( הברית החדשה‬Bible Society in Israel, 1991), 256. Jastrow shows that
this coarse fabric could also be used as a covering for an animal, and
as a saddle blanket, Dictionary , p. 1361 and b.Bava Batra 78a.
49
Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul (Beacon Press, 1943), 308; Michaelis,
“skhnopoiov~” in TDNT, 7:394.
34
Paul’s Background: His Education
father or elsewhere cannot be known. He was, however, skilled
enough in the craft to have heard of a fellow-craftsman in Corinth,
which was his tie to Aquila.
No specifics can be determined about Paul’s mother. Like
many of the great heroes of the Bible, Paul’s mother is unknown.
But we may surely speculate that his great love for the Torah50
as well as for his own Jewish people51 may be traced back to the
upbringing received at the hands of his mother.
1.4 His Education
In Acts 22:3 Paul asserts that he was “brought up in this city,” i.e.,
in Jerusalem, and that he was “educated at the feet of Gamaliel.”
It was the common expression in ancient Israel for a pupil to
“sit at the feet” of his teacher, a phrase which both described the
physical reality of learning, but also denoted an attitude of respect
for a learned teacher. We read in m.Avot 1:4:
Yose b. Yoezer says, “Let your house be a gathering place for

sages. And wallow in the dust of their feet. And drink in their
words with gusto.”
The picture of being covered with the dust of the Sages’ feet is
one of sitting on the floor as they teach while sitting in chairs.
Thus, when Paul indicates that he was “educated at the feet of
Gamaliel,” he is using the common terminology for a teacher-
student relationship in the Jewish community of the 1st Century.
What exactly does Paul mean when he claims to have been
“brought up in this city”, i.e., Jerusalem? The verb translated
“brought up” (ajnatrevfw, anatrepho) can mean either to “nourish”
physically or spiritually, or both. In the Apostolic Scriptures the
word describes raising children52 and it seems reasonable that it
is used in this manner here.
So according to Paul’s own words, he did not grow up in
Tarsus, though this was the city of his birth. Rather, he grew up
50
cf. Romans 7:12; 2Timothy 3:16-17.
51
Romans 9:1-3.
52
Yeshua, Luke 4:16 [trevfw, trepho]; Moses by Pharaoh’s daughter, Acts
7:21.
35
Chapter 1
in Jerusalem, trained by the famous Gamaliel.53 “How old,” we
might ask, “was Paul when he went to live in Jerusalem?”
According to m.Avot 5:21, the reading of Scripture would
begin at the age of five years, while 10 years of age is prescribed
for the study of the Oral Torah (Mishnah).54 There are indications
that as early as the Hellenistic times55 schools appeared within
Jewish communities for public instruction56 and Ben-Sira seems to
have introduced tuition-free education.57 In spite of these public
venues, it must have also been common to have informal study
sessions by visiting Sages in the home.58
The foundation of all education, however, was the
responsibility of the father and mother to train their children in
the Torah as commanded by God in the Shema.59
It is impossible for us to know exactly at what age Paul was
taken to Jerusalem for his formal education,60 but it is plausible
that he began his study as a young boy, preparing for what later
became known as a bar mitzvah, when he would be considered
by his community as having the privileges and responsibilities
of an adult male.61 Whether Paul lived with his own family in
Jerusalem or with family relatives we do not know. The fact that
his sister and nephew lived in Jerusalem would indicate that he
53
The name “Gamaliel,” ‫ ּגַמְל ִיא ֵל‬is variously transliterated as “Gamaliel”
and “Gamliel.” The latter is the proper pronunciation according to
the Hebrew, though the majority English usage is “Gamaliel.”
54
In Blackman’s edition of the Mishnah, 4:537.
55
From the 2nd Century BCE.
56
Ben Sira 12:9; 39:1-3.
57
51:28-30.
58
m.Avot 1:4.
59
The Shema technically includes Deuteronomy 6:4-6 and 11:13-21, and
in the standard modern siddurim (prayerbooks) Numbers 15:37-41,
which describes the command of tzitzit (fringes), is also appended.
60
The liberal approach is to deny that Paul was actually educated in
Jerusalem, taking the statement of Acts 22:3 as a fabrication by Luke
to give Paul greater credibility. E.g., Murphy-O’Connor, Paul, pp. 32-
33, 46.
61
Whether or not there were formal ceremonies of bar mitzvah in the
1st Century is not certain, but the Mishnah (m.Avot 5:21) does list the
age of 13 for the age of the “commandments,” which must mean
“subject to the commandments.”
36
had family there, and even perhaps that his family moved there
from Tarsus.
Paul’s studies as a young boy would have begun with
learning the Hebrew aleph-bet, using the Torah as the primer
both for letters and for reading. He most likely would have begun
with the Shema and then progressed to the recognized liturgy,
the prayers that would later form the Shemonei Esrei (Eighteen
Benedictions), together with the blessings spoken at meals.62 He
would have memorized these prayers, as well as other portions of
the Torah, learning to both read and write Hebrew and Aramaic.
If he studied in a classroom, it presumably would have had no
more than 25 students.63 Whether in a classroom or at the feet
of a private tutor, the young boy Sha’ul would have learned the
fundamental skills necessary to read and study Torah, and then
to pursue the next level of education, the Oral Torah. The Oral
Torah, before it was written down as the Mishnah, belonged to the
world of the Sages. To study it, then, required a mentor, someone
constituted as a chakam, “wise one” or Sage, and we know for
Paul this was Gamaliel.
62
James L. Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel (Doubleday, 1998),
9. How early the Amidah and other prayers of the Shemonei Esrei
became the center of the liturgy is not certain. Sifre to Deuteronomy,
343 accredit the practice to “early prophets.” b.Megilah 17b ascribe
it to “a hundred and twenty elders, including many prophets” (cf.
y.B’rachot 2:4). b.B’rachot 33a attributes to the “Great Assembly” (i.e.,
the Sanhedrin) the function of “assigning blessings for Israel.” The
beginning date for the Shemonei Esrei is elusive, but it certainly is old,
and possibly predates the 1st Century CE. Of course, the evolution
of the benedictions is evident. Indeed, the prayers formulated in the
Land (as evidenced in the Cairo Geniza) differ from those finally
compiled in the Babylonian Talmud and which form the Shemonei
Esrei in modern Judaism. Yet the present compilation surely contains
early material. See the profitable comments of Lawrence A. Hoffman,
“How the Amidah Began” in Hoffman, ed. My People’s Prayer Book,
vol. 2 (Jewish Lights Pub., 1998), 17-36.
63
Max Arzt, “The Teacher in Talmud and Midrash,” Mordecai M.
Kaplan: Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (New
York: Jewish Theo. Seminary of America, 1953), 45-46; A. Demsky,
“Education,” Encyclopedia Judaica, VI (Jerusalem: Keter Pub. House,
1972), 385.
37
Chapter 1
The name Gamaliel is well known in the history of Jewish
Sages. His grandfather, Hillel, was leader of the Sanhedrin along
with his rival, Shammai. Hillel and Shammai were the last of the
zugot or “pairs,” fulfilling the dual leadership required by the
Sanhedrin. After Hillel and Shammai, the Sanhedrin was led by
a single Sage, called the nasi or “president.” When Hillel passed
away, the position of nasi of the Sanhedrin was passed to his son,
Simeon.
We may assume that Simeon did not live long, since the
Rabbinic literature never assigns any halachah to his name. Upon
Simeon’s death, his son, Gamaliel took the leadership of the
Sanhedrin, ruling for 20 years (20 CE - 40 CE).64 Not counting the
brief time that Simeon lead the Sanhedrin, Gamaliel was the first,
full-fledged leader of the Great Assembly to rule single-handedly.
For this reason he was the first to be given the title “Rabban,” “our
teacher,” and is referred to as “the elder” to distinguish him from
his progeny who likewise bore the name Gamaliel as leaders of
the Assembly. Paul’s mentor, then, is formally known as Rabban
Gamaliel HaZaken, “Our teacher, Gamaliel, the elder.”
What might we learn about Rabban Gamaliel that would
give us insight into the Apostle himself? First, Gamaliel was
known for relaxing certain rules in order to allow disadvantaged
people their obvious rights. For example, because the times were
unfavorable toward the Jews, and men lost their lives to Roman
swords, the number of widows in the Jewish community grew
rapidly. Gamaliel ruled that a valid divorce for a woman whose
husband was presumed lost in battle required only one witness
rather than the traditional two witness.65 By this change the “red
tape” was diminished for a widow to remarry and come under
the protection of a new husband.
In a similar vein, Gamaliel increased the distance witnesses
could walk on the Sabbath, and permitted extended liberties for
midwives and other public servants in the course of their duties
on Sabbath.66 He also introduced other rules pertaining to divorce,
rules which aimed at lightening the burden of the laws and
64
According to the chronology of Adin Steinsaltz, The Talmud: A Reference
Volume (Random House, 1989), 31.
65
m.Yevamot 16:7.
66
b. Rosh HaShanah 23b.
38
protecting the weak and unlearned.67 In one instance, he ruled
in favor of a woman who claimed virginity but whose husband
questioned her word.68 All in all, his rule of the Sanhedrin was
marked by a general lightening of the burden of halachah in favor
of the obvious needs of the community.
Second, the Talmud has preserved three “epistles” which
Gamaliel sent to “our brethren in Upper Galilee and in Lower
Galilee,” “our brethren of the Upper South and Lower South,”
and “our brethren of the exile of Babylon, the exile of Media, and
the other exiles of Israel.”69 These epistles were dictated to a scribe
named Yohanan, while seated in the company of Sages upon the
steps of the Temple Mount70 and contained reminders about the
times of separating tithes and information about the leap year.
That such “epistles” are well known to be characteristic of Paul’s
teacher gives a reasonable background to explain why Paul
himself adopted the venue of epistles as an apostle of Yeshua.
Third, in the Apostolic Scriptures themselves, we are given a
picture of Gamaliel as one who was tolerant toward the followers
of Yeshua. When Luke records for us the ruling of the Sanhedrin
prohibiting the public declaration of Yeshua’s messiahship, he
also includes the incident in which Peter and the Apostles are
arrested and brought before the council. When the group wanted
to punish the Apostles directly, Gamaliel intervened with these
words:
And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these
men and let them alone, for if this plan or action should be of
men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be
able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting
against God. (Acts 5:38-39)
That Gamaliel would admit that what Peter and the Apostles
were teaching might even be from God is remarkable. Here we see
glimpses of a man who was apparently kind-hearted toward the
67
m. Shekalim 3.6.
68
b. Ketubot 10b.
69
b. Sanhedrin. 11b; t.Sanhedrin 2:6; y.Sanhedrin 1:2, 18 d. as noted by
Cecil Roth, “Gamaliel,” Encyclopedia Judaica, VII (Jerusalem: Keter
Pub. House, 1972), 296.
70
Roth, ibid.
39
Chapter 1
disadvantaged, and open-minded to the possibility that Yeshua
was, in fact, the Messiah.
Fourth, an interesting note regarding Rabban Gamaliel’s
students is found in the Talmud. After discussing the reasons why
it was forbidden for a man to teach his son Greek, a connected
question is introduced:
But is Greek philosophy forbidden? Behold Rab Judah declared

that Samuel said in the name of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel,
What means that which is written: My eye affects my soul,
because of all the daughters of my city? There were a thousand
pupils in my father’s house; five hundred studied Torah and five
hundred studied Greek wisdom, and of these there remained
only I here and the son of my father’s brother in Assia! It was
different with the household of Rabban Gamaliel because they
had close associations with the Government.71
If the “household of Rabban Gamaliel” refers to the household of

Gamaliel the Elder, Paul’s teacher, then we may have a clue as to
how Paul seems to be so well versed in Greek philosophy. Though
the argument set forth discourages the study of Greek and Greek
philosophy, it was recognized that those who had close workings
with the Roman government needed to be fluent in Greek, and
needed to understand the world-view of the Greek culture. Paul
gives every indication of being educated in the writings of the
Greek philosophers.
For example, in Acts 17 when Paul is speaking with the
philosophers on the Areopagus, it is evident that he is aware
of Stoic and Epicurean philosophies, and he even quotes from
a local philosopher, Aratus (Acts 17:28).72 In his Epistle to Titus
(1:12) he quotes the Cretan philosopher Epimenides, and again,
in 1Corinthians 15:33, he quotes Meander, an Athenian writer of
philosophy and ethics.
Many have suggested that Paul gained his knowledge of
Greek philosophy and culture because he studied in Tarsus, a city
well known for its fine universities. Indeed, Tarsus was a center
of intellectual life during the 1st Century CE. According to the
71
b. Sotah 49b
72
See the profitable comments of Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the
Apostles (Westminster, 1971), 517-31. The quote from Aratus is from
Phaenomena 5.
40
Greek geographer Strabo,
… the people of Tarsus in the 1st Century CE were keen students

of philosophy, the liberal arts and the entire encyclopedia of
learning; this was true to such a degree that it surpassed both
Athens and Alexandria as a center of culture and learning ….”73
Should we presume that Paul, at some point in his life, returned

to his hometown and studied Greek culture and philosophy?
While it is possible, it is not absolutely necessary. If the report
about Rabban Gamaliel teaching his students Greek and Greek
philosophy can be trusted, then it is conceivable that Paul actually
studied the Greek writings under the watchful eye of his mentor!
That Gamaliel was the nasi of the Sanhedrin would surely have
placed him in working conditions with the Roman government,
and required that he, and his students, be conversant in Greek
thought and language.
Here, then, is a remarkable possibility: God, through His all
wise providence, has Paul study at the feet of Gamaliel, not only
one of the finest teachers in matters of the Torah and Hebrew
studies, but also learned in Greek and Greek philosophy and
thus able to prepare Paul for what neither of them could have
imagined—God’s plan to make Paul an apostle for Yeshua to the
Gentiles.
Finally, the Sages passed on this tradition about Gamaliel’s
death: “When Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, the glory of the
Torah ceased, and purity and abnegation (fasting?) perished.”74
The same is said of R. Akiva, putting Gamaliel on par with one
of the most renowned Sages in Israel’s history. Interestingly, in
another Talmudic notice the same phrase “glory of the Torah”
refers to the restoration of Yeshivot (Torah schools) under Simeon
b. Shetah.75 The ceasing of the “glory of the Torah” attached to
Gamaliel’s memory could likewise indicate that after his death
the teaching of the Torah waned or that it strayed from its
accepted, traditional interpretation. From this we may conclude
that Gamaliel’s period of rule was marked by high praise for the
73
W. Ward Gasque, “Tarsus,” The Anchor Bible, VI (Doubleday, 1992),
334.
74
b.Sotah 49a.
75
b. Kiddushin 66a.
41
Chapter 1
Torah, its wide dissemination among the people, and its practical
application within the Jewish community.
What might these historical bits and pieces about Rabban
Gamaliel tell us about Paul’s education? It certainly is easy to see
how Paul, following in the pattern of his mentor, would utilize the
“epistle” as a means of communicating his concerns and thoughts
to those believers residing in the diaspora. He no doubt watched
and listened as Gamaliel dictated his own epistles to Yohanan his
scribe, and saw how the written word could effectively be used to
broadcast the rulings and teachings of one in authority.
We also sense that Paul, at the feet of Gamaliel, may have
come to understand that the Rabbinic halachah could become
burdensome, and that lightening the burden was a possibility.
Indeed, in some cases only the death of Yeshua Himself could
cut through the long-standing traditions that had separated Jew
and Gentile.76 It is no wonder that in the face of Jewish teachers
attempting to burden the Gentile believers with these same
man-made rules, Paul would have no part of it. Following in
the footsteps of his Messiah, Paul taught against those Rabbinic
additions which separated Jew and Gentile, and puffed up rather
than leading to humble obedience before the Lord. And, like
Yeshua, Paul attempted in his teaching to show forth the glory
of the Torah as God’s teaching in righteousness, unshackling its
truth from the traditions of men. While some man-made laws were
effectively setting aside God’s commandments,77 Paul wanted the
living Torah—God’s Torah to shine forth, for it constantly pointed
one’s heart to the Messiah.78
Moreover, Gamaliel may have helped mold Paul’s attitude
toward women. Gamaliel certainly ruled in favor of the women
in a number of issues, an openness toward women seen also in
Paul. For instance, he names Phoebe as a co-laborer and considers
her a trusted individual, fully able to carry his magnum opus, the
Epistle to the Romans, to his readers.79
Learning at the feet of Gamaliel may also have given Paul
76
Ephesians 2:14ff.
77
cf. Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:8-13.
78
Romans 10:4. Note that the word translated “end” in most English
translations means “goal” as in the English sentence “The chief end
of the negotiations was peace.”
79
Note the wording of Romans 16:1-2.
42
the opportunity to learn Greek and the Greek philosophies which
were forever interwoven in the Greek culture. Learning the Greek
philosophies within an environment where they were constantly
contrasted with the “wisdom which is from above”80 would have
given Paul both an understanding of the errant philosophies and
a compelling interest to take the truth to those whom God would
call out from among the Gentiles.
Finally, that Paul’s mentor was the primary teacher of Israel
during his foundational years of education means that he received
instruction from the best, most learned scholar available. He was
no doubt challenged and pressed in the study of the Torah and the
Prophets, as well as the Psalms and other books of the Writings.
Furthermore, he was surely trained in the whole breadth of Oral
Torah, and he learned the logical manner in which Rabbinic
argument formed the soil out of which contemporary halachah
grew.
What is more, we have every reason to believe that Paul
appreciated his training at the feet of Gamaliel, even to the very
end of his life. It is awesome, for instance, to consider who might
have been in the audience before whom Paul gave his defense (Acts
22). It seems at least feasible that the son of Paul’s mentor, Shimon
b. Gamaliel (who followed his father as nasi of the Sanhedrin)
might have been there. Here Paul, in a real life situation, puts
to practice what he learned from his mentor—and he declares
himself to be a Pharisee (Acts 22:6), not as a ploy to save his
skin, but as an open confession of his belief in the resurrection.
Moreover, if Gamaliel’s son as well as Paul’s classmates were
there, it seems fair to say that all which Paul said of himself must
have been true, for who would have known Paul better than his
contemporaries, and yet we never hear them speak against what
Paul was saying. Furthermore, Gamaliel’s own zeal for the Torah
was passed on to Paul as he confesses (Acts 22:3), and we know
from the chapter earlier that he, like James, lived according to its
precepts (Acts 21:24). It is not surprising, then, that we find Paul,
at the end of his life, confessing that he worshiped God “the way
my forefathers did” (2Timothy 1:3).81
80
James 3:15-17.
81
The NASB “serve God” translates the Greek latreuvw (latreuo) as
“serve,” but it could just as easily be translated “worship.” Note also
Acts 28:17.
43
Chapter 1
1.5 His Death
Paul speaks openly of his readiness to die. To the Philippians he

wrote:
… according to my earnest expectation and hope, that I shall not

be put to shame in anything, but that with all boldness, Messiah
shall even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by
life or by death. (Philippians 1:21)
But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the

sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy
with you all. (Philippians 2:17)
And in Paul’s final Epistle to Timothy, he once again uses the

language of sacrifice to describe what he felt was his pending
death:
For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the

time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I
have finished the course, I have kept the faith. (2Timothy 4:6)82
When did Paul die, and what were the circumstances? Though
the chronology of Paul’s life cannot be determined exactly,83 it
seems certain that Paul’s scuttled visit to Spain and his circle of
revisits to the congregations of the Aegean sea took up enough
time to ensure that his return to Rome must have happened after
the great fire. This fire, notorious in the annals of history, raged for
9 days (July 19-28) in 64 CE, and destroyed 10 of the 14 quarters
of the city. According to the historian Tacitus,84 Nero blamed the
fire on the followers of Yeshua and made every possible spectacle
of them in retaliation. It seems well within reason that Paul,
having heard of the persecutions of his fellow believers, returned
to Rome to encourage those who remained. Moreover, such a
pastoral ministry of encouragement and hope could not have
taken a private venue. Paul’s presence in the city would have
been known by the government in due time.
As a citizen of Rome, he was put into prison to await his court
82
cf. Romans 12:1-2.
83
See Chapter 7 below.
84
Annals 15.44.
44
Paul’s Background: His Death
appearance. Here we find him requesting of Timothy, his “son in
the faith,” that he bring his cloak (failavnh~,phailanes), the books
(biblivon, biblion), and especially the scrolls (menbravna~, menbranas).
The word used for “cloak” was a circular cape which fell below the
knees, with an opening for the head in the center. This indicates to
us that Paul most likely did not wear the toga, clothing reserved
for Roman citizens only. For though Paul was a Roman citizen,
he identified first with his Jewish heritage.85 The “books” were
most likely papyrus rolls for ordinary purposes (even perhaps for
his own writings) and the “scrolls” were the more costly vellum
skins, in all likelihood, portions of the Hebrew Scriptures.86 Thus
Paul, in Rome to aid and encourage his fellow believers, waited
in his prison cell for the verdict of execution.
Eusebius gives us this account:
It is recorded that in Nero’s reign Paul was beheaded in Rome

itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified and the record is
confirmed by the fact that the cemeteries there are still called by
the names of Peter and Paul …. That they were both martyred at
the same time Bishop Dionysius of Corinth [c. 170 CE] informs
us in a letter written to the Romans.87
If Paul was beheaded it would imply that he was condemned by

a regularly constituted court.88 Saul, the “Hebrew of Hebrews” or
Paul, the Roman citizen, had finished his life with the firm belief
that Yeshua was the Messiah, and that life in Him was life indeed.
He had lived out the words he had penned earlier:
For the love of Messiah controls us, having concluded this, that
one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they
who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who
died and rose again on their behalf. (2Corinthians 5:14-15)
85
cf. the comments of A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 150.
86
Newport J. D. White, “The First and Second Epistles to Timothy” in
The Expositor’s Greek Testament IV (Eerdmans, 1970), 180-81.
87
History of the Church 2.25; quoted from Murphy-O’Conner, Paul,
370.
88
Roman citizens were rarely executed by crucifixion. Such execution
was almost always reserved for foreigners. See the comments of G. F.
Hawthorne, “Cross” in Merrill C. Tenney, ed., The Zondervan Pictorial
Encyclopedia of the Bible, 5 vols. (Zondervan, 1976), 1:1038.
45
Chapter 1
Paul’s encounter with the Messiah Yeshua had forever changed

him and made him the Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul, the Jew, was
executed by Roman authorities because he, like many before him,
took seriously the call to be a “light to the nations.” The Torah
which he lived was the Torah which he taught—a Torah which
always and forever points to the living Messiah, Yeshua.
46
Chapter Two
Paul & His World
Paul’s World: His Affiliations
Chapter 2: Paul and His World

2.1 His Affiliations
Paul affirms that he was a Pharisee, and that his lineage was
likewise Pharisaic.89 Most interestingly, he makes this public
declaration while on trial for his faith. However, since in modern
English the word “Pharisee” is often used to denote a “hypocrite,”90
many are reluctant to describe the beloved Apostle by such a
pejorative term. Yet Paul considered himself a Pharisee even after
he had come to faith in Yeshua. Apparently being a Pharisee and
a devout follower of Yeshua were not mutually exclusive as far as
Paul was concerned.91
Furthermore, in stating that he was not only a Pharisee,
but also the “son of Pharisees,” Paul was declaring that he had
not chosen to be a Pharisee in recent days, but that he stood in
a family tradition which was known to be Pharisaic. This fact
alone should encourage us to reconsider how we view the term
“Pharisee.” Unless we read Paul’s letters with his background in
full view, we run the risk of misinterpreting his meaning and thus
the application of his words to our own lives.
Can we overcome the prejudice of hundreds, even thousands of
years of commentaries and homilies which consider a “Pharisee”
to be an enemy of Yeshua? Can we rather affirm Paul to be as he
described himself, both a Pharisee and an Apostle of Yeshua? If we
are to rise to such a challenge, we must be willing to reinvestigate
the early sects of Judaism, allowing the ever-growing body of
scholarly work to inform us about them. We must begin again,
by asking initial questions: who were the Pharisees, and how
89
Acts 23:6. Some scholars discount the notice that Paul was a “son of
Pharisees,” assigning such a notion to the embellishments of Luke.
cf. Murphy-O’Conner, Paul, 41, 56-59 for the standard arguments.
But there is no clear evidence against Luke’s notice which has Paul
claiming Pharisaic parents, and there is rather every reason to believe
that what he said is true.
90
The Complete Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (micrographically
reproduced edition), II.2151.
91
Note Brad Young’s excellent development of this theme in his Paul
the Jewish Theologian: A Pharisee among Christians, Jews, and Gentiles
(Hendriksen, 1997). 6-45.
49
Chapter 2
did they relate to the other sects within the Judaisms of Paul’s
day? How can we better understand Paul by understanding the
Judaisms in which he lived and taught?
First we must put away the notion that there was a single,
monolithic “1st Century Judaism.” From extant historical and
rabbinic, as well as biblical literature, it is evident that there were
numbers of sects, or “Judaisms,” each having “boundaries” to
define those “in” the group and those “outside” of it. Designations
such as Pharisee, Sadducee, and Essene describe such groups of
the 1st Century.92
Of course, even in light of the various sects’ differences, they
still held to a set of core beliefs. The belief that there was only
one true God, the Sabbath, prohibition against idolatry, the divine
nature of the Torah, and following other Torah essentials formed
the unified basis for all those who claimed Jewish identity.
But the issues which separated the various sects were significant
and often contested. For example, the sect that populated the area
we know as Qumran, and who apparently gave us the Dead Sea
Scrolls,93 felt the differences between themselves and the other sects
so severely that they separated from Jerusalem and the Temple,
choosing rather to live away from the Holy City. Or consider the
sharp contrasts evidenced between Pharisees and Sadducees over
the doctrinal issue of the resurrection. Paul, knowing that such
differences existed, effectively turned the court hearing in his
direction by bringing the issue up.94 This sharp contrast between
the Pharisees and Sadducees over the doctrine of the resurrection
92
This is not to say that even within a given “group” or “sect” that there
were not ongoing struggles to define the group, resulting in sub-
groups.
93
The question of which sect lived at Qumran is very much contested
in the contemporary scholarly world. The following have been
suggested: Sadducees [Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Sadducean
Origins of the Dead Sea Scroll Sect,” Hershel Shanks, ed.,
Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls (Random House, 1992), 35-49],
Essenes [James C. Vanderkam, “The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Essenes or Sadducees?” Hershel Shanks, ed., Understanding the Dead
Sea Scrolls (Random House, 1992), 50-62], or that the scrolls originated
in Jerusalem and were hid in the desert (Norman Golb, Who Wrote
the Dead Sea Scrolls? (Scribner, 1995).
94
Acts 24:21.
50
Paul’s World: Pharisees
is reflected in the later Talmudic literature as well. Here it is stated
that failure to believe in the resurrection constituted sufficient
grounds for damnation and forfeiture of a place in the world-to-
come.95 Yet this same Talmudic section begins with the statement
that “all Israel have a portion in the world-to-come.” The only
logical conclusion from such an apparent contradiction is that
those who denied the resurrection were, in the minds of the
Talmudic authors, (i.e., the Pharisees), not included in “Israel.”
Thus, if we want to understand Paul, we must try to understand
the ebb and flow of the Judaisms of his day.
The Pharisees96
The presence of the Pharisees is traced back in the Rabbinic sources

to the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. Some scholars have
identified the soferim (scribes) with the Great Assembly (also called
the Sanhedrin), making them the forerunners of the Pharisees.97
This may explain why the combination “scribes and Pharisees” is
often encountered in the Gospels.
Many scholars believe that the name “Pharisee” derives from
the Hebrew ‫ּפ ַָרׁש‬, parash, which means either “to define, specify,”
or “to separate.” While some have suggested that the tendency
of the Pharisees to define laws down to the level of minutiae
attracted the name, most propose that the name refers to their
self-imposed separation from ritually impure food and from
tables of the common people called am ha’aretz, “people of the
95
b.Sanhedrin 90a.
96
Current scholarly debate over the origin and characteristics of the
Pharisees has brought into question much of the older views about
the sect. In particular, the work of Jacob Neusner and his students
have shown that one cannot necessarily take the later Rabbinic
literature as transparent evidence for the Pharisees. While taking
the work of Neusner and others into account, I have tried to outline
what most would agree are characteristics of the Pharisees in the
1st Century CE. For a summary article on the current status of the
debate, see S. Mason, “Pharisees” in Craig Evans and Stanley Porter,
eds, Dictionary of New Testament Background (IVP, 2000), 782-787. Also
see note 101 below.
97
Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (JPS, 1994),
77.
51
Chapter 2
land.” The am ha’aretz were considered unlearned and therefore
unscrupulous regarding laws of Levitical purity and tithes. Some
further suggest that the name may have been used pejoratively
by the opponents of the early Pharisees, not unlike the term
“Christian” at Antioch.98 Yet there may be just as much evidence
that the term was self-imposed, for it is found in the midrashim in
parallel with kadosh, “holy,” and may therefore have been received
as a fitting term for those who sought both to separate themselves
from uncleanness, and to live a life of holiness.99 Josephus writes
that “the Pharisees . . . (are) a body of Jews who profess to be more
religious than the rest, and to explain the laws more precisely.”100
The later “Sages” in the Rabbinic tradition viewed themselves
as the inheritors of Pharisaism. What remains in the Talmudic
literature is often considered an evolved edition of the Pharisaic
belief system. Whether it actually is or not is a point of controversy
among scholars.
Beginning with the Hasmonaean rule of John Hyrcanus (138-
104 BCE) and Alexander Janneus (103-76 BCE), the Pharisees were
led increasingly into the political arena. The dilemma they faced
was how to deal with the tendency of the Jewish community to
become more and more hellenized. The Pharisees were actually
divided over this issue. Some were willing to coexist as long as the
ruling government allowed them to practice Judaism according
to their rulings, while others advocated revolt so long as the
government was not controlled by Pharisees. This same division
persisted and even continued through the first and second Jewish
revolts.
Generally speaking, the Pharisees101 had three characteristics.
98
Acts 11:26.
99
Note the words ‫( קדֹוׁש‬kadosh) and ‫( פרׁש‬parash) used in parallel in
Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael at Exodus 19:6 [2:206 in Lauterbach’s edition]
as well as the midrash on Leviticus 11. cf. the comments of George F.
Moore, Judaism (Hendrickson, 1997), 1:61.
100
Jewish Wars i.4, 7-5; cf. Moore, Judaism, 1:64.
101
For a thorough, modern analysis and critique of the standard scholarly
works on the Pharisees, see the article by Anthony J. Saldarini,
“Pharisees,” The Anchor Bible 5.289-303. Saldarini concludes that
nothing definitive can be said about the Pharisees, and that the
characteristics so often attached to them by previous scholars are
based upon a general misuse of the data. He favors the work of Jacob
52
Paul’s World: Pharisees
First, they represented primarily the middle and lower classes.
Though it appears that they were above the peasants, they
nonetheless were constantly striving to influence the ruling class,
which indicates their middle or lower-middle position. Second,
as a result of their economic status and lack of ruling-class
position, they were not hellenized but retained a primarily Near
Eastern culture and worldview. Granted, they were influenced
by the Greek language and culture, but not nearly to the extent
of the more wealthy segments of the society. For the Pharisees,
the ancient traditions of Israel remained the primary focus of
their lifestyle. Third, they accepted what they termed “traditions
of the fathers”—non-biblical laws and customs believed to
have been passed down from generation to generation. These
laws and customs were a supplement to the written Torah, and
eventually became known as the Oral Torah. As a result of their
great emphasis upon tradition, the Pharisees were known to be
extremely careful about their observance of the Torah, and to
possess a high expertise in both the knowledge of the written
Torah and its proper interpretation.
As far as the teachings of the Pharisees were concerned, a
number of things characterized them. These primarily consisted
of the immortality of the soul, reward and punishment after death,
existence of angels, as well as the idea of divine providence.
If the extant Rabbinic literature gives even a hint of the 1st
Century practices of the Pharisees, we can say that there were two
primary areas of concern for them: table-fellowship, which was
the locus for the practical outworking of the purity laws (including
ritual purity, fitness of foods, agricultural rules governing the
fitness of foods, etc.) and observance of Sabbath and Festivals.102
Neusner who draws the same conclusions. For a commendable

counterview see E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE - 66
CE (Trinity, 1992), 380-451. My own evaluation is that Saldarini has
given us some very good cautions, but that he has been too willing
to accept a far too critical view of the sources. As such, in some cases
he has “thrown the baby out with the bath water.” Sanders has given
a much more balanced approach. For yet another thorough study
of primary Jewish sects of the 1st Century, see Günter Stemberger,
Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (Fortress,
1995).
102
Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions concerning the Pharisees before
53
Chapter 2
This general statement of the Pharisees’ practices is derived
from the fact that over 67% of the halachic rulings attributed to
them in the extant Rabbinic literature deals with the issues of
table-fellowship and purities.103 We should not be surprised,
then, to discover that the controversies which surface in the
Gospels revolve around purities (washing of hands, eating with
“sinners,”104 etc.) and Sabbath/Festivals (what is permitted and
what is not). Moreover, if we keep in mind that Paul, as follower
of Yeshua, was intent upon furthering his Teacher’s viewpoint
on these issues, we will better understand both his language and
viewpoint as controversies over the application of Torah surface
in his epistles.105
The Sadducees
By 150 BCE the Sadducees were a recognizable group.106 They

were the aristocrats of the day, and were either priests themselves
or had intermarried within the high-priestly families. While they
had a primary loyalty to the religion of Israel, they were moderate
Hellenists and were greatly influenced by the Greek environment
in which they lived.107
70, 3 vols (Leiden, Brill: 1971), 3.305;

103
For a critique of this reasoning, see E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism
(Philadelphia, 1985), 177-87 and the comments of James D. G. Dunn,
“Jesus, Table-Fellowship, and Qumran” in James Charlesworth, ed.,
Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Doubleday, 1992), 254-272.
104
Dunn and others have shown that the term “sinner” is a technical
term describing members outside of a defined group, and is so used
by sects about their opponents (James D. G. Dunn, “Jesus, Table-
Fellowship, and Qumran,” Ibid., 268).
105
We should also avoid the idea that all Pharisees were the same. As in
any general group, there must have existed Pharisees with different
viewpoints, even on issues that mattered the most. Even within the
talmudic literature there are notices of various “kinds” of Pharisees.
For instance, in b. Sotah 22b various kinds of Pharisees are listed,
differentiated on the basis of their motivations for observing the
mitzvot.
106
Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (JPS. 1994),
73.
107
Ibid.,
54
Paul’s World: Sadducees
The Sadducees took their name from Zadok, the high priest
during the Solomonic era. The Zadokite priesthood served the
Temple during the First and Second Temple periods, except
for those times when foreign worship was syncretized into the
Temple rituals. Eventually the Hasmoneans tore the priesthood
away from the Zadokites even though the prophet Ezekiel (44:9-
16) had assigned the high priestly duties to them in the restored
Temple.
The Sadducees were known for believing that the body and
soul simply ceased to exist at the time of death. To the Sadducean
mind there was no resurrection, and thus no reward or punishment
after death. Moreover, in direct opposition to the Pharisees,
the Sadducees refused to accept the “traditions of the fathers”
as normative for halachah or as a further means to interpret the
written Torah.
Because of their rejection of what came to be known as Oral
Torah, the Sadducees were characterized by some Church Fathers
as rejecting the Prophets and the Writings, but this was not the
case. It is apparent that the Church Fathers misunderstood the
Rabbinic use of “Torah” in making this assessment.
The Sadducees also considered the purity laws to exist only
within the Temple precincts and to apply to the priests, not to
the daily lives of all Jews. This compartmentalizing of life as
“secular” and “sacred” was in every way contrary to the view of
the Pharisees, who saw the Torah as touching all parts of one’s
life and as forming the rule by which the whole of life was to be
lived.
While the differences in doctrinal issues between the Sadducees
and the Pharisees were clear-cut, the Rabbinic literature shows that
in practice the primary dispute between the two sects pertained to
the calendar108 as well as to purities.109 The Sadducees interpreted
the command to bring the first omer of barley (Leviticus 23:9-
14) on “the day after the Sabbath” to mean the day after the
weekly Sabbath, or what in modern times we know as Sunday.
The Pharisees, on the other hand, took the phrase “day after the
Sabbath” to mean “the day after the Festival” (since the Festival
of Pesach is itself a Sabbath). This meant that the first omer was
taken to the Temple the second day of the Feast of Unleavened
108
Ibid., 75.
109
Gary G. Porton, “Sadducees” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary 5.893.
55
Chapter 2
Bread, not the first Sunday following Pesach. To ensure that the
festival always fell on a Sunday, the Sadducees constructed a
calendar based both upon solar months and solar years.110 The
Pharisees, keepers of the traditions, would have no part of this
innovative calendar.
Since the Sadducees were primarily in control of the sacrificial
system at the Temple, and since they gained their wealth through
manipulation of the cost of worship, after the destruction of the
Temple they simply ceased to exist. Everything that gave them
definition and power was gone. Without the centrality of the
Temple, the Sadducean teachings and influence could have little
impact upon a diaspora Judaism that would now unite around
the study and life of Torah in synagogues.
The Essenes
If it were not for the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the initial
assessment of most scholars that the Essenes were the authors of
the scrolls, we would not be listing them in this survey. As far as
the Judaism which survived the destruction of the Temple, the
Essenes seem to have exerted little influence. Since the discovery
and publication of the Scrolls, however, the Essenes have become
one of the better known sects of the 1st Century.
There is still the burning question of whether the Essenes
were the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and therefore whether
we can learn about them by reading the writings of the Qumran
society. There is surely not a consensus among scholars nor does
one appear to be on the horizon. We must be cautious, then, in
describing the Essenes by applying to them what we know of the
Qumran society. While many have proceeded on the idea that the
Qumran society was Essene, there is mounting evidence to the
contrary. Fortunately, we have some descriptions of the Essenes
in Josephus, a source independent of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
But before we venture into a brief summary of the Essenes,
one might rightfully ask why we should study them at all. After
all, some scholars suggest that they were a small non-influential
group within the 1st Century Judaisms.111 The answer to the
110
Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 75.
111
E. P. Sanders, Practice & Belief, 341. Josephus, however, gives their
number as 4000 (Antiq. 18.20). This is repeated by Philo (Quod Omnis
56
Paul’s World: Essenes
question is simply that there is a growing awareness that Yeshua
and His disciples both show evidence of contact with the Essenes,
whether in the Essene quarter of the Old City, or in the desert of the
Dead Sea, or in other cities. With the discovery of the Essene Gate112
in Jerusalem and a clear identification of the Essene quarter, it
becomes apparent that Yeshua and His disciples may have spent
time there and interacted meaningfully with the Essenes. While
the present shrine of the “Upper Room” is not proven to be the
location of the Yeshua’s last Pesach, its location is within the area
of the ancient Essene quarter. We must acknowledge the presence
of the Essenes and the beliefs and practices that may have been
favorable to the teachings of Yeshua and eventually to Paul.113
The Essenes had a large contingency living near the Dead Sea,
but they were also to be found in cities or villages throughout
the Land. Both Philo and Josephus give their number at 4000, a
number which likely had a common source.114 The derivation of
their name is not certain. Most consider it to be connected with
semitic hasid, “pious one,” and thus to the hasidim encountered in
Maccabees.115
The Essenes were far more homogenous than either the
Pharisees or Sadducees in that they had specific requirements for
membership of the group, as well as organizational principles
which were mandatory for remaining. They held all property
in common116 and were known by Josephus, Philo, and Pliny to
have accepted self-inflicted poverty.117 They were also celibate,
though according to Josephus they shunned marriage but did not
condemn it in principle.118 Josephus also mentions a second Essene
Probus Liber Sit, 75).

112
See the report by Bargil Pizner, “Jerusalem’s Essene Gateway” BAR
(May-June, 1997), available on the internet at www.centuryone.org/
essene.html (accessed 08/2008).
113
Rainer Riesner, “Jesus, the Primitive Community and the Essene
Quarter of Jerusalem” in James H. Charlesworth, ed. Jesus and the
Dead Sea Scrolls (Doubleday, 1992), 198-234.
114
John J. Collins, “Essenes” in The Anchor Bible 2.621.
115
1Maccabees 2:42, 7:12-13; 2Maccabees 14:6.
116
Josephus, Jewish Wars 2.8.4 §122,
117
Ibid.
118
Josephus, Jewish Wars 2.8.2 §120-121.
57
Chapter 2
group that did practice marriage.119 The group was known for
their hospitality, well-defined hierarchical order, and submission
to leaders. Interestingly, a figure by the name of “John the Essene”
appears as an officer in the war against Rome.120
It appears that the Essenes were at odds with the Jerusalem
Temple, and specifically with the sacrificial offerings there. If
the Qumran materials are Essene, then we know that they also
stood against the established priesthood in Jerusalem. They were
preoccupied with the matter of purities, so much so that when a
senior member of the community was touched by a junior, he had
to bath “as after contact with an alien.”121
Essenes were known to have mikvaot (ritual baths) and to
have many regulations which required washings. According
to Josephus they prayed “toward the sun.”122 Further notices
indicate that they were very zealous for the Torah and held
Moses in highest regard, second only to God Himself. They took
their meals together and considered table fellowship a central
expression of the community.
The Essenes believed in the immortality of the soul and
regarded the body as a kind of prison house. It is not clear whether
they believed in the resurrection of the body. They believed in the
divine rule of the Universe, and in unchanging divine providence.
They also were known as those who “predicted the future,”
a phrase which could be understood as describing prophets.
Apparently they were also concerned about the final judgment
and other apocalyptic themes.123
When we add to this general description (found in Josephus,
Pliny, and Philo) those characteristics gleaned from the Dead
119
Ibid., 2.8.13 §160-161. Philo, however, makes the categorical statement
that “no Essene takes a wife.” Hypothetica 11.14.
120
Josephus, Jewish Wars 3.2.1 §9-12; 2.20.4 §566-68. There is some
confusion as to whether the Essenes took up arms, but this notice
indicates that at least some did.
121
Josephus, Jewish Wars 2.8.10 §150.
122
Note Ezekiel 8:16, cp. m. Sukkah 5.2-4. The language used to describe
this action indicates that they were not worshiping the sun, but
praying toward it nonetheless. It is most likely that they considered
the rising sun as a sign of God’s power, cf. E. P. Sanders, Practice &
Belief, 245-46.
123
Collins, “Essenes,” 622.
58
Paul’s World: Scribes
Sea Scrolls, the Essenes become even more “fundamentalistic,”
interpreting the Scriptures in light of their own expectations;
viewing their Teacher as the fulfillment of specific prophecies.
They were unwilling to fellowship with people outside of their
tightly defined group. Essenes were apocalyptic, believing that
the end was near, and they alone were assured victory as the
Sons of Light. The Habakkuk Pesher from Qumran is an excellent
example of how the sect interpreted Scripture in light of their
prevailing theology, and their belief that they alone constituted
the righteous of Israel.
An additional characteristic of the Qumran sect was their
belief that the calendar used by the established authorities in
Jerusalem was not in accord with the Torah. While scholars have
presented varying views of the calendar at Qumran, most agree
that it was a 364/day year, with 12 months of 30 days and an extra
day appended to the month that ended each three-month quarter,
determined by the equinoxes and solstices.124 In addition, the sect
agreed with the Sadducees in interpreting the word “Sabbath”
in Leviticus 23:15 as the weekly Sabbath. But they considered
this Sabbath to be the first weekly Sabbath following the festival
of Unleavened Bread (Chag HaMatzot) rather than the weekly
Sabbath following the first day of the festival. This meant that
they always celebrated Shavuot on a Sunday, but a week later than
the Sadducees.125
Scribes
Often in the Gospels and Acts we find the combined phrase

“scribes and Pharisees.”126 Some think that the term “scribe” is
simply an additional (perhaps older) term for “Pharisee,” a term
that they ascribed to themselves while rival sects coined the term
“Pharisee.” That the two names are so often joined in the Gospels
124
See the extensive article by Uwe Glessmer, “Calendars in the Qumran
Scrolls” in Peter Flint and James C. Vanderkam, eds. The Dead Sea
Scrolls After Fifty Years (Brill, 1999), 213-278 where he shows that
there may have been some shifts in the calendar during the history
of the Qumran community.
125
Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 75, 302-305.
126
The combination “scribes and Pharisees” is found 40 times in the
Gospels.
59
Chapter 2
and Acts might support such a theory.
Yet the scribes seem to fulfill a distinct role as was the case
in various neighboring cultures. Being learned in the reading
and writing of the language, a scribe was necessary for creating
and copying legal documents as well as religious texts. The
Pharisees, intent upon proving their halachah from Scriptures,
sought the help of the scribes and their vast knowledge of the
sacred text. The scribes likewise were authorities on legal issues
dealing with various documents (such as the marriage contract,
and divorce document, a get) and are even accredited with some
legal rulings and interpretations in the Mishnah.127 Modern
historical reconstructions of the development of Jewish law have
usually identified the scribes as the Jewish scholars who had a
great influence on Judaism from the time of Ezra down to the
time of the zugot (pairs) in the 1st Century CE.128 In this regard it
should be kept in mind that the term “scribe” generally denoted
an educated person in the Ancient Near East, and especially a
scholar.129 At times the word “lawyer” (nomikov~, nomikos) is used130
and seems to be equivalent to “scribe.”
Thus the scribes were not a sect unto themselves but were a
guild of specialized scholars needed by all levels of the society.
That they are so often connected to the Pharisees in the Gospels
and Acts may simply highlight the fact that the biblical text was a
foundational issue for the Pharisees and thus required the ready
use of scribes.
2.2 Paul Within 1st Century Judaisms
The Use of Scripture
As a Pharisee, Paul would have held the Tanach as the definitive

basis for what he knew of God and how he was to live righteously
before Him. He would have followed in the general tradition
of the Pharisees to base arguments upon specific texts from the
Tanach, and to argue from these texts as a starting point. The fact
127
m.Avot 1:5-11.
128
Anthony J. Saldarini, “Scribes” in Freedman, ed. The Anchor Bible
Dictionary, 6 vols. (Doubleday, 1996), 5:1015.
129
Ibid., p. 1014.
130
cf. Matthew 22:35; Mark 12:38; Luke 10:25; Titus 3:13.
60
Paul Within 1st Century Judaisms
that the Pharisees considered the biblical text as the foundation
for their beliefs and arguments explains why they are so often
coupled with the scribes.
In a broad sense, this tendency to require a Torah text as the
basis of an argument or axiom is seen in the compilation of the
Talmuds. One of the reasons that the Talmud was considered
necessary is simply because the Mishnah did not regularly quote
Torah texts to substantiate its halachah. In adding its commentary,
the Talmud seeks to find the source of the Mishnah in the written
Torah.131 The very need for the gemara (which means “to finish”)
and thus the Talmud highlights this core value of the Pharisees:
conclusions must find their foundations in Scripture.
The centrality of Scripture is likewise the pattern of
confrontation between Yeshua and the Pharisees in the Gospels,132
in which dialog begins by addressing a particular text or phrase
from the Torah.
This same characteristic is found in Paul’s writings. Through
out his epistles (and particularly in Romans) he anticipates the
argument of his detractors, and answers them from Scripture.133
Paul quotes directly from the Tanach 105 times134 in his epistles,
a number which would be much larger if allusions and verbal
parallels to the Tanach were counted. At almost every turn Paul
bases his arguments and exhortations on the written record of the
Scriptures. While this may seem to some as the norm in Paul’s
day, the facts indicate that reliance upon the Tanach in halachic
dialog was particularly the mark of Pharisaism.
The Use of Tradition
But does Paul also give value to tradition as was characteristic

among the Pharisees? While he followed his Savior in doing
away with traditions that stood contrary to the written Torah,135
we do see in Paul’s letters a recognition of the value of tradition
131
For example, note Jacob Neusner, Scriptures of the Oral Torah (Harper
& Row, 1987), 230.
132
E.g., Matthew 12:1-7; 15:1-9; 19:3-12, etc.
133
E.g., Romans 2:23-24; 3:1-18; 4:1-8, etc.
134
cf. Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Greek New Testament, 3rd Edition
(United Bible Society, 1983), 899-900.
135
cf. Colossians 2:8.
61
Chapter 2
and even the necessity of it within the community of faith. Note
Paul’s language in 1Corinthians 11:2:
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and

hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
And again in 2Thessalonians 2:15:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which

you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from
us.
Note as well 2Thessalonians 3:6:
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord

Yeshua Messiah, that you keep aloof from every brother who
leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which
you received from us.
Here we see Paul using Pharisaic language and perspective,

commending not only the written Scriptures but also the halachah
contained in “traditions” which the Apostles had given the
congregations.
Belief in the Resurrection
Paul the Pharisee likewise fully affirms the doctrine of the

resurrection. The “resurrection chapter” (1Corinthians 15) is a
complete and direct statement of both the reality of resurrection
and its central position within the core beliefs of all who confess
Yeshua. Furthermore, the belief in rewards and punishments,
built upon the doctrine of resurrection, is a hallmark of Paul’s
teaching.136
Moreover, Paul’s language in 2Corinthians 5 indicates that
the resurrection and the “clothing” of the soul with a body so as
not to be “naked” is the purpose of God for His children, so that
“what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.” This teaching, that
the resurrection is an essential reality of God’s purposes, is at the
core of Pharisaic theology as we have it in the extant sources.
Perhaps it is often taken for granted that all pious Jews of the
136
e.g., note Romans 2:6-10.
62
1st Century believed in the resurrection, but of course, this was
not the case. It is noteworthy that the Pharisees were known for
holding this doctrine, a characteristic which would hardly be an
identifier if the belief in the resurrection was common to all. There
is a very real sense, then, that the teaching of Paul and the other
Apostles affirming the doctrine of bodily resurrection shows a
general alignment with Pharisaism.
Belief in Divine Providence
Paul is no stranger to the belief in divine providence, a doctrine

known among the Pharisees. Paul teaches that God causes events
to work together for the good of those called to faith.137 He not
only believes that God chooses those He will save but that He
also gives grace to them from all eternity.138 Indeed, the security
of the elect is founded upon God’s ability and purpose to order
all things necessary for their final salvation.139 Thus those who are
saved by grace live out good works (mitzvot) that were ordained
for them.140
Even the lives of the unrighteous are within the providence
of God as far as Paul is concerned. While the Hebrew text of
Exodus shifts between Pharaoh hardening his own heart and God
hardening it, Paul sees the hardening ultimately as God’s work.141
If one of the hallmarks of Pharisaism was a belief in the
divine ordering of all things, Paul shows himself to be similarly
aligned.
137
Romans 8:28. Note that textual variants in this verse obscure how far
the direct providence of God is actually being spoken of here. Some
pal
manuscripts (∏ B A sa sy arm) include the word “God” (“And we
46
know that God causes all things to work together…”) while others
(‫ א‬C D G K P etc) do not have the word “God” (“And we know that
all things work together….”). The former stresses the direct control
of God over all events of life while the latter tends to view God as
more passive.
138
cf. Romans 8:29ff; Ephesians 1:3; 2Timothy 1:9.
139
Romans 8:29ff.
140
Ephesians 2:10.
141
Romans 9:17ff.
63
Chapter 2
Paul’s Calendar
Unfortunately the history of the Apostle Paul found in the book of

Acts, as well as the autobiographical comments by Paul himself in
his epistles, gives us no clear picture of the calendar he followed.
In Acts 20:16 we discover that Paul is hurrying toward Jerusalem
in order to be there for Shavuot (Pentecost). Though the subsequent
narrative never identifies whether or not he arrived in time for the
festival, it seems most likely that he did.142 Regardless, there is not
enough told us to determine on which day he kept the festival.
From Acts 20:16 we do know, however, that Paul considered the
festival of Shavuot to fall on a prescribed day, and that his need to
celebrate the festival as scheduled impelled him to hurry along
on his journey to be in Jerusalem in time.
2.3 Summary
Paul, as we know him through the book of Acts as well as by his

own epistles, shows marked characteristics of being a Pharisee
just as he said. He did not cease being a Pharisee when he came
to faith in Yeshua, for he never considered Pharisaism to be
142
Acts 20:6 indicates that after the Days of Unleavened Bread, there
elapsed five days before arriving at Troas, and then they spent seven
days there, making 12 in all. Paul then goes on foot to Assos (Acts
20:13-14), meeting Luke and others and goes aboard the ship, which
would likely account for at least two days. They sail to several other
cities (Acts 20:15), accounting for three more days, and finally arrive
at Ephesus, from which he sets a straight course to Cos, followed by
Rhodes and Patara (Acts 21:2-3), coming at last to Tyre. In Tyre they
stayed seven days, and then left for Ptolemais, where they stayed for
one day (Acts 21:7). The next day they arrived at Caesarea, where
they stayed “some days” (Acts 21:10). When they finally arrived in
Jerusalem, Paul completes a Nazirite vow for seven days (Acts 21:27).
Even though there may have been gaps in the narrative told by
Luke, and though some of the travel time is not specifically defined
by number of days, it seems likely the Paul actually did make it to
Jerusalem in time to celebrate Shavuot. But we are simply not told
enough to pinpoint exactly when he celebrated it. See the chronology
in W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (Hodder
and Stoughton, 1905), 293ff.
64
something negative or contrary to genuine faith. That he would
describe himself as a Pharisee even while being tried for his faith
in Yeshua (Acts 23:6, note the present tense, “I am a Pharisee”)
proves this beyond doubt. When we read his epistles, then, we
must be careful not to read back into his words what we would
expect a modern Christian theologian to say or think. We must
hear Paul on his own terms, as a Pharisee who, being a pious Jew,
had come to a genuine faith in Yeshua as his Messiah, and who
had been called by Yeshua to be His apostle to the Gentiles.
In fact, reading Paul outside of the clear and obvious context
of his Jewishness and Jewish affiliations is at the heart of why
he has been so wrongly interpreted. Granted, it is a difficult task
to unwrap the layers of Christian tradition that have understood
Paul to have started a new way—a way that left Torah and Judaism
behind. But if we are willing to let the biblical text speak on its own,
we will be in a position to receive Paul as Paul, not the theologian
he became at the hands of later ecclesiastical authorities. And we
will then be able to read his words and find in them the coherent
message of Torah within the context of God’s grace.
65
Chapter Three
Paul’s Theology
Paul’s Theology: His Faith Community
Chapter 3: Paul’s Theology–Overview of Some Key Issues

3.1 Paul’s Faith-Community
The picture we have painted of the Apostle Paul shows him to be

thoroughly Jewish, a Pharisee trained at the feet of Gamaliel, and
a dedicated follower of Yeshua, called to be His Apostle. Since it
is easy in modern times to divorce Paul from the Jewish world of
which he was a part, it is also easy to envision Paul within the circle
of the Christian church rather than in the synagogue. This is why
we must ask ourselves the question of his “faith-community.” We
cannot take for granted that we understand what this was, for if
we do, we run the risk of anachronistically picturing Paul’s faith-
community as the contemporary “Christian church.”
The facts are really quite simple: “Christianity” as we know
it in our modern world simply did not exist in Paul’s day. There
were no buildings with steeples and crosses, filled on Sunday for
services. What is more, the Scriptures that came to be called the
“New Testament” did not yet exist and therefore exhortations and
sermons from the Gospels or Epistles were impossible. Worship
services consisting of choirs, offerings being gathered, special
music, announcements, and short homilies by a preacher had not
yet been invented. There were no confessional booths, no rosaries,
no baptismal fonts, and no eucharistic services. Sunday school,
youth group meetings, and singles gatherings were unknown.
There were no Christmas celebrations, no Vacation Bible Schools,
and no summer camps. No revival crusades were known, nor
were miracle rallies or mass healing crusades something the
faith-community of the 1st Century experienced. In short, those
things that many people would list as characteristic activities
and structures of the modern Christian church were unknown in
Paul’s day.
If Paul did not go to “church” as we know it today, what did
his faith-community look like? What activities characterized the
body of believers of which Paul was a member?
First, Paul did not consider the synagogue his opponent.
How could he? No other valid faith-community yet existed.
While surely there were differences among the Judaisms of Paul’s
world, the synagogue and Jerusalem Temple marked the location
of study and worship for all who believed in the God of Israel. All
69
Chapter 3
other temples and places of worship were pagan.
We should remember that the designation “synagogue” in the
early 1st Century referred most often to the gathering of people,
not the building.143 In fact, archaeological data have shown that
buildings regularly used by the synagogue were called proseuche
(proseuchv), “place of prayer,”144 and that private homes were
often used by “synagogues,” rather than public buildings.
Being the place of prayer, we should not be surprised to find
the synagogue as the regular place of Paul’s worship and study
as well as his entrance into the various communities he visited.
Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-9), Berea (Acts 17:1-14), Athens (Acts
17:16-17) all hear Paul first in their synagogues. Paul’s focus in
Corinth was the synagogue (Acts 18:1-4). Likewise his focus of
activity in Ephesus was the synagogue community (Acts 18:19;
19:8). Apollos preached in the synagogue (Acts 18:26) and even
the final chapter of Acts relates that the local leaders of the Jews in
Rome “came together” to hear him out, perhaps in their place of
prayer (Acts 28:17-22). And when they respond to Paul’s message,
it is clear that they recognize the sect of which Paul was a member
143
The term in the Apostolic Scriptures can almost always be interpreted
as referring to the people who are gathered rather than to the
building in which they gather, but the transition in the use of the term
“synagogue” to refer to the building is also attested (cf. Luke 7:5).
The use of proseuchv (proseuche) in the Apostolic Scriptures to denote
the place of prayer (Acts 16:13, 16) reminds us that the Apostolic
era was the time when terminology was shifting and becoming
more and more settled along theological boundaries. Ekklhsiva,
proseuchv, sunagwghv (ekklesia, proseuche, sunagoge) are terms which
had overlapping semantic ranges, and were in the process of being
more clearly defined. In fact, Lee Levine (The Ancient Synagogue: The
First Thousand Years [Yale, 2000], 127ff) has shown that even a wider
number of terms were being used in early centuries to designate
what we now refer to as the synagogue. Unfortunately, these words
in English translations of the Bible are often interpreted with modern
meanings read back into them. Also note the profitable remarks of
Howard Clark Kee, “The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70
CE: Its Import for Early Christianity,” NTS 36 (1990), 1-24.
144
cf. 1Maccabees 3:46; S. Safrai, “The Synagogue” in The Jewish People
in the First Century 1. 2, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum
Testamentum (Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1987), 913.
70
Paul’s Theology: His Faith Community
not as something outside of Judaism, but as a part of it.
Second, the synagogue consisted of both Jew and Gentile
since it was the only place of worship (along with the Temple
in Jerusalem) of the one true God. The expected presence of
Gentiles in the synagogue underlies the statement of James at the
Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) that those Gentiles who had come to
faith in Yeshua would hear the teaching of Moses every Sabbath
in the synagogue (Acts 15:21). Moreover, Luke, in the book of
Acts, regularly links the Gentiles with the synagogue.
Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many
of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and
Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue
in the grace of God. (13:43)
And it came about that in Iconium they entered the synagogue

of the Jews together, and spoke in such a manner that a great
multitude believed, both of Jews and of Greeks. (14:1)
So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the

God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with
those who happened to be present. (17:17)
And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and

trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. (18:4)
We likewise find Cornelius to be vitally connected to the Jewish

community, himself a man of prayer and a Gentile worshiper of
God—a “God-fearer” (Acts 10:1-2). In similar manner, a centurion
whose daughter Yeshua heals is noted as giving the finances for
the building of a synagogue structure in Capernaum (Luke 7:1-
5). It is no wonder, then, that as Paul attended the synagogue in
whatever city he may have been, he would also have found a
natural connection to the Gentile community there. The synagogue
was the place God-fearing Gentiles would be worshiping. And
surely these Gentiles who worshiped Israel’s God would be his
best introduction to the larger Gentile population of the city.
Third, those notices in the Gospels and Acts in which the
synagogue is represented as standing against Yeshua and His
followers must be understood as an “in-house” struggle, not a
contest between two opposing entities. Too often Yeshua and
His followers are viewed as the “church” that opposes the
71
Chapter 3
“unbelieving synagogue.” When Paul tells us that five times
he received thirty-nine lashes,145 we understand this to be the
discipline of the synagogue.146
One could understand why he had no choice but to endure
the punishment the first time, but why would he have returned
to the authority of the synagogue repeatedly, even after receiving
additional punishment? The only conceivable answer is that Paul
considered the synagogue to be the divinely ordained institution
for God’s people. Therefore, even though he certainly had been
wrongly accused, he bore the prescribed punishment and remained
in the synagogue and under the authority of the Sanhedrin. He did
so out of the conviction that the synagogue represented the true
faith-community of which he was a member. It represented the
primary visible expression of God’s people.
The division that occurred in the 2nd Century CE, yielding
the synagogue on the one hand, and the emerging “Church” on
the other, was not a reality in Paul’s day. This is not to diminish
the differences that may have existed between the followers of
Yeshua and the synagogue communities of which they were
members. But in comparison with the pagan world in which the
1st Century Judaisms existed, the followers of Yeshua had much
more in common with the wider Jewish community than they
had differences. Until well after the destruction of the Temple, the
disciples of Yeshua could never have seen themselves as separate
from the community represented by the various Judaisms of their
day. There were only two choices: paganism or Judaism. The third
choice, Christianity, did not exist until later. Thus, the synagogue/
Temple, with all of its in-fighting, was the place where God’s
people met, worshiped, prayed together, and lived out their life
of faith.
145
2Corinthians 11:24.
146
cf. m.Makkot 3:1-16. Though the standard is forty lashes, the ruling
also speaks of the instance when the one being scourged dies
from the punishment. In this case, if the one giving the lashes has
exceeded the number forty, he is liable for manslaughter. Therefore,
in order to assure that one did not exceed the number of lashes, it
was the custom to diminish the number by one, giving thirty-nine.
The common Rabbinic phraseology is “forty minus one,” which is
reflected in the Greek of 2Corinthians 11:24, tesseravkonta para;
mivan (tesserakonta para mian).
72
Paul’s Theology: The “New” Paul
Paul’s faith-community, then, was the same community he
was part of before he came to believe that Yeshua was the Messiah.
Viewed with suspicion both by those he persecuted as well as
by those who gave him permission to persecute, he nonetheless
lived and worked in the community of the synagogue, no doubt
finding great joy in the reading and study of the Tanach, and in
the worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He found
in the synagogues those who were open to receiving the gospel
of Yeshua and who expressed their faith in Him. In the diverse
Judaisms of his day, he considered himself, along with those who
had confessed Yeshua to be the promised Messiah, part of the
Jewish community, a part he believed would one day encompass
the whole.
3.2 The “New” Paul
The picture I have painted of Paul the Pharisee, Apostle of

Yeshua, is not the picture usually given of him in the history
of the Christian Church. Only recently has general scholarship
begun to look at Paul in this “new” light. The older view presents
Paul as repudiating Judaism and espousing Christianity. This
view considers his Damascus Road experience as a “conversion,”
turning him from the Law-ridden religion of Judaism to the mercy
and grace of Christianity.
How can hundreds of years of scholarship by outstanding
men and women in the field of Pauline studies be wrong? If the
“new” Paul is to be received as credible, the question of why so
many interpreted him in an entirely different manner must be
answered.
A Brief Overview
The traditional view of Paul can be summarized by Adolph

Harnack’s statement:
It was Paul who delivered the Christian religion from Judaism

… It was he who confidently regarded the Gospel as a new force
abolishing the religion of the law.”147
Adolph Harnack, What Is Christianity? (New York, 1901), 190, quoted

147
from John G. Gager, Reinventing Paul (Oxford, 2000), 21.

73
Chapter 3
The traditional view of Paul148 is based upon the idea that he
underwent a typical conversion from one religion to another, from
the Law-based religion of Judaism to the Grace-based religion
of Christianity. In so doing, he preached against the Torah and
Judaism and sought to rescue people, both Jew and Gentile, from
the clutches of this works-based system.
His “conversion” from Judaism to Christianity gave him an
entirely new perspective on Israel. Whereas before he sought
to persecute those who followed Yeshua of Nazareth, after his
conversion he saw these fellow-believers as the true Israel. Those
of his brethren who had rejected Yeshua were no longer Israel.
The “new-Israel,” the “Israel of God,”149 consisted of those who
confessed Yeshua to be the Messiah, regardless of their ethnicity.
In this traditional view of Paul, it is suggested that there were
two ways of salvation, two ways to gain right-standing before
God: the old way, and the new. The old way of salvation was
through the Torah and was the manner in which the men and
women of ancient Israel gained righteousness. But with the
coming of Yeshua and His death upon the cross, the Torah was
abolished and a new way initiated, the way of grace. Thus Paul
becomes the messenger of this “new way” and he is used by God
to communicate and implement the New Covenant—to found
communities who walked in the liberty of grace rather than the
bondage of the Law.
What is more, this traditional interpretation of Paul builds
upon a fact no one could deny, namely, that Paul, perhaps more
than anyone else, knew and understood the Judaism of his
day. If anyone should be able to expose the intrinsic spiritual
poverty of Judaism, it would be Paul. After all, he was trained
by a prominent Sage, and was involved at an official level in the
leading Pharisaism of his day. So, according to the old view, Paul
the expert, after coming to see the truth in Yeshua, sets out to
show that at the core, Judaism is a religious system of works. That
is to say, Judaism teaches that one can gain right-standing with
God through keeping the Torah. But since Paul also teaches that
keeping the Torah is impossible, he effectively disavows Judaism
148
For good overviews of the trends in Pauline studies, see John G.
Gager, Reinventing Paul (Oxford, 2000), 21-42; Peter J. Tomson, Paul
and the Jewish Law (Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1990), 9-19.
149
Galatians 6:16.
74
in favor of the new and better way, Christianity.150
The trends in Pauline studies are cyclical. From the older,
traditional view of Paul as one who turned his back upon
Judaism in favor of the new and different Christianity, came
the Hellenistic Paul. Trained in the philosophies and rhetoric of
the Greco-Roman world in which he lived, the Hellenized Paul
approached the whole issue of religion from a new perspective,
merging his ancient Judaism with the world and thinking of the
150
This brief look at Paul’s portrayal in the scholarly literature of the
past century is not a “straw man” presentation. One need spend
only a short time reading the standard literature in Pauline studies
to encounter this viewpoint. For instance, F. C. Baur, considering
the particularity of Judaism as contrasted by the universalism of
Christianity, writes: “Thus not only was he [Paul] the first to lay
down expressly and distinctly the principle of Christian universalism
as a thing essentially opposed to Jewish particularism…. We cannot
call his conversion…anything but a miracle; and the miracle
appears all the greater when we remember that in this revulsion
of his consciousness he broke through the barriers of Judaism and
rose out of the particularism of Judaism into the universal idea of
Christianity.” [Quoted from Gager, Reinventing Paul, 30.] Or consider
Bultmann’s classic statement in which he describes the ritualism of
the Pharisees: “At the same time, however, it was just this ritualism
which sanctified the life of the community. But that sanctity was an
entirely negative affair, since most of the regulations are negative
and prohibitive in character…. To take them seriously meant making
life an intolerable burden. It was almost impossible to know the
rules, let alone put them into practice.” (Emphasis his), Rudolph
Bultmann, Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting (Thames
and Hudson,1956), 66. Previously Bultmann writes regarding the
halachah of the Pharisees, “These regulations went into detail to the
point of absurdity” (ibid., 65). The concept that Paul repudiated his
Judaism at his conversion finds its way into more popular literature
as well. Commenting on Philippians 3:7-8, Muller writes, “The
things that were gain to him, the carnal advantages and privileges
in which he could put confidence—religion, race and descent, law-
observance, zeal and outward blamelessness—are now, for the sake
of Christ, regarded as loss and even harm, as a result of the absolute
transformation his life had undergone.” (Jac. J. Muller, The Epistles
of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon in the NICNT (Eerdmans,
1955), 112.
75
Chapter 3
Greek philosopher.151
More recently, however, there has been a major shift in Pauline
scholarship owing to the upsurge of studies on 1st Century
Judaisms, flowing, no doubt, from the impact of Dead Sea Scrolls
studies. Yet, as we shall see, the return to the “old Paul” and even
the Hellenistic Paul continues to permeate the scholarly works.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has impacted every
segment of biblical studies, since it has opened to scholars the
textual remains of a sect of Judaism that existed at the time of
Yeshua and His apostle, Paul. With objective data from the very
era in which the so-called “Jesus movement” began, scholars
embarked on a reinvestigation of what was known about 1st
Century Judaisms, which included the origins of the Jesus
movement and the rise of the Christian church. It is easy to see
how in such renewed research of early Judaisms the tightly held
views of Paul would also find themselves under new scrutiny.
Perhaps one of the most significant works to reinvestigate
Paul in light of the search for 1st Century Judaisms is Paul and
Palestinian Judaism by E. P. Sanders.152 This monumental work,
shows conclusively that the traditional view of 1st Century
Judaism (particularly Pharisaic Judaism) cannot be sustained
by an appeal to the primary sources. While the vast majority of
Christian scholars and commentators accepted the view that 1st
Century Judaism believed in a works-based salvation, Sanders
shows that such a view rests upon a misreading of Paul through
the bias of a supposed “works-righteousness” Judaism of the
1st Century. According to Sanders, when one reads the Rabbis
themselves, one comes to the conclusion that salvation is not
gained through doing good works but that it is a gift of God
based upon the covenant He made with Israel. He labels this view
“covenantal nomism,” which he defines as:
…the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the

basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the
proper response of man his obedience to its commandments,
while providing means of atonement for transgression….
Obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does
151
See the comments of Herman Ridderbos, Paul, An Outline of His
Theology (Eerdmans, 1975), 32-39.
152
(Fortress, 1977).
76
not earn God’s grace as such…. Righteousness in Judaism is a
term which implies the maintenance of the status among the
group of the elect.153
To put it simply, “getting in” to God’s family is not a matter of one’s

deeds, but a matter of being a member of the covenant which God
graciously gave: “All Israel have a place in the world-to-come.”154
On the other hand, “staying in” is accomplished by keeping the
commandments as the condition of the covenant and availing
oneself of the means of atonement (sacrificial system) when failing
to keep the commandments. To put it in modern Christian terms,
“salvation” is assured to all covenant members, while “eternal
life” requires living in a manner consistent with the covenant
requirements. From this perspective one can easily see why a
non-Israelite had only one option to obtain a place in the world-
to-come—become a covenant member. This was accomplished,
according to the Rabbis, through the ceremony of the proselyte,
for which the “short-hand label” was “circumcision.”155
But how does this square with the Paul we read in the Apostolic
Scriptures? Does it not appear that Paul presumes a Judaism that
teaches salvation by works? Consider the following:
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the

works of the Law. Romans 3:28
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue
righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness
which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness,
did not arrive at the law. Why? Because they did not pursue
it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled
over the stumbling stone. . . . For not knowing about God’s
righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not
subject themselves to the righteousness of God. Romans 9:30-
10:3
How can we read these verses and not come to the conclusion
that Paul represents the Judaism of his day as teaching a “works-
153
E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 75, 420, 544.
154
m.Sanhedrin 10.1.
155
Thus the language used, for instance, in Acts 15:1, “…unless you
are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be
saved.”
77
Chapter 3
salvation?”
Here is Sander’s answer: Paul does, in fact, present an
“essentially different type of religiousness from any found in
Palestinian Jewish literature,”156 but the difference is not in the
realm of grace versus works. Paul never accuses Judaism of
teaching “salvation by works,” (i.e., that one “gets in” by keeping
the Torah). When he characterizes the Judaism of his day as
missing the mark, using the phrase “righteousness by works,”
he refers to the belief that one has a righteous status based upon
his being part of the Jewish nation, a status recognized and
maintained through Torah-obedience. For Sanders, where Paul
made his radical break from the Judaism of his day was in his use
of the word “righteous/righteousness.”
Here, however, there is also a major shift: for to be righteous

in Jewish literature means to obey the Torah and to repent of
transgression, but in Paul it means to be saved by Christ. Most
succinctly, righteousness in Judaism is a term which implies the
maintenance of status among the group of the elect; in Paul it is
a transfer term. In Judaism, that is, commitment to the covenant
puts one ‘in,’ while obedience (righteousness) subsequently
keeps one in. In Paul’s usage, ‘be made righteous’ (‘be justified’)
is a term indicating getting in, not staying in the body of the
saved. Thus when Paul says that one cannot be made righteous
by works of the law, he means that one cannot, by works of law,
‘transfer to the body of the saved.’ When Judaism said that one
is righteous who obeys the law, the meaning is that one thereby
stays in the covenant.157
In this framework, one can see the significant position “repentance”

must have played in 1st Century Judaism. For if one secures a place
in the world-to-come through his birth (and therefore by no effort
of his own), repentance, which is an act of the individual, is all
the more important as the means by which one maintains a secure
place in the covenant. Yet, according to Sanders, “repentance” all
but disappears in Paul.
While I cannot agree with his conclusions, in the end Sanders
helps us by giving a clearer picture of the Judaism in which Paul
lived, allowing us to more carefully read and interpret, as well
as understand the message of his epistles. Even if we disagree
156
E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 543.
157
Ibid., 544.
78
with some particulars of Sanders’ position, we are indebted to
him for reminding us again that we cannot take for granted that
we know the Judaisms of Paul’s day. Only as we investigate and
reinvestigate the Rabbinic and related materials can we come closer
to knowing the real issues Paul dealt with as he accomplished his
apostolic calling.
If we are indebted to Sanders for helping us see Paul against
the background of 1st Century Judaisms, we are also indebted to
numerous scholars for their work in asking important questions
of Paul’s theology. A recent work by John Gager158 affords us a
handy overview of modern Pauline scholarship.
According to Gager, the greatest issue in modern Pauline
scholarship is the apparent “difficulties and inconsistencies”159 that
arise in his epistles. Of course, we know this is not only a modern
issue, for even Peter mentions that Paul’s writings contain “things
hard to understand.”160 If we look at Paul’s writings in the broadest
of strokes, it is the subjects of Torah and Israel that raise the most
questions. On the one hand Paul seems to glory in the Torah,
while on the other hand his words have often been understood to
describe the Torah as a condemning burden. Likewise, he seems
on the one hand to view Israel as God’s eternal people, while on
the other as having lost their position by their rejection of Yeshua.
Having noted a number of these “contradictory” passages in
Paul, Gager asks:
Is it possible to construct a “uniform and clear” picture of Paul’s

teachings about the law and Israel, without convicting him of
contradictory thinking, but at the same time doing full justice to
the two sets of passages?161
He believes he can, and sets out to do so. Showing various

ways that other scholars have attempted to resolve the apparent
conflicts and seeming contradictions in Paul, Gager comes to
the conclusion that consistency can only be found if one takes
seriously the fact that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, not the
Jews. Gager’s position is:
158
John G. Gager, Reinventing Paul (Oxford, 2000).
159
Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (J.C.B. Mohr, 1983), 264.
160
2Peter 3:16.
161
Gager, Reinventing Paul, 9.
79
Chapter 3
He is not the father of Christian anti-Judaism; he was not the
inventor of the rejection-replacement theory; he did not repudiate
the law of Moses; he did not argue that God had rejected Israel;
his enemies were not Jews outside the Jesus-movement but
competing apostles within; and he did not expect Jews to find
their salvation through Jesus Christ.162
Gager’s contribution to our study is that he conveniently

summarizes modern Pauline studies as they touch on the issue
of Paul’s apparent theological contradictions. Many, like Gager,
find the explanation in the theological notion that God has given
two ways of salvation, one for the Jew and the other for the
Gentile. The way of salvation for the Jew is through birth into the
covenant and obedience to the covenant demands (Torah). The
way of salvation for the Gentile is by faith in Yeshua as Savior.
Thus, when Paul speaks negatively of the Torah, according to this
view he is doing so because he is talking to Gentiles who have
no need of Torah. They are therefore best warned away from it
and pointed to Yeshua. Likewise, in appearing to speak as though
God has now turned toward the Gentiles (and away from Israel),
he does so by focusing upon God’s plan for the Gentiles (i.e.,
salvation through Yeshua) but not as over against Israel whose
salvation is secure in the covenant. For Gager, and those who
agree with his position, this “two ways” perspective is the only
hope for finding consistency in Paul.
3.3 Paul: Another Perspective?

How can I posit a new reading of Paul in the face of hundreds
of years of scholarship interpreting him as anti-Torah and anti-
Israel? Part of the answer is given to us by Sanders and other
scholars like him, namely, that the traditional view of Paul is
based upon an erroneous understanding of 1st Century Judaism,
which, when corrected, will allow a new perspective of Paul’s
words. Indeed, the trend in Pauline studies is away from the
traditional view and toward the “new” Paul.
But even with these correctives Paul still appears contradictory,
especially regarding the Torah and Israel. To the “two ways”
approach has come a second explanation, namely, that Paul is
162
Gager, op. cit., 10.
80
Paul’s Theology: Another Perspective
self-contradictory. Either he changed his views as he matured
(thus early epistles disagree with later ones), or he was giving
two different messages. Whatever the case, a number of scholars
maintain that Paul simply contradicts himself.163
Neither of these options is viable in my viewpoint. Accepting
the Pauline epistles as authentically Pauline, as well as divinely
inspired, rules out the notion that he purposefully contradicts
himself. Moreover, to suggest that Paul taught two ways of
salvation, one for Jew and another for Gentile, is hardly to read
him carefully! Nothing seems clearer than that Paul considered
Yeshua the Messiah as the long-awaited Savior for all mankind,
and the means by which the promise to the nations, as well as to
the offspring of Abraham, would be fulfilled.164
If the current studies of 1st Century Judaisms have laid a
foundation for a new reading of Paul (and I am convinced they
have), then I would like to suggest the theological direction in
which this new reading of Paul might head. The old anti-Torah,
anti-Israel Paul has been rejected (at least by modern scholarship)
as an imaginary figment of modern Christianity. Furthermore,
the liberal scholarship that has read Paul as teaching two ways
of salvation, or the self-contradictory Paul, have done so at the
expense of biblical truth. Rather, as I look at Paul’s theology in
the light of the growing awareness of early Judaisms, I suggest
that Paul’s driving theological purpose was to return to the Tanach’s
own revelation of God’s redemptive plan for mankind, unwrapping
it from the layers of tradition by which its message had nearly been
hidden. Furthermore, I believe Paul had come to this theological
perspective from the teachings of Yeshua Himself.165
3.4 Pauline and Pharisaic Soteriology Compared

If the extant Rabbinic literature contains at least some expressions
of the general viewpoints of 1st Century Pharisaism, then it is
safe to say that the prevailing Pharisaic view of Paul’s day was
that every Israelite was secured a place in the world-to-come.
All Israel have a portion in the world-to-come, for it is written,

163
See, for instance, Räisänen, op. cit., 199ff.
164
cf. Genesis 12:1-3, and compare Acts 13:32f; Galatians 3:8, etc.
165
Matthew 15:6f; Mark 7:6f, taught to Paul through oral tradition.
81
Chapter 3
Your people are all righteous; they shall inherit the land for ever,
the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be
glorified.166
This quote from the Mishnah says that a place in the world-to-
come is based upon a status of righteousness. Israel has a place in
the world-to-come because “Your people are all righteous.” What
did the Sages mean by this statement? They often spoke of Israel
as wayward and rebellious, so it is clear they do not mean that all
Israelites were without sin. Rather, righteousness is attributed to
all who are members of the covenant. Righteousness is a matter of
God’s willingness to reckon the pious deeds of the fathers to their
offspring and to forgive and show mercy when Israel sins. Thus,
the place in the world-to-come which belongs to all of Israel is a
matter of God’s grace, not something earned or merited.
Indeed, it is the basic presupposition of the Sages that life in
the world-to-come is a gift given to Israel in the same way as the
Torah or the Land was given.
It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai says: The Holy One,

blessed be He, gave Israel three precious gifts, and all of them
were given only through sufferings. These are: The Torah, the
Land of Israel, and the world-to-come.167
Interestingly, the statement of the Mishnah that “all Israel have

a place in the world-to-come” is followed in the Gemara by a
lengthy discussion on proofs for the resurrection. Naturally, a
belief that one has a place in the world-to-come necessitates a
belief in the resurrection as well. In fact, the strong Pharisaic belief
in the resurrection was tied to the belief that God rewarded the
righteous with a place in the world-to-come.168
This belief in the resurrection from the dead for all of Israel,
founded upon Daniel 12:2, is codified in the second benediction
166
m. Sanhedrin 10.1, the gemara is b.Sanhedrin 90a.
167
b. B’rachot 5a.
168
It is far from certain exactly how one should define the Rabbinic
understanding of “the world-to-come.” It is contrasted by ‫עֹול ָם ה ַּז ֶה‬
‘olam hazeh, “this world,” and is often connected with the Messianic
Age (e.g., m.B’rachot 1.5). Moore writes, ‘Any attempt to systematize
the Jewish notions of the hereafter imposes upon them an order and
consistency which does not exist in them.’ (Moore, Judaism, 2:389).
82
Paul’s Theology: Paul & Pharisaic Soteriology
(‫ג ְבּורֹות‬, g’vurot) of the Shemonei Esrei (Eighteen Benedictions), in
which God is praised as the One “giving life to the dead,” who also
“keeps faith with sleepers in the dust.”169 Though the exact time
when this benediction became codified as liturgy is not certain,
its theme was surely a recognized part of the synagogue prayers
in the 1st Century CE,170 and Gamaliel, Paul’s teacher, is credited
with establishing the halachah that the Eighteen Benedictions were
to be recited every day.171
A prayer of praise to God as the One who raises the dead
has also been found in the Qumran scrolls. Called “Messianic
Apocalypse,” the prayer awaits the future when the Lord will
reward the righteous. In describing the work of the Lord, the
prayer includes:
In his mercy he will judge, and from no one shall the fruit of
good deeds be delayed, and the Lord will perform marvellous
acts such as have not existed, just as he said, for he will heal the
badly wounded and will make the dead live, he will proclaim
good news to the meek, give lavishly to the needy, lead the
exiled and enrich the hungry.172
In each of these notices regarding the resurrection, there is

nothing to indicate who qualifies to be raised. In each case it is the
presumption that those who are praying (synagogue community,
Qumran community) are assured a resurrection to life in the
world-to-come.
If the prevailing belief was that everyone who was born
an Israelite, or underwent the ritual of becoming a proselyte,
169
Though the Palestinian recension of the ‫‘( אתה גבור‬atah gibor)
benediction is shorter, both traditions include the idea of resurrection
from the dead. Note the comments of Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy:
A Comprehensive History (JPS, 1993), 39.
170
Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Harvard,
1975), 654-660; E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63BCE - 66 CE
(Trinity Press, 1992), 203-208; S. Safrai, The Synagogue in Safrai and
Stern, eds., The Jewish People in the First Century, vol. 2 in Compendia
Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum (Fortress, 1987), 922-24.
171
m. B’rachot 4:3.
172
4Q Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521), translation from Florentino Garcia
Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (Eerdmans, 1996), 394.
83
Chapter 3
automatically had a place in the world-to-come, we must consider
afresh how shocking the Damascus Road experience was for
Paul. If anyone would have been secure in his righteous standing
before the Almighty and thus worthy of eternal blessing, it would
have been Paul, whose pedigree was spotless and whose zeal for
the Torah and Pharisaic halachah was unparalleled.
3.5 The Impact of the Damascus Road Experience

on Paul’s Understanding of Salvation
The mission Paul was on as he headed toward Damascus is made
clear in Acts 9. He had obtained letters from the High Priest
giving him entrance into the synagogue communities of the
diaspora, and authority to seize both men and women known to
be of “The Way,” to bind them and bring them back to Jerusalem
for prosecution.173 By his own confession he was motivated to
173
The legalities of capital punishment under Jewish self-governance
have been much discussed in the scholarly literature. (cf. Schurer, The
Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (T & T Clark, 1885) II.ii.262f;
Rainer Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy,
Theology (Eerdmans, 1998); Murphy-O’Conner, op. cit., 65f; William
Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire (Hodder & Stoughton, 1907);
S. Safrai, “Jewish Self-government” in The Jewish People of the First
Century, vol. 1, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
(Fortress, 1974), 377ff; Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in
Judaism (Baker, 1998), 9-10, 206. Current scholarship seems to agree
that Paul could have received general permission for his fury against
“The Way” from the Sanhedrin, and only strengthened it (in the face
of possible capital punishment) by letters from the High Priest. The
charges against the people of “The Way” probably were framed as
crimes of blasphemy. They were most likely accused of transgressions
that contradicted essential elements of the established halachah of
the Sanhedrin. That the charges may have indirectly involved some
connection with the Temple is also a possibility. It may well be, if the
notices in the Talmud can be relied upon, that followers of Yeshua
were considered worthy of death on the same or similar grounds
for which Yeshua was executed, things that would have constituted
blasphemy. Note Paul’s attempt to get the people of “The Way”
to blaspheme, Acts 26:11. As to the rabbinic history of Yeshua’s
crimes, cf. b.Sanhedrin 43a [as contained in the Schachter edition, cf.
84
Paul’s Theology: The Damascus Road
persecute these believers out of zeal for the Torah (Acts 22:1-2).
But what was the “crime” of those people known as “The Way”
which would have caused Paul and the Judaism he represented
to seek such heavy prosecution? What were they teaching that so
threatened Paul that he would seek severe punishment for their
actions? He was not so disturbed by the various other sects that
comprised the Judaisms of his day. Was it merely that these people
were followers of a Messiah who had Himself been executed on
charges of “sorcery and enticing Israel to apostasy”174 and that
therefore they too were guilty of the same crimes?
It hardly seems likely that Paul was on a campaign to eradicate
“sorcery” or that he was hoping to keep people from entering a
sect of Judaism other than his own. What seems more likely is that
the people of “The Way” appeared as a significant threat to the
recognized authorities and halachah of the day. Since Yeshua was
known to have spoken against many of the traditions of His day,
and had been misunderstood both for His actions and His words
regarding the Temple, it seems quite possible that His followers
were viewed with suspicion as furthering a subversive agenda.
If Yeshua was considered a blasphemer and thus worthy of
death on this account, His followers would have been suspect of
the same capital crime. And if by His actions and words regarding
the Temple175 Yeshua was maligned as a threat to the central
symbol of worship in His day, it only stands to reason that His
followers would fall under the same suspicion. Paul admits that
he worked to make them blaspheme so that they might incur a
crime worthy of severe punishment.176
What is more, the willingness to admit Gentiles into the
community of “The Way” may have further raised suspicions.
God-fearers and proselytes were openly committed to living within
the accepted norms of purities, but what about Gentiles who were
not accorded such status? From an outsider’s perspective, these
Gentile followers of Yeshua may have been viewed as remaining
Neusner’s translation]) in which Yeshu(a) is accused of “practicing

sorcery and enticing Israel to apostasy.”
174
b.Sanhedrin 43a. This whole crime is viewed against the context of
Deuteronomy 13 in which a false prophet is to be put to death.
175
Matthew 12:5-6; 21:12; 26:61; 27:40; Mark 11:15; 14:58; 15:29; Luke
19:45; 21:5; John 2:14, 20.
176
Acts 26:11.
85
Chapter 3
within idolatry while at the same time melding their lives into the
community of Israel. Their inclusion within the Jewish community
rendered them far less distinct and much easier to be passed off
as Jewish. The thought of Gentile idolators participating in the
Temple rituals would have brought immediate consternation to
any of the established authorities in Paul’s day.
That acceptance of Gentiles into the body of Yeshua’s followers
was an earlier phenomenon is inescapable. This was not only
because of Yeshua’s own teaching but also because of the events
of Shavuot following His death and resurrection (Acts 2). Yeshua
Himself had gone out of His way to show the inclusion of Gentiles
into the people of God via genuine, saving faith. Granted, He had
first commissioned His disciples to go only to the lost sheep of
Israel (Matthew 10:5-6), but in the full outworking of His mission
He had made it clear that the covenant had always envisioned
the inclusion of the nations as its final victory. When clearing the
Temple courtyard He quoted Isaiah 56:7, “For My house will be
called a house of prayer for all the peoples,” a prophecy found in
the context of the ingathering of non-Israelites to the true worship
of HaShem. Furthermore, Yeshua’s ministry to the Syrophonecian
woman (Matthew 7:24f), the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:2), and
the centurion (Matthew 8:5; Luke 7:2-7) suggests that Yeshua saw
the fulfillment of the covenant as including the nations, and that
His work was to initiate the final harvest.
Moreover, He taught that the Gentiles would come and have
equal footing with the Jews. They would pray together in the
Temple (Matthew 21:13) and enjoy full table-fellowship with the
Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Matthew 8:11-12). His
teaching in the Nazareth synagogue (Luke 4:26ff) indicates that
like the widow of Zerephath, the Gentiles would receive Him
even though He was rejected by His own. Like Hillel177 before
Him (but to a much greater extent), Yeshua’s teaching cut across
the grain of the prevailing anti-Gentile bias not uncommon in the
teachings of His day. He saw the restoration of Israel as a means
to the greater end of blessing all the nations.
Just before His death, resurrection, and ascension, Yeshua
instructed His disciples regarding the ingathering of the Gentiles
(nations). They were to teach them what He had commanded and
bring them into the community of faithful Israel via the mikvah
177
cf. b.Shabbat 17b; b. Shabbat 31a.
86
Paul’s Theology: The Damascus Road
(Matthew 28:19-20).178 What is more, the disciples would receive
special empowerment by the Spirit to accomplish this task (Acts
1:8).
After coming to faith in Yeshua, Paul viewed the events of the
Shavuot following Yeshua’s death and resurrection as proclaiming
the arrival of the kingdom era in which all of the nations would
be blessed. The gospel of the covenant, spoken for millennia in
Hebrew, was now heard in the languages of the nations. And
the outpouring of the Spirit upon the faithful Jews gathered
for the festival was repeated, much to the amazement of Peter,
upon Cornelius and his family, demonstrating once and for all
the equality of Jew and non-Jew within the body of Messiah. The
Spirit of holiness had demonstrated His willingness to dwell
equally with Jews and non-Jews, forever proclaiming the equality
of all those who were chosen to make up God’s family.
The rapidity with which “The Way” was gaining adherents
must have also alarmed Paul. With the full outpouring of his
zeal, he went about trying to preserve what he believed to be the
way of truth and of history—the ancient covenant of the fathers.
The centrality and sanctity of the Temple, the adherence to the
Torah as taught by the Sages, the authority of the Sanhedrin—all
of these fueled Paul’s zeal. And having believed that the people
of “The Way”, to one measure or another, disdained these very
pillars of the Jewish people only drove him all the more to secure
their demise.
We can only imagine the bewilderment he must have felt
when he came face to face with Yeshua and the subsequent
knowledge that God intended to bless the Gentiles. They were not
178
Some have suggested that the mikvah (baptism) of which Yeshua
instructs His disciples implies a conversion process. But it is curious
that a mikvah would be emphasized over circumcision. During the
time of the second Temple a proselyte was required, according to
Rabbinic ruling, to make a sacrifice, be circumcised, and undergo
immersion in a mikvah. After the destruction of the Temple, the
sacrifice was no longer required, nor the giving of money equivalent
to the sacrifice (b.Yevamot 47a). R. Eliezer argues that one is a
proselyte even if he performs only one of the two required rituals
(circumcision or mikvah) but R. Joshua disagreed and the halachic
decision went in favor of R. Joshua (b.Yevamot 46a–b). Therefore,
the proselyte of the 1st Century and later was required both to be
circucmised and immersed.
87
Chapter 3
to be an entity unto themselves, but fellow heirs and partakers of
the covenant promises that God had given to Abraham and his
descendents.179 Those who had been looked upon as “dogs,” as
total outsiders, not only were to be blessed with the same covenant
blessings given to Abraham, but they were to be blessed within
the very family of Israel. What is more, this blessing would come
through adoption rather than the ritual of the proselyte. Faith in
Yeshua would bring Jew and Gentile to be one in the body of
Messiah.
We can begin to envision what must have run through Paul’s
mind as he was struck blind by the Shechinah and humbly lead
into the city of Damascus to await the coming of Ananias. Out of
his zeal to serve HaShem he had come face to face with the One he
had despised, the One he was sure had led Israel astray. Against
all manner of thinking, he had come to know and believe that
Yeshua was the true Messiah, and that His message, which struck
the heart of arrogance with penetrating blows, was not contrary
to the Torah.
Suddenly the framework of Paul’s zealous persecutions began
to collapse around him. How could he have been so wrong? How
could he and all those he represented have missed something that
now seemed so obvious? The exclusive position of Israel as the sole
possessor of covenant with God would now need to be redrawn
according to the lines of the Torah and the Prophets. The very
tenant of Paul’s Judaism which fueled his zealous hatred of “The
Way” had crumbled, leaving him to retrace his understanding of
Torah and return to its pure and holy intent. Where such a re-
reading would lead him, he could have never imagined.
How Paul’s thoughts must have raced during those intervening
days as he sat in blind darkness, forced into a contemplative
inactivity! He must have realized that his zeal, along with some
of his interpretations of the Torah, were ill-founded and contrary
to the God he so wished to please. He must have struggled to
discover what it was the Torah was teaching, and how he could
have missed its instruction.
Surely, through this encounter with the Almighty, Paul
could never be the same. If he understood nothing else from this
experience, he was sure of this: Yeshua was the true Messiah. The
Torah and Prophets would need to be read and understood in
179
Ephesians 3:4ff.
88
Paul’s Theology: Soteriology
light of Yeshua’s teachings. Such a “re-reading” would change
forever the course of his life and ministry.
Here, then, was the seed of what became Paul’s perspective
on “salvation,” or how one “gets in” and “stays in.” He did not
experience a “conversion” from one religion to another, nor did he
embark on a mission to “create” a new religion (i.e., Christianity).
Rather, he was to return to the reading and acceptance of the sacred
words of the Torah, words which narrated the ancient concept of
faith as demonstrated by Abel, Noah, and especially Abraham. It
was a reclaiming of the message of the Tanach unshackled from
the teachings of men. And in such a re-reading of the Scriptures,
Paul was to see that the widely held view of Israel’s exclusivity to
the covenant promises of God could not be sustained. He was to
see that not only were the nations envisioned within the covenant,
but that Israel was to be God’s servant to bring them in.
We do not know the exact chronology of the days which
transpired immediately after Paul’s Damascus Road experience.180
It seems most likely, however, that Paul spent three years in
Damascus, from 34-37 CE and that during this time he made his
trip to Arabia (Galatians 1:17-18). Instead of going to Jerusalem
to confer with the teachers there, he (apparently lead by the
Almighty) remained alone to read and study with “new eyes.”
What we find in Paul’s writings is the result of what he learned
as a student of the Torah combined with the new understanding
gained through the illumination of the Spirit. He now was able
to read the Tanach in light of his encounter with Yeshua, and as
pointing directly to Him as the promised Savior.
3.6 Paul’s Soteriology181

If we survey the letters of the Apostle Paul looking for recurring
themes in his soteriology, we can track his understanding of
how God saves sinners. Once again, the question we want Paul
to answer for us is this: How does one “get into” the covenant
180
For studies on this part of Pauline chronology, see Rainer Riesner,
op. cit., 64ff; Murphy-O’Conner, op. cit., 7ff; L. C. A. Alexander,
“Chronology of Paul” in Hawthorne and Martin, eds., Dictionary of
Paul and His Letters (IVP, 1993), 115-123.
181
“Soteriology” is that sub-section of theology that deals specifically
with the doctrines of salvation, or how God saves sinners.
89
Chapter 3
family of God, and how does one “stay in?”
The very existence of our question presumes a number of
things. First, it presumes the existence of a “covenant family of
God,” and secondly, that there is a way to “get in,” which likewise
presumes that not everyone is already in (i.e., that there is a need
to “get in”). Thirdly, it presumes the need for a covenant in the
first place—some mechanism by which those who are estranged
from God might find their way to commune with Him.
The need for the covenant by which God and man could
commune arises because of the presence of sin, and particularly
the sinful nature of mankind.182 Man’s rebellion from God
threatened to overturn the very reason for which he was created.
Only a return to communion with His Creator would allow him
to accomplish his reason for existence. And the only avenue
available for such a return would need to flow both from God’s
grace (for man could never have demanded such a thing) as well
as His justice (for sin requires payment). Thus God set about to
reveal His plan of salvation, a revelation given through covenants
made with Abraham, Israel (at Sinai), and David. These covenants,
revealed in the Tanach and worked out through history, carry
God’s message of how communion with Him could be restored
to sinful man. And these covenants all reveal the central promise
of the Messiah.183
The formation of the covenant, then, establishes the means
of a return for sinful man to commune with his Creator. But how
182
The idea that the doctrine of “original sin” or of the depraved sin
nature was a Pauline invention or a new doctrine of the emerging
Christian church is simply not true. Granted, modern Judaisms find
the idea repugnant, as did many of the ancient Sages. Yet there were
those who apparently held similar views as Paul did on the subject.
Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (late 1st Century CE) was known for quoting
Ecclesiastes 7:20 (cf. Romans 3:10ff), “Indeed, there is not a righteous
man on earth who continually does good and who never sins,” cf. b.
Sanhedrin 101a.
183
It is for this reason that Paul is able to speak of the “covenants (note
the plural) of the promise” Ephesians 2:12 (the article “the” is in
the Greek text but often not translated in this verse by the English
translations). What he is saying is that the covenants (Abrahamic,
Mosaic, Davidic) all carried a singular “promise,” i.e., the promise
of Messiah.
90
does one become a covenant member? How does one “get in?”
As we have already seen, the answer to this question by the
Judaisms of Paul’s day could no longer be accepted by the Apostle.
As he reconsidered the covenant texts of the Tanach, he became
convinced that there was more to the choosing of Israel as the
covenant nation than was popularly held by the Sages. Indeed,
the doctrine of God’s sovereign election is a constant theme in
Paul’s letters.184
If the extant Rabbinic literature gives us the commonly held
position, then we can say that the Sages of Paul’s day believed
that God chose Israel not of His own sovereign choice but because
she deserved to be chosen. For example, in the giving of the Torah
at Sinai, it was a common Rabbinic position that God offered the
Torah to all the nations, but that only Israel was willing to receive
it.185 She was therefore considered worthy to receive the Torah and
to become God’s chosen people. Moreover, the election of Israel is
always national, not individual. The nation as a whole is chosen,
and subsequently everyone born into the nation benefits from
this election. Granted, individuals may be “cut off” for various
reasons,186 but these are few—the majority of Israel is secure on
the basis of their physical lineage.
Romans chapter 9 may give us a hint at the manner in which
the Torah, re-read by Paul after his encounter with Yeshua on
the road to Damascus, refocused his understanding of Israel’s
election. In verses six through 13, Paul derives from the stories of
Abraham and Isaac that God’s election is multi-leveled: it is both
national and individual.
184
cf. Romans 8:33; 11:7; 1Corinthians 1:27, 28; Ephesians 1:4; Philippians
1:22; Colossians 3:12; 2Thessalonians 2:13; 1Timothy 5:21; 2Timothy
2:10; Titus 1:1.
185
Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael on Exodus 20:2 (in the Lauterbach edition
2:234ff); Midrash Rabbah on Exodus 20:1 (Soncino edition, 3:336, where
the voice of God was understood to have spoken in 70 languages,
i.e., all the known languages of the nations); b.Avodah Zarah 2b.
186
m.Sanhedrin 10:1 and b.Sanhedrin 90a list the following for which
an Israelite may lose his place in the world-to-come: denial of the
resurrection, denial of the divine nature of the Torah, one who
espouses Epicurean beliefs, one who studies non-canonical books,
one who attempts to use Scripture to perform acts of magic, and one
who pronounces the Divine name according to its spelling.
91
Chapter 3
His first example is God’s choice of Isaac. Even though Abram
pleads with God that Ishmael should be accepted as the chosen
heir, the Divine election falls upon Isaac. Ishmael is rejected as a
covenant member, and Isaac is chosen.
Likewise, when twins were born to Isaac and Rebekah, even
before their birth (proving that their election was not based upon
their response to God), God had chosen the younger to rule over
the older.187 In this election He gave Jacob a covenant standing
while rejecting Esau.
In combining Micah 1:2-3 with what he had read in Genesis,
Paul came to the conclusion that God’s election of Israel was
an election on two levels: national and individual. While it was
true (as the Sages of his day were saying) that God had chosen
the descendents of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob to be the
covenant nation, it was also true that he had chosen individual
sons of Abraham and Isaac, and that in this individual election
He had determined who would comprise the believing remnant.
Covenant blessings came upon the nation as God’s chosen people
but only election at the individual level would issue in saving
faith in the promised Messiah.
Here was a startling discovery for Paul. All the time the truth
of God’s election of individuals had been there in the Torah for all
to read and understand, but overshadowed by the long-standing
theology of his day, it required the light of Paul’s encounter
with Yeshua for him to see it. So profound was this discovery
that individual election is given much greater reference in Paul’s
epistles than the national election of Israel. Some have even
accused Paul of abandoning a belief in corporate election.188 This
is not the case, for Paul fully accepts the national election of Israel
as the inevitable fruit of the covenant made with the fathers. For
this reason the nation of Israel, though at times a clear enemy of
the gospel, is nonetheless precious to God “for the sake of the
fathers.”189
So we find in Paul’s epistles both a corporate and individual
187
Genesis 25:23, cf. Romans 9:10ff.
188
G. Foot Moore writes regarding Paul’s view of election, “For this
national election Paul and the church substituted an individual
election to eternal life, without regard to race or station.” Judaism
(Harvard, 1927), 2:95.
189
Romans 11:28.
92
election. The corporate election is of Israel as a nation, and only
Israel. No other national entity is chosen by God as His people,190
and no other nation, as a nation, enjoys the promises and blessings
that come with the covenant. Yet within the chosen nation God has
chosen those who would exercise true faith, the faith of Abraham,
and trust in the Messiah for their eternal salvation.
But Paul had come to understand that the Torah never promised
eternal blessings at the national level. Just because someone was
physically connected to the chosen nation did not secure them a
place in the world-to-come. Rather, the status of “righteous” was
to be obtained through the exercise of individual faith in God.
Such saving faith was the inevitable fruit of God’s election at the
individual level. Unbelief (lack of faith) would cause a “breaking
off” of the natural branches. Regrafting could only come through
the exercise of faith, faith in the Promised One of the covenant.
Paul had come to see from his reading of the Tanach that in
every generation of Israel’s history, there existed a remnant of the
chosen nation, made up of elect individuals whose election was
evident by their faith. We may once again presume that Paul had
read 1Kings 19 and the story of Elijah as he sought answers to his
questions, for he uses this passage as proof that within the chosen
nation there was in every generation a sub-group of the elect who,
unlike the nation as a whole, exercised personal faith.191
This theological discovery matched Paul’s own experience
perfectly. No one, least of all Paul, could deny his place in the
chosen nation of Israel. But he had come to understand that this
position offered temporal, not eternal blessings.
As a member of the chosen nation Paul had been blind to the
true meaning of Abrahamic faith, and had not only rejected but
despised the very object of that faith, the Messiah Yeshua. Yet
God’s decisive and sovereign entrance into Paul’s life when he
least expected it was also proof of the divine election of Paul at
the individual level. Stopped in his tracks as he went to persecute
“The Way,” his eyes were opened to see Yeshua. A faith otherwise
outside of his grasp was infused into his soul by the omnipotent
and irresistible grace of the Covenant-Maker Himself.
190
cf. Amos 3:2, “You only have I known (chosen) among all the families
of the earth….” Note also Exodus 19:5-6; Deuteronomy 4:32-37;
Psalm 33:12; 106:5; Isaiah 49:7.
191
Romans 11:2-5.
93
Chapter 3
This “theology of the remnant” would become crucial for
Paul as he formulated his understanding both of God’s national
election of Israel and the outworking of the “new covenant” which
Jeremiah promised upon the end-times nation. This remnant, of
which he had become a part, was marked by the exercise of faith
in the Messiah, something which characterized the remnant in
every generation. Paul understood that his faith was the same as
that of Abraham and David.192 It was the same faith in the same
Object, Messiah Yeshua. Granted, the revelation of Yeshua in
Paul’s time advanced the knowledge of Him considerably, but
saving faith remained the same in every generation. For true faith
accepted the revelation from God that only through the Messiah
could final atonement be realized.
Furthermore, it was the believing remnant in each generation
that carried out the mission of the nation as God intended. Israel
was chosen to be the servant of the Lord, to be His light to the
nations.193 This was accomplished only by those who, through eyes
of faith, trusted in and proclaimed the saving work of Messiah.194
Not only had Paul come to understand both the corporate and
individual aspects of God’s election, he had also come to see from
the reading of the Tanach that God had also chosen some from the
Gentiles to become covenant members. The prophets beginning
with Abraham,195 foresaw the time when all the nations would be
blessed in the Abrahamic covenant.
So impressed was Paul with the clear teaching of the Tanach
about the inclusion of the Gentiles within the Abrahamic covenant
that he identified the covenant phrase “in your seed all the families
of the earth shall be blessed” as the gospel.196 Thus, Paul added
to his “remnant-of-Israel” theology the doctrine of elect Gentiles
who through faith also became members of the covenant remnant.
These believing Gentiles were a foreshadowing of the time when
all the families of the earth would be blessed in Abraham’s Seed,
a phenomenon that Paul believed would provoke the Jewish
nation as a whole to turn in faith to Messiah Yeshua, and thus “all
192
Paul uses Abraham and David as the prime examples of those who
are justified by faith in Messiah, cf. Romans 4.
193
Isaiah 42:6; 49:6; 60:3.
194
Romans 10:4, where “end” (tevlo~, telos) means “goal.”
195
cf. Genesis 20:7.
196
Galatians 3:8.
94
Paul’s Theology: Soteriology & Status
Israel will be saved.”197
Therefore, at the heart of Paul’s soteriology was the elective
work of the Almighty. This occurred both on a corporate or
national level as well as on an individual one, drawing both Jews
and Gentiles into the eternal blessings of the covenant. While
this had been the case throughout the history of his people, Paul
realized that the time of the eschaton had arrived, and that the full
ingathering of the nations was now to be realized. He had come
to believe that God was now ready to gather the nations to His
worship, and that he had been called as a strategic worker in this
harvest. It was the very fact that God had chosen not only Jews
but also Gentiles to become covenant members that enabled Paul
to endure hardship in his gospel endeavors.198
The Issue of Status in Paul’s Soteriology
We are now in a better position to understand one of the

most important phrases in Paul’s doctrine of salvation: “the
righteousness of God.” This very phrase embodies the crux of
Paul’s gospel:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel,199 for it is the power of God

for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also
to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from
faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live
by faith.”200
Here Paul says that “in it,” that is, “in the Gospel” the
“righteousness of God is revealed.” The Gospel is the divinely
ordained mechanism by which the “righteousness of God” is
made known in the world, and thus it is the central message of
the Gospel. But what does “the righteousness of God” mean?
The phrase “the righteousness of God” is found four more
197
Romans 11:26.
198
2Timothy 2:10.
199
The variant in some Greek manuscripts that adds the words “of
Messiah” (tou Cristou, tou Cristou KLP) is late and unattested in
the earlier manuscript evidence. For Paul there was only one gospel,
thus the word itself did not need other modifiers.
200
Romans 1:16-17.
95
Chapter 3
times in Romans,201 and an additional time in 2Corinthians 5:21.
Its importance can be seen in the historical interpretations at the
heart of the division between Roman Catholic and Protestant
theologies.202 As a result of its core position between these major
competing viewpoints, Paul’s teaching of “the righteousness of
God” has (until recently) only been discussed in the context of
historical and systematic theology, and not in light of what Paul
meant by this phrase within the Judaisms of his day. Yet it is clear
that the phrase functions at crucial points in the book of Romans
to define Paul’s gospel. We must consider it against the backdrop
of 1st Century Judaisms, and particularly the situation which
Paul was in, namely, the emergence of Messianic congregations
in which increasing numbers of Gentiles were being added.
In the Rabbinic statement that all of Israel have a place in the
world-to-come, the possession of such a blessing is based upon
Israel’s position as “righteous.” Both in the Tanach as well as in
the Rabbinic literature “righteous” defines a status before God
that attracts His blessing. The opposite status, “unrighteous,”
incurs His wrath. The question is how one obtains the status of
“righteous.”
From a Rabbinic standpoint, one’s initial status of righteous
is the fruit of covenant membership, based upon the merits of
the Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. R. Yochanan says that
the merits of the Patriarchs confer grace.203 The opening prayer
of the Shemonei Esrei referred to in the Rabbinic literature as the
“Blessing of the Patriarchs,” calls God the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, and the blessing describes Him as the One
Who remembers the piety of the Patriarchs, and Who brings a

redeemer to their children’s children for the sake of His Name,
with love.
201
3:5, 21, 22; 10:3.
202
Roman Catholicism considered Paul’s teaching of “justification”
to mean “make righteous” while the Protestant view defined
justification as “reckoned righteous.” For the Catholics, the
“righteousness of God” is earned through becoming righteous in
one’s works, while for the Protestants “the righteousness of God”
was reckoned to the sinner. It could not be earned.
203
b.Shabbat 55a.
96
The obvious implications are that the blessings that come upon
Israel, including the blessing of the coming redeemer, are in some
measure reckoned on the basis of the piety of the Patriarchs.
That a righteous status is understood by the Rabbis to be the
result of covenant membership is likewise shown from changing
the status of the proselyte from “unrighteous” to “righteous” at
the point of the ceremony. Through circumcision, immersion in
a mikvah, and making of sacrifice,204 the proselyte transforms his
status from unrighteous to righteous:
Our Rabbis taught: If at the present time a man desires to become

a proselyte, he is to be addressed as follows: ‘What reason
have you for desiring to become a proselyte; do you not know
that Israel at the present time are persecuted and oppressed,
despised, harassed and overcome by afflictions’? If he replies,
‘I know and yet am unworthy’, he is accepted forthwith, and is
given instruction in some of the minor and some of the major
commandments. He is informed of the sin [of the neglect of the
commandments of] Gleanings, the Forgotten Sheaf, the Corner
and the Poor Man’s Tithe. He is also told of the punishment
for the transgression of the commandments. Furthermore, he
is addressed thus: ‘Be it known to you that before you came to
this condition, if you had eaten suet you would not have been
punishable with kareth, if you had profaned the Sabbath you
would not have been punishable with stoning; but now were
you to eat suet you would be punished with kareth; were you to
profane the Sabbath you would be punished with stoning’. And
as he is informed of the punishment for the transgression of the
commandments, so is he informed of the reward granted for
their fulfillment. He is told, ‘Be it known to you that the world-
to-come was made only for the righteous, and that Israel at the
present time are unable to bear either too much prosperity, or
too much suffering’. He is not, however, to be persuaded or
dissuaded too much. If he accepted, he is circumcised forthwith.
Should any shreds which render the circumcision invalid
remain, he is to be circumcised a second time. As soon as he
is healed arrangements are made for his immediate ablution,
when two learned men must stand by his side and acquaint him
with some of the minor commandments and with some of the
204
The exact requirements for the ritual of the proselyte were debated
among the Rabbis, some saying all three aspects were required,
others saying only the mikvah was required. In the end, the majority
opinion required all three, cf. b.Yevamot 47a–b; cf. n. 178.
97
Chapter 3
major ones. When he comes up after his ablution he is deemed
to be an Israelite in all respects.205
Note that in these instructions to the proselyte a place in the

world-to-come is for the “righteous,” a status he has now
obtained, but which must be maintained through the keeping of
the commandments.
In Rabbinic terms, then, “righteous” describes the status of a
covenant member, of every Israelite. He is righteous because he
is a member of the covenant people, he does not need to become
righteous in order to become a covenant member.
This emphasis upon a status of righteous helps us understand
Paul’s terminology (especially in Romans) when he writes of the
“righteousness of God.” While it is true that the gospel speaks of
the righteous nature of God, it seems better to understand Paul’s
phrase as meaning not that God is Himself righteous, but that
righteousness comes from God.
Consider Romans 1:16-17:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God

for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also
to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from
faith to faith; as it is written, “but the righteous man shall live
by faith.”
What Paul is clearly telling us here is that in the Gospel (“in it, v.
17) the method by which God makes a sinner righteous is made
known.
We may therefore understand Paul’s phrase “the righteousness
of God” against this backdrop, as speaking to the issue of status
and not as describing God’s justice or holiness. Once we are able
to see that Paul’s phrase “the righteousness of God” is speaking of
the method by which God gives a sinner the status of “righteous,”
we see the significance of his use of Habakkuk 2:4, “the righteous
shall live by faith.” The sure sign of a status of righteousness is not
an ethnic association but a life of faith demonstrated in humble
obedience to God.
An interesting discussion among the Rabbis revolved around
condensing the commandments of the Torah into a well defined
representative list. David is credited with summing the 613
205
b.Yevamot 47a.
98
commandments in 11 (Psalm 15), Isaiah in six (Isaiah 33:16-17).
Micah came and reduced them to three [principles], as it is

written (Micah 6:8), It hath been told thee, O man, what is good,
and what the Lord doth require of thee: [i] only to do justly,
and [ii] to love mercy and [iii] to walk humbly before thy God.
‘To do justly,’ that is, maintaining justice; and to love mercy,’
that is, rendering every kind office; ‘and walking humbly before
thy God,’ that is, walking in funeral and bridal processions.
And do not these facts warrant an a fortiori conclusion that if in
matters that are not generally performed in private the Torah
enjoins ‘walking humbly,’ is it not ever so much more requisite
in matters that usually call for modesty?
Again came Isaiah and reduced them to two [principles]
(Isaiah 56:1), as it is said, Thus saith the Lord, [i] Keep ye justice
and [ii] do righteousness [etc.] Amos came and reduced them to
one [principle] (Amos 5:4), as it is said, For thus saith the Lord
unto the house of Israel, Seek ye Me and live. To this R. Nahman
b. Isaac demurred, saying: [Might it not be taken as,] Seek Me
by observing the whole Torah and live? — But it is Habakkuk
who came and based them all on one [principle] (Habakkuk
2:4), as it is said, But the righteous shall live by his faith.206
Here we have an important insight into the use of Habakkuk 2:4 in

the whole discussion of the commandments: that the Sages would
sum all of the commandments in the statement of Habakkuk
emphasizes the obvious fact that all of the commandments are
kept in the realm of faith. The Hebrew of Habakkuk 2:4 should be
understood to mean “It is on the basis of faith that the righteous
one lives.”207 When Paul combines Habakkuk 2:4 with his phrase
206
b.Makkot 24a.
207
‫( וְצ ִַדיק ּבְא ֶמּונ ָתֹו יִח ֶי ְה‬v‘tzadik b’emunato yicheyih) in which the ‫ ב‬functions
to identify the means by which the righteous will live. That Paul is
reading the Hebrew text and not the Lxx is obvious from the fact that
he quotes the text as the Hebrew has it, not as the Lxx has changed it:
oJ de; divkaio~ ejk pivstewv~ mou zhvsetai (de dikaios ek pisteos mou zesetai)
“but the righteous will live by my faithfulness” (cf. also Galatians
3:11). Thus, Paul understands the construction of the Hebrew text
to be teaching that Israel, soon to be defeated by her enemies, has
the choice of relying upon herself (proud, puffed up) or trusting in
God. The one who is righteous will trust in God. Out of this trust the
righteous one will live, that is, be preserved. The text clearly teaches
that the one who is righteous lives on the basis of faith. Faith is the
99
Chapter 3
“the righteousness of God”208 he is making the clear statement
that the righteous status of a covenant member is obtained through
faith. In other words, the “righteousness of God” is a short-hand
way of saying “the righteousness which comes from God,” or
“the method God has ordained to grant a sinner the status of
righteous.” This method is centered upon the exercise of faith, as
Habakkuk said.
But for Paul, the words “righteous” or “righteousness” (‫צ ִַדיק‬,
zadik, dikaiosuvnh, dikaiosune) do not describe an idea or ideal (as
they would in Greek) but rather the character of holiness within the
confines of a relationship—in this case, the relationship of sinner
with God as well as with man. Paul contrasts the “righteousness
of God” revealed in the gospel with the wrath of God that is
revealed against all unrighteousness.209 Even as the gospel tells of
the means by which God declares sinners righteous (i.e., faith in
Messiah Yeshua), so the exercise of this faith transforms the life of
the sinner to live righteously—to live out the righteous standards
of God’s Torah.210 Entrance into the covenant (which ascribes the
status of righteous) also brings an enablement to live within the
guidelines of that covenant—“to live sensibly, righteously and
godly in the present age.”211
Thus, not only do covenant members obtain the status of
“righteous” before God, but their status before God also affects
their lives upon the earth. For Paul, the actions of covenant
members, their “walk,” is characterized as “righteous.” Likewise,
the sinful deeds of the unrighteous prove that they are outside the
covenant and therefore under God’s wrath. For Paul, the gospel
does double duty: it reveals the “righteousness of God” (the
method by which He declares sinners righteous) as well as the
“wrath of God” (His willingness to punish those who disregard
His commandments).
means by which the righteous draw near to God and find in Him a
safe refuge. That Genesis 15:6 utilizes the same two roots (‫צדק‬, tzadak
[righteous] and ‫אמן‬, ‘aman [faith, believe]) most likely links the two
texts and certainly did in the mind of the Apostle Paul.
208
Romans 1:17.
209
Romans 1:17-18.
210
Romans 8:1-4.
211
Titus 2:12.
100
Paul’s Theology: Gentiles
In short, the gospel message reveals God’s ordained plan for
making sinners righteous. This plan rests fully upon the work
Yeshua accomplished in His death, resurrection, ascension, and
intercession, and the application of this work to the souls of the
elect by the Holy Spirit.
Whether Jew or Greek, the only “status” that brings one into
a righteous standing before God is the status of “in Messiah.”
Any one who is “in Messiah” stands uncondemned before the
Almighty.212
Paul, Gentiles, and Proselytes
We can now begin to understand how Paul’s perspective changed

regarding covenant status, and especially the manner by which
Gentiles could be admitted into the covenant. This perspective
was a challenge to his contemporaries, and a thorn in the flesh to
the established authorities.
Why was there need for change? Was not Israel’s history
replete with examples of Gentiles who had converted through
the ritual of the proselyte and become full-fledged members of
the Israelite nation? Why had Paul felt the need to teach contrary
to the accepted norms? As the Apostle to the Gentiles, why would
he not simply ask them to convert, to become proselytes?
Gentiles in Rabbinic Literature
The position of the Sages toward the Gentiles is mixed. The

extreme on the one hand is to deny any possible blessings to the
“heathen” and to assign them a place far below any Jew.213 On
the other hand, such inclusive language is found which ascribes
to the Gentile who studies Torah the status of High Priest!214 In
general, however, it seems a well accepted fact that the nations
were viewed by the Judaisms of the 1st Century as enemies at
worst and a nuisance at best.
212
Romans 8:1.
213
cf. b.Sanhedrin 59a, which considers a heathen who studies Torah to
be worthy of death. This, of course, is an extreme viewpoint that is
offset by equally gracious statements toward the heathen in other
places.
214
Sifra 86a; b.Bava Kama 38a.
101
Chapter 3
In the Rabbinic literature three terms are used commonly to
depict the Gentile: idolaters, the wicked, and the enemies of Israel.
The term “enemies of God” is used as a synonym for all three.215 In
the Rabbinic literature only two kinds of Gentiles exist: those who
are idolators, and those who become proselytes by disassociating
themselves from their Gentile status and becoming Jewish. A
third class, the so-called “God-fearer” (fobouvmenoi/sebovmenoi to;n
qeovn, phoboumenoi/seboumenoi ton theon), while described in ancient
sources as well as the Apostolic Writings, is not recognized as valid
in Rabbinic halachah nor in the mishnaic or talmudic literature. As
far as the Rabbinic teachings are concerned, a Gentile is either a
heathen or has converted and is no longer a Gentile.216
Of course, God-fearers were allowed into the community to a
certain extent and were even appreciated for their contributions.
Still, God-fearers were considered as on their way to becoming
proselytes, and were admitted into the community with this in
mind. Acts 13:43 combines the two ideas:
Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many
of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and
Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue
in the grace of God.
Here we should understand the phrase “God-fearing proselytes”

as meaning “God-fearers who had become proselytes” or who
were in the process of becoming proselytes.
The fact that so-called “God-fearers” may have been Gentiles
in the process of becoming proselytes may help explain why the
terms for “God-fearers” or “sympathizers” are used for proselytes.
This phenomenon has led some to the position that there was
no technical class of “God-fearers” in the 1st Century but that
215
C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology (Schocken,
1974), 556; cf. b.Beitzah 16a; b.Ketuvot 13b-15a; b.B’rachot 28a; b.Yoma
75b.
216
“It may, therefore, be said at the outset that Jewish law knows no
semi-proselytes, nor any other kind of proselytes than such as have,
by circumcision and baptism, not only become members of the
Jewish church but have naturalized in the Jewish nation. . . .” Moore,
Judaism, 1:326.
102
the term “God-fearer” is synonymous with “proselyte.”217 Still,
considering all the evidence, the Gentiles who were sympathetic
to the synagogue and even worshiped there but did not undergo
a proselyte conversion were known as “God-fearers.” They
most likely existed as a well-defined group within the Jewish
community.218
The reason for such an “in-between” group seems fairly clear
from history. Jews were exempt from the worship of the Roman
gods, and did not come into conflict with the Roman government
over the issue of veneration for the pagan gods, including the
Emperor. But converts, particularly Roman citizens who became
proselytes, were not afforded such an exemption. If they failed to
show loyalty to the state’s gods, they could be charged with the
crime of “atheism.” What is more, Rome took a low view of those
who were charged with double loyalties. It may have been more
prudent to remain in a kind of “in-between” status rather than
making a full declaration of conversion.219
The position of the convert is clear from the Rabbinic literature:
“A proselyte who embraces Judaism is like a new-born child.”220
This “born again” status effected two things, at least from a legal
standpoint: 1) sins and actions done before becoming a convert
were no longer a factor, and 2) the status of the convert was equal
with that of the native-born. In other words:

all former sins are done away by conversion and reception
into the Jewish religious community through circumcision and
baptism.221
Though this was the status of the proselyte in theory, in practice

it seems that the convert filled yet another class in the hierarchy
217
Louis Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, 1993),
342-3.
218
After reviewing all the evidence in depth, Feldman concludes that
“…there was a special class, at least at the time of the inscriptions
[Aphrodisias inscriptions], known as qeosebei`~ (theosebeis) because
this group is clearly identified as such, in contrast to proselytes and
to those presumed to be born Jews.” Feldman, ibid., 367.
219
Feldman, ibid., 381-2.
220
b.Yevamot 48b.
221
Moore, Judaism, 1:335.
103
Chapter 3
of ancient Judaism. To Priest, Levite, and Israelite was added a
fourth class, Proselyte.222 In yet another text, the proselyte has a
status below all, save the heathen slave who has been circumcised
by his master and emancipated.223 There even existed a debate
as to whether the proselyte could pray the phrase “God of our
fathers” in the opening Amidah prayer of the synagogue liturgy,224
since Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not the actual fathers of the
proselyte. In one notice, proselytes even delay the coming of the
Messiah.225
On the other hand, there is ample evidence that many of the
Sages attributed full privileges to the proselyte and accepted
him graciously. Abraham was considered the first proselyte, and
thus all true proselytes followed in his footsteps.226 In the final
analysis, the majority were in agreement that the proselyte should
be counted as a full-fledged member of the nation, and acquired
both the privileges and responsibilities of the native born.
Paul’s New Perspective on Gentiles
Paul’s rereading of the Torah after his Damascus Road

experience brought new light to the issue of the proselyte. If
Abraham were the first proselyte, he stood forever as the model
for the rest. What caught Paul’s attention was the fact that
Abraham had been blessed as a covenant member before he was
circumcised.227 Since in Paul’s day “circumcision” was a short-
hand way of saying “Jewish,” Paul now realized that Abraham
had become a covenant member as a non-Jew—he had attained
222
t. Kiddushin 5, 1; note also the 13th benediction of the Shemonei Esrei,
“Upon the righteous, upon the pious, upon the elders of Your people
the House of Israel, upon the remnant of their scholars, upon the
righteous proselytes (‫גִֵרי הַצ ֶֶדק‬, gerei hatzedek) and upon us, may Your
mercy be arousedְ….”
223
m. Horayot 3:8; Gemara is in b.Horayot 13a.
224
m.Bikkurim 1.4. “Rambam, however, insists that there should be no
discrimination against a proselyte at all: he considers every proselyte
a spiritual descendant of Abraham.” Philip Blackman, Mishnaot , 7
vols. (Judaica Press, 1983), 1.469.
225
b.Nidah 13b.
226
b.Sukkah 49b; b.Chagigah 3a.
227
Romans 4:9-12.
104
the status of covenant member by faith, not by the ritual of the
proselyte. If this were true for Abraham, it was also true for all
Gentiles who exercised faith in the Messiah Yeshua. Even Yeshua
Himself spoke of Abraham as having seen Him:
“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and

was glad.”228
Since this saying of Yeshua’s caused such consternation among

His enemies, it may well be that Paul knew of it. Once he began
to reread the Torah after his Damascus Road experience, Paul
understood Abraham’s faith to have been directed toward Yeshua.
In this way Abraham was a model for the “uncircumcised” as
well as the “circumcised.”229 Abraham’s story proved that God’s
election, confirmed by the individual’s faith, was the path to
covenant status for the Gentile. This fact would be foundational
for Paul as he labored to preach the gospel among the Gentiles.
Paul had come to realize that attributing a status of “righteous”
on the basis of a proselyte ceremony constituted an attempt to
gain righteousness by one’s own efforts. But such a teaching
overlooked an essential element that the Torah emphasized in the
scope of Abraham’s covenant status, namely, that his covenant
status preceded his circumcision. His “righteous” status was on
the basis of faith, not on becoming a proselyte. For if Abraham,
God’s chosen, had “believed God and it was accounted to him for
righteousness,” then the initial message of the Gospel to the elect
must be one of faith, not ritual.
But this message of the Gospel which centered upon the
exercise of faith in Messiah in no way diminished nor negated
the Torah. To Paul’s antagonists, the position that a Gentile could
become a covenant member without being circumcised sounded
as though the Torah had been ignored. In reality Paul was restoring
the Torah’s message of salvation by faith. He understood that a
Gentile who thought he could actually gain right standing with
God through becoming a proselyte was trusting in something
that could never actually save him. He may feel content in his
new social status as a “Jew,” but before the bar of God’s justice he
was still counted as unrighteous.
228
John 8:56.
229
Romans 4:11-12.
105
Chapter 3
Paul realized, then, that he would need to take a very hard-
line approach toward Gentiles who were being persuaded that
becoming a proselyte gained them salvation. In their ill-founded
confidence, such Gentiles were doomed. Thus, denying a Gentile
the ritual of a proselyte (circumcision) must be read in this context,
and not as a negation of Torah. Paul needed to teach the Gentiles
that the first step in their conversion was one of genuine faith
in Messiah. Only after they understood that their righteousness
was reckoned to them and not earned were they in a position to
appreciate both the value and necessity of Torah-obedience.
Once again, Abraham becomes the example, for his faith
was evidenced by his obedience. God’s sovereign choosing had
brought Abraham to the covenant, and his faith in God had sealed
his membership in it. But as a chosen covenant member, Abraham
obeyed God and circumcised both himself and all the males of his
household.230 For Paul the order of events was crucial: faith comes
first (gaining the status of covenant member), then obedience to
God’s commandments (living as a covenant member).
This order was no doubt emphasized in Paul’s mind by the
arrangement of the covenants as well.231 The Abrahamic covenant
precedes the Mosaic covenant. But what is the significance of
this order? For Paul it was that justification, i.e., right standing
before God (emphasized in the Abrahamic covenant and the faith
it requires) comes before sanctification, i.e., being set apart unto
God in one’s actions (the emphasis of the Mosaic covenant with
its required obedience). Redemption (the exodus from Egypt)
comes first and then Torah (standing at Sinai).
To suggest that the ritual of circumcision is the gateway to
right standing with God is to teach that Sinai (submission to
Torah) precedes the exodus, or that the Mosaic covenant comes
before God’s promise to Abraham. It reverses the biblical order
and is contrary to Torah. This was crucial for Paul. The gospel he
preached was the same gospel given to Abraham,232 a gospel which
first centers upon the blessings in Messiah (appropriated through
faith) and then effects radical changes in one’s life (accomplished
through obedience).
That Paul was not against circumcision for Gentiles is proven
230
Genesis 17:23-27.
231
Note Galatians 3:17.
232
Galatians 3:8
106
by his having Timothy circumcised. In first century halachah, it is
doubtful that Timothy would have been considered Jewish. The
Mishnah233 indicates that Jewish lineage could only be determined
in marriages ruled valid. The “marriage” of a Jewish woman to
a Gentile would not be considered valid, and thus the children
from such a union would not be considered Jewish.234 The only
exception would be if the husband were a proselyte.
The primary text on the issue of Timothy being circumcised is
Acts 16:1-3:
And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And behold, a certain

disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman
who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, and he was well
spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium.
Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and
circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts,
for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
That Timothy’s father was not a proselyte is clear from the

statement that he was known as a Greek. Note also 2Timothy
1:5:
For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you [Timothy],

which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois, and your mother
Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well.
Paul speaks of Timothy’s grandmother and mother, but does not

mention his father as the source of his training in the Scriptures.
This hints strongly that Timothy’s Greek father was not a “God-
fearer” and that his religious training was done by his mother.
What exactly was Timothy’s status within the Jewish
community of his day? Most likely, he was considered a Greek.
Is Timothy an example of a non-Jew who, for reasons unknown
to us but acceptable to Paul, underwent circumcision as the
appropriate measure for a Torah submissive Gentile? Is it possible
that Paul was convinced of Timothy’s genuine understanding of
233
m.Kiddushin 3:12f.
234
Shaye J. D. Cohen [“Was Timothy Jewish? (Acts 16:1-3),” JBL 105/2
(1986) 251-268] presents conclusive evidence that Timothy would
not have been considered Jewish by the halachic authorities of Paul’s
day.
107
Chapter 3
justification by faith alone, so much so that receiving circumcision
was permissible as a Torah observant act without any sense of
gaining status with God?
Often when Paul speaks of “circumcision” he is not referring
to the physical act of cutting per se, but of the entire ritual by
which a non-Jew became a Jew according to Rabbinic standards.
As such, what he prohibits in a text like 1Corinthians 7:18-19 is
the idea that one needs to change his social status to enter the
covenant.
Was any man called already circumcised? Let him not become
uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision?
Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and
uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of
the commandments of God.
Paul did not want Gentiles to think they needed to become Jews
nor that they even could become Jews. Neither did he want Jews
to think that they needed to cease being Jews nor that they could.
Paul expects both Jew and Gentile to keep the commandments. It
seems very possible, then, that Paul would have had no problem
with a Gentile remaining a Gentile, yet being circumcised. What
he would never allow was a Gentile undergoing the Rabbinic
ritual of a proselyte with the notion that such a ceremony would
gain him the status of “righteous.” This was surely “another
gospel” and to Paul anathema.

Summary
Paul, based upon his understanding of the Tanach, taught the

sinfulness of mankind regardless of ethnic status. Since there was
none who did good and all had sinned, all were unrighteous and
therefore all were in need of redemption. Such redemption could
only be given, for one could never effect one’s own redemption
nor could ethnic status guarantee it.
It was rather through God’s own selection that people were
brought near to Him and redeemed through His divine means.
Seeing an election on both a corporate as well as an individual level,
Paul realized that eternal salvation was granted to the individual,
not the group. While national election secured blessings for this
world, only individual election that secured individual faith in
108
Paul’s Theology: Ecclesiology
the Messiah through the working of God’s grace could gain a
place in the world-to-come.
The gospel, then, for Paul was that God was continuing in
faithfulness to the promise He had made to the Fathers, a promise
that included the ingathering of the Gentiles—a promise which
was in all ways centered upon Yeshua. Through the proclamation
of Yeshua as Messiah, the elect would be gathered, Israel would
be provoked to jealousy, and God’s eternal plan to save His people
would be realized.
3.7 Paul’s Ecclesiology235

Why Did Paul Use the Word “Church”?
The picture we have seen of Paul is one of a Torah-obedient Jew

whose mission to the Gentiles was shaped by his understanding
of the Torah in light of the Messiah Yeshua. His faith-community
was that of the synagogue. The Christian church as we know it
today did not exist in Paul’s time.
But if what I have indicated so far is true, it is valid to ask why
Paul uses the term “church” (Greek ejkklhsiva, ekklesia) instead of
“synagogue” or “place of prayer.”236 The word “synagogue” is
found 34 times in the Gospels, 19 times in Acts, once in James, and
twice in the Revelation. But is conspicuously missing in Paul’s
writings.
We must understand that the English word “church” is not
a good translation of the Greek word ekklesia. While there exists
an ongoing debate about the derivation of the English word
“church,”237 the scholarly consensus is that it derives from the
Greek ku`riakov~ (kuriakos) meaning “of the Lord.”238 Its early use
235
“Ecclesiology” is that sub-division of theology which deals with the
doctrines of the “church” or the body of Messiah.
236
The Greek word for prayer, proseuchv (proseuche) was the word used
most regularly of the building or structure where a “synagogue”
(gathering of people) met for study (cf. Acts 16:13, 16). cf. Levine,
The Ancient Synagogue, 127.
237
See the comments in The Oxford English Dictionary, 12 vols. (Compact
Edition, 1971), ad. loc., “church” 2.402-403.
238
Note the Latin dominicum from which we derive the English
“dominical.”
109
Chapter 3
referred to things belonging to the Lord (the “Day of the Lord” or
the “Table of the Lord”).239 Eventually, by the 3rd or 4th Centuries
CE, the word was applied to a “church” building as “belonging
to the Lord” and thus a sacred place.240 This may be seen in
Eusebius (4th Cenury CE), who notes that the Christians were
given permission “to build churches” (kuriaka;).241
But the apostolic use of the word ekklesia did not connote
such things. Rather, ekklesia simply meant “a gathering,” or “an
assembly of people for a common purpose.”242 In fact, since
Rome recognized and gave exemptions from Roman worship
(including veneration of the Emperor) to the synagogue but did
not do so to any other “religion,”243 for the followers of Yeshua
to emerge as a “new religion” would have met with stern and
immediate reprisals by the prevailing government. That they
did not, but gathered without fear of Roman invasion into their
meetings, shows that as far as Rome was concerned, the people of
“The Way” fell under the general heading of “Jewish” and thus
were afforded the same exemptions given to the wider Jewish
community.
The use of the word ekklesia in the Apostolic Writings is
instructive. While it is found twice in Matthew, it is entirely
absent in all of the other gospels. Its absence is also notable in
239
1Corinthians 11:20; Revelation 1:10.
240
See “ekklhsia” in TDNT, 3.531–32, n. 92; P Oxy VI. 90319 has ajpelqou`sa
[eij]~ to; kuriako;n ejn Sambaqwv, “when I had gone out to the church
at Sambatho” (MM, 364). The idea that the English word “church”
has its derivation from Old English or Middle English “Circe,” a
sorceress in Greek mythology, has no basis whatsoever, as the entry
in the Oxford English Dictionary (op. cit.) makes clear. It is a pity that
such nonsense is foisted upon God’s people as, for example, in Lew
White, Fossilized Customs (2000), 100.
241
Ecc Hist 9.10, kai; ejpiskeuavzein kuriaka; ejpitrevpontai, “he gave
permission to build churches.”.
242
BDAG,ad. loc., 303–04, where “a regularly summoned legislative
body, assembly” is the first meaning given.
243
The decrees of Caesar exempting the Jewish community from
required Emperor worship, and allowing their assembly (collegia) as
well as the right to gather money and set up their own courts, are
preserved for us by Josephus (Antiq. 14.10.1-8. 185-216). cf. Harry J.
Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (JPS, 1960), 9ff.
110
both the first and second epistle of Peter.244 In contrast, all but two
of Paul’s epistles contain the word, and it is found 20 times in
Revelation. Interestingly, James uses the word “synagogue” for
the Messianic congregation yet instructs those who are sick to call
the elders of the “ekklesia.”245 Apparently the two words are used
synonymously in the epistle of James.
What is more, the Lxx had used ekklesia as well as sunagoge
to translate ‫( ַקה ַל‬kahal), the word often used to designate the
“congregation” of Israel. A second Hebrew word, ‫עֵד ָה‬, ‘eidah,
also used to describe the “congregation,” is always translated
by sunagoge or other Greek terms, but never by ekklesia. While
kahal and ‘eidah are generally synonymous in meaning,246 often
kahal refers to the more formal representation of the community.
Conversely, ‘eidah refers to the group as an informal assembly.247
Kee has shown that there was a hesitancy in Jewish
communities near Jerusalem to use the label proseuche (“place of
prayer”) as a designation for the synagogue because they did not
want to detract from the centrality of the Temple.248 Since ‘eidah
(“congregation”) of the Tanach denoted the community in general
and, when speaking of the congregation was always translated by
sunagoge, it was natural for groups that formed for study outside
of the Temple to adopt the term. As the diaspora continued,
however, the synagogue was no longer the informal assembly,
but took upon itself the formal status previously ascribed only
to the Temple.249 The greater importance the synagogue had in
the diaspora and its ultimate importance after the destruction
of the Temple caused the term sunagoge to eventually denote the
244
The fact that ejkklhsiva (ekklesia) is not found in either of John’s epistles
may be discounted by its presence in 3 John. The same may be said
of 2Timothy, for the word does appear in 1Timothy. That it does not
appear in Jude may simply be a matter of statistical probability in
light of its brevity.
245
James 2:2, cp. 5:14.
246
cf. Numbers 16:13; Proverbs 5:14.
247
Jack P. Lewis, ‫ קהל‬in TWOT, 2.790; Robert B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of
the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 1973), 231.
248
Howard Clark Kee, “The Transformation of the Synagogue After 70
CE: Its Import for Early Christianity,” NTS 36 (1990), 6.
249
cf. Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: the First Thousand Years (Yale,
2000), 186ff.
111
Chapter 3
building more than the assembly.
That Rabbinic Judaism very early formulated the synagogue
as a reminder of the Temple (both in function and liturgy) may
account for the use of ekklesia by the Messianics instead of sunagoge.
If especially in the diaspora sunagoge represented formal, Rabbinic
Judaism as an interim expression of the Temple, it may not have
fit the Messianic congregations. For while there was a true desire
and hope for the rebuilding of the Temple among the Messianics,
the present reign of Yeshua at the right hand of the Father, as
well as the dwelling of the Spirit in each believer, constituted the
Messianic congregation as the people of God in a specific way.
The spiritual vigor of the 1st Century Temple, on the other
hand, had diminished under the self-indulgence of the Sadducees,
and thus failed to function as the place where God’s presence was
manifest and revealed to the people. For the followers of Yeshua,
there was not a strong need to duplicate the “sacred space” of
the Temple that Yeshua Himself had dubbed a “den of robbers.”250
Like the congregation of Israel in the wilderness, the Messianics
awaited the rebuilding of the Temple at the return of Yeshua,
and therefore saw themselves as journeying toward that reality,
but not yet there.251 As such, the word most often used for the
“congregation of Israel” in the Torah, kahal, was attractive. And,
since both ekklesia and sunagoge had been used throughout the
Lxx to translate kahal, “congregation,” ekklesia was a valid label
for the emerging synagogue of “The Way.”
That ekklesia and sunagoge may have been viewed as near
synonyms is also confirmed by the manner in which the verb ‫כ ָנ ַס‬,
kanas, “to gather,” is translated in the Lxx. This verb formed the
basis for the Rabbinic designation ‫ּב ֵית הַּכ ַנֶס ֶת‬, beit hakaneset, (literally
“the house of gathering,” ‫ׁשת ָא‬ְ ‫ּכ ְנ ִי‬, k’nista’ in Aramaic) to denote a
“synagogue,” and is used throughout the Mishnah. Though kanas
is usually translated in the Lxx by sunegogein, once it is translated
250
Mark 11:17.
251
It seems quite possible that the view of the Jerusalem Temple held
by the Qumran society (i.e., that it was not what it should be owing
to illict practices by the ruling Sadducees) is somewhat reflected in
the early Messianic groups as well. The hope for a soon return of
Messiah and rebuilding of the Temple with its proper worship is also
a common theme.
112
by ekklesiazo (Esther 4:16) showing the two roots could function as
synonyms.
Another reason the term ekklesia was a natural label for the
followers of Yeshua was that the term had been used to translate
His declaration to build His k’helah or congregation.
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will
build My ekklesia; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower
it.252
And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the ekklesia; and if

he refuses to listen even to the ekklesia, let him be to you as a
Gentile and a tax-gatherer.253
We cannot be certain what Semitic term Yeshua used in the sayings

recorded by Matthew, but it was most likely either the Hebrew
‫( ְקהֵל ָה‬k’helah) or the Aramaic ‫ׂשת ָא‬
ְ ‫( ּכ ְנ ִי‬k’nista’). In either case, the
Greek translation chose ekklesia, no doubt based upon its use in
the Lxx, and thus emphasizing inclusion of Yeshua’s followers
within the “congregation of Israel.”
Therefore, as difficult as it may be for us to read the word
“church” in our English Bibles with this meaning, we must
understand that its use in the Apostolic Scriptures, and
particularly in Paul’s letters, denotes a sect within the larger
Jewish community, not something outside of it. The fact that Paul
uses ekklesia exclusively may highlight doctrinal distinctions but
also indicates that he considered the congregations he founded as
part of the larger “congregation of Israel.” In fact, Paul envisioned
the time when all of Israel would espouse the truth of Messiah—
the remnant would one day become the majority.
In our day the word “church” is a technical term denoting a
religion which has either replaced or is opposed to the Synagogue.
When we read our English translations and find in them the word
“church,” our natural inclination is to presume that the Apostles,
and particularly Paul, were instrumental in beginning something
that stands outside of the “congregation of Israel,” something
with its own institutions, practices, beliefs, and rewards.
Such a reading will always result in a misinterpretation of
252
Matthew 16:18.
253
Matthew 18:17.
113
Chapter 3
what the biblical authors were saying. We must read the Apostolic
Scriptures and the word “church” in them without importing
into the word the modern nuances of a religion opposed to the
Synagogue.
Many congregations who are returning to an awareness of
their connection to the People, Land, and Scriptures of Israel, are
seeking to find alternate translations for ekklesia, “church.”254 This
should not be construed as an attempt to distance themselves
from others who also claim Yeshua as Messiah, but as a concerted
effort to recover the Apostolic meaning behind the term ekklesia, to
find a term which emphasizes rather than diminishes continuity
to the historic people of God.
Yeshua as the Head of the Congregation
In an overview of Paul’s theology, it is impossible to miss

the emphasis he puts upon the headship of Yeshua over the
community of believers. He regularly refers to the congregation
of believers as the “body”255 with Messiah as the “head.”256 For
example:
He [Yeshua] is also head of the body, the church [ekklesia]; and

He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He
Himself might come to have first place in everything.257
What did Paul intend for us to understand by his using

the body/head metaphor, and what does this tell us about his
ecclesiology?
First, we should realize that from a Hebrew perspective, the
head does not denote one’s intellect or thinking abilities. Rather,
the heart was the locus of one’s thinking and decision making.258
254
David Stern, in his Jewish New Testament (JNTP, 1991), uses
“community,” “congregation,” and “Messianic community/
congregation” to translate the Greek ejkklhsiva, ekklesia.
255
Romans 12:4; 1Corinthians 10:16; 12:12-27; Ephesians 1:23; 2:16; 3:6;
4:4, 12; 5:23, 30; Colossians 1:18, 24; 2:19; 3:15
256
Ephesians 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Colossians 1:18; 2:19..
257
Colossians 1:18.
258
See the comments of Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old
Testament (SCM, 1976), 46-58.
114
This is particularly clear in the Wisdom and Poetic books of the
Tanach:
Then he taught me and said to me, “Let your heart hold fast my
words; Keep my commandments and live; 259
Wisdom rests in the heart of one who has understanding, But in
the bosom of fools it is made known.260
The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, But the
mouth of the wicked pours out evil things.261
Tremble, and do not sin; Meditate in your heart upon your bed,
and be still. Selah. 262
It seems as though the head was simply considered the source of

life energy, and symbolic of one’s whole being.263 Thus, the head is
anointed as a symbolic anointing of one’s entire life. To “lift one’s
head” could mean either to have one’s life exalted or to have one’s
life taken.264 Military victory was often finalized by decapitation
of the prime enemy. David severed the head of Goliath, Saul was
decapitated by his enemies, as was his son Ishboshet, and John
the Baptizer met with the same form of death.
Therefore, when Yeshua is called the “head,” Paul is using
the word for “authority over,” “leader,” or “source of life.” Such
language was common within Hebrew thought. The principle
position of authority in a given hierarchy was called the “Rosh”
or “head.”265 Thus, when Paul calls Yeshua the “Rosh” of the
congregation, he is referring to His exalted place of authority,
emphasizing that it is His life that is the life of the congregation.
If ever He ceased to be the Head over the body, His life would
cease to flow into the congregation and she would no longer
“live” as His body. He is the final authority, the One who leads
the congregation, and the One upon whom the congregation
259
Proverbs 4:4.
260
Proverbs 14:33.
261
Proverbs 15:28
262
Psalm 4:4.
263
“Head” in Ryken, Wilhoit, Longman, eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery
(IVP, 1998), 367-8.
264
Note the play on the phrase “head will be lifted” in the Joseph
narrative, Genesis 40:13, 19, where the cup bearer is returned to his
position (exalted) while the baker is executed (life taken)..
265
Jastrow, “‫”ראש‬, Dictionary of the Talmud, 1437.
115
Chapter 3
constantly focuses. Indeed, it is His life which is lived out by the
body which is the congregation.
For Paul, the very purpose of the congregation’s existence was
this living out of the life of Messiah Yeshua. The congregation could
not exist for herself, nor for her own agenda—she existed to be
the means of Yeshua’s life being lived out or demonstrated for all
to see. Indeed, the life of Yeshua within the congregation nurtures
and nourishes the lives of all who are a part. If ever the centrality
of the life of Yeshua is eclipsed by other things, regardless of their
importance, the congregation has lost her primary mission.266
The “Headship” of Yeshua, then, became the lens through
which Paul formulated all of the apostolic halachah for the fledgling
Messianic community. Marriages within the congregation were
to reflect this greater reality.267 Since the congregation belonged to
Messiah, leaders were to function as submitting to Him, and were
to shepherd the people as those who belonged to Him.268 They
were not to build their own “kingdom” but to serve the King in
building His kingdom.
Interestingly, there is not one example in all of the Apostolic
Scriptures of a congregation having only one man as the
congregational leader. Paul’s practice was to ordain a plurality of
leaders (“elders”) in each congregation.269 This plurality of leaders
was characteristic of the Jewish community in general and in the
synagogue specifically.
Levine270 has shown that “there was not fixed nomenclature
for synagogue leadership throughout the Jewish world of
antiquity.” Titles differ from region to region. The most often
encountered title is archisunagogos (ajrcisunavgwgo~) whose role
spanned a wide variety of responsibilities. Other titles included
the “priest” (iJereuv~, hiereus = ‫ּכֹה ֵן‬, cohen),271 archon (a[rcwn), pater
266
Ephesians 4:11ff.
267
Ephesians 5:23–25..
268
Acts 20:28.
269
Acts 14:23, note the plural “elders” in every (singular) “church.”
270
Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: the First Thousand Years (Yale,
2000), 426, a summary of chapter. 11. This magisterial work will
doubtlessly be held as the definitive work in the history of the
ancient synagogue.
271
In the 1st Century inscriptions, archisunagogos and priest are the two
most frequently mentioned officials in the synagogue, Levine, Ibid.,
116
sunagoges (path;r sunavgwgo~), mater sunagoges (math;r sunavgwgo~),
presbuteros = “elder” (presbuvtero~ = ‫זֵָקן‬, zaken), grammateus
(grammateuv~, a “scribe” or “clerk”), chazzan (uJphrevth~ = ‫ח ָז ָן‬, chazan,
an office that took on many functions, including liturgical leader,
general moderator at public meetings, keeper of the scrolls and
one who officiated over the public reading of the Scriptures, etc.),
and sofer (‫סֹופ ֶר‬, sofer = “scribe” but usually “schoolteacher” in the
rabbinic literature and ranked just above the chazzanim272). There
were minor officials including shammashim (diavkono~, diakonos =
“deacon” = ‫ׁשּמָׁש‬ ַ , shamash) and batlanim (‫ּבַטְל ָנ ִים‬, we may speculate
these were independently wealthy people who were always at
the synagogue to assure a minyan for prayers). There were also
independent teachers or rabbis within the synagogue community
who possessed de facto authority.273
While unambiguous and firm descriptions of each of these
offices eludes the modern historian (though general descriptions
are possible274), the data does support the clear and persuasive
conclusion that the ancient synagogue functioned with a group of
leaders and officials and not one leader who was looked to as the
ultimate congregational authority. Such an office, which emerged
in the later Christian Church under the title “bishop” (ejpivskopo~,
episkopos) has no precedent in the 1st Century synagogue. The
modern synagogue, with its single Rabbi, actually follows the
125.
272
m.Sotah 9:15; b.Sotah 49a-b.
273
There have been those who have considered the nasi (‫ )נָשִׂיא‬to be a
synagogue official (Ron Moseley, Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus
and the Original Church [Messianic Jewish Pub., 1996], 9) but this
is in error (See Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 429-39). The nasi
was a community official overseeing the community at large, and
particularly as the official representative to the Roman government.
Since a great many communal activities occurred in connection with
the synagogue, the nasi is often found in that context, but his rôle
was specifically community oriented, not as an official of a given
synagogue as far as the extant data is concerned. That the nasi rose
in power in the 3rd and 4th Centuries CE is clear, but this follows
the rise of the bishop in the Christian Church and does not reflect an
ancient office in the synagogue.
274
See Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 387–428.
117
Chapter 3
pattern of the later Church than the ancient synagogue.
Secondly, the metaphor of the “body” is Hebraic in that the
body is the essential representation of the whole person. This
metaphoric use was no doubt linked to the words of Yeshua at His
final Pesach, “This is my body [whole person—given] for you.”275
Since the body is made up of many members, the metaphor
likewise emphasized the importance of each individual within
the congregation as a necessary part to the proper functioning of
the whole.
But speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects

into Him, who is the head, even Messiah, from whom the whole
body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint
supplies, according to the proper working of each individual
part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself
in love. 276
This reflects the Pharisaic training of Paul, for the Pharisees were
the sect of the masses. Consider the lessons Paul learned as he, a
Pharisee, worshiped in the Temple controlled (by and large) by
the Sadducees. This sect of the aristocracy had made the Temple a
means for their own gain. In so doing they had effectively removed
the ability for the common man to worship there on a regular
basis. Yeshua Himself, in righteous anger, cleared the money
changers from the Temple court for the same reason. Apparently,
one of the reasons that the Qumran society left Jerusalem was
because they considered the priests and the Temple corrupt.
The Messianic community was not to be modeled after the
hierarchical leadership that controlled the Temple. Each member
of the body was to accept the responsibilities of his position
within the covenant, and was to serve the whole in obedience to
Yeshua. Authority vested in qualified leaders was to be lived out
in the spirit of humility and servanthood. In this way, the life of
the Messianic congregation would reflect the life of her Messiah
who, as the Servant of the Lord, gave Himself for His people.
Thirdly, the head/body metaphor that Paul uses to express
his understanding of the Messianic community allows for
inclusiveness rather than an exclusivity. While there remained a
275
Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:17.
276
Ephesians 4:16–17.
118
sense of corporate solidarity among the Jewish sects of the 1st
Century, the bitter in-fighting reflected both in the Rabbinic and
historical literature shows the deep fractures that had occurred
within the Jewish nation.
Add to this the hellenization of the Jewish population and you
have a picture not of a unified body but of independent groups
vying for their own success and importance at the expense of
the others. It was this picture that Yeshua Himself confronted, a
picture that lacked any expression of the selfless love the Torah
taught and required. Loving one’s neighbor as one’s self was at the
heart of Torah life, and is a theme woven throughout the Sermon
on the Mount277 as well as in Yeshua’s intercessory prayer.278
Reflecting the teachings of his Master, Paul likewise stresses
the unity that ought to exist in the body of Messiah. Like Yeshua,
Paul does not call for a unity falsely based upon a disregard for the
truth, but rather a unity that comes as the result of unwrapping
the truth from the coverings of man-made religion even though
such wrappings may be beautiful. The gospel revealed to Israel in
the Torah came as a spotlight of truth, justice, and love because it
was the verbal expression of God’s holy character. Though often
motivated by good intentions, human additions to God’s specific
commands more often than not clouded the intent of God’s
instructions and built platforms for pride and division rather
than for humble service and unity.
The traditions Paul retained as valuable for the body of
Messiah were those that enhanced Yeshua’s headship. There could
be no hierarchy of status within the body of Messiah. Neither
ethnicity, gender, nor station-in-life could put one member of the
congregation above another.279 Even though roles and specific
realms of authority differed within the congregation, one’s
approach to God as well as one’s responsibility to serve Him was
the possession of each and every member.
277
Matthew 5–7.
278
John 17.
279
Galatians 3:28.
119
Chapter 3
God’s People and the Nation of Israel
The “people of God” from Paul’s perspective were one people, not
two. In using the language of “family”280 Paul clearly demonstrates
that he considered the believing Gentile and Jew to be “one new
man” in the sense of both coming into the family of God. Thus the
“family of God” for Paul was the elect people of God, a family that
in the end would include the whole nation of Israel. Nothing was
further from the Apostle’s mind than that God had two peoples,
one Jewish and the other Gentile. No, God has always had only
one people, Israel. But from the perspective of the prophets, Paul
understood that Israel was finally and ultimately comprised of
the believing remnant in every generation and those elect Gentiles
who had attached themselves to Israel via faith in the Messiah. In
the same way that Israel is defined as a “mixed multitude” when
she was redeemed from Egypt,281 so the gathered body of Messiah
was to be viewed as one redeemed people.
Yet in spite of this “remnant theology,” Paul cannot be
accused of discounting those Jews who refused to accept Yeshua
as Messiah as though they were not actually “Israel.” On the
contrary, Paul makes it clear that even while unbelieving Israel
may be an enemy to the gospel, they are yet precious to the Father.282
They still retain their position as God’s chosen nation in spite of
their rejection of Messiah, for it is God’s plan to bring the nation
to faith in the Messiah Yeshua.283 All that is required by current
believers, then, is to trust in His sovereign plan for accomplishing
the full redemption, and walk in humble obedience before their
God. Such obedience would foster a jealousy in Israel that would
turn her again to the God of Israel and thus to her Messiah.
Far from teaching a “replacement theology,” Paul taught a
grafting-in theology, an expansion of Israel through the inclusion
of the Gentiles.284 He does not set the “church” against the
280
Note Galatians 6:10 and Ephesians 2:19, where “household of faith”
and “God’s household” describe the gathered congregation of
believers.
281
Exodus 12:38.
282
Romans 11:28.
283
Romans 11:25–26.
284
On the whole issue of “replacement theology” and its rise in the
2nd and 3rd Century Church, see Ronald E. Diporse, Israel in the
120
synagogue, nor “Christian” against Jew. He does not see these
categories as salvifically important. In fact, when it comes to
salvation, it makes no difference what nationality a person is:
“there is neither Jew nor Greek….”285 Yet the existence of the elect
nation is all-important, for God’s faithfulness is demonstrated by
her existence. What is more, her final acceptance of Yeshua as a
nation will be the ultimate display of God’s sovereignty and the
fulfillment of the New Covenant.286
Summary
As the followers of Yeshua formed synagogues in the diaspora, the

word ekklesia was used to identify them as unofficial gatherings
(unofficial, that is, from the Sanhedrin’s perspective), much like
our modern chaverim or “fellowships.” Since the word had good
basis in the Lxx, it became a set term to identify the synagogues
of Yeshua’s disciples. That the modern word “church” is used
to translate ekklesia throughout the Apostolic Scriptures puts
an unfortunate modern definition on a word which was easily
accepted within the synagogue communities of ancient Israel. For
today “church” is understood as opposite of or even antagonistic
to “synagogue” yet in Paul’s day no such antagonism existed
between the two terms.
For Paul, Yeshua is the head of the congregation. By this he
means Yeshua is the source of her life, the One who sustains her
life as the family of God, the One Who leads His congregation as
her Sovereign Lord. In using the body metaphor, Paul stresses the
need of each member to contribute to the whole as he has been
blessed by spiritual gifts and abilities. Led by those men who had
proven their faithfulness, each congregation manifests the life of
Yeshua by her praise and deeds.
Development of Christian Thought (Instituto Biblico Evangelico

Italiano, 2000).
285
Galatians 3:28.
286
Jeremiah 31:31ff. Note carefully that the fulfillment of the New
Covenant is national in its scope (“house of Judah and house of
Israel”).
121
Chapter 3
3.8 Paul’s Bibliology:287 Scripture as the Word of God
We have already seen that Paul regularly appeals to the Scriptures
as the basis for his arguments. By “Scripture” I mean the Tanach—
the only Bible that existed in Paul’s day. But what was Paul’s view
of the Bible from which he taught? To what extent did he consider
the canon of Scripture to be divine? And what did he consider to
be the canon—was the Tanach he used the same as the one we
have today?
There are several reasons this question is important. First, the
prevailing view among Christian theologians, that Paul began
something new or in some ways overturned the plain statements
of the Torah, would seem to bring into question Paul’s view of
Scripture. But since the Tanach was considered by the Apostle as
the very word of God, it is impossible that he would have tried to
change it or disregard it.
Secondly, since at times Paul appears to speak of the Torah in
less than favorable terms, some who are returning to a righteous
appreciation of the Torah fall prey to the teaching that Paul did,
in fact, contradict the Torah and therefore his epistles are not
received as Scripture. Once again, such a position brings into
question how Paul viewed the Scriptures in the first place.
The Rabbinic View of Scripture:
Every Letter Important
The Mishnaic and Talmudic literature gives us a clear picture of

the extent to which the Sages believed in the sacred nature of the
Tanach, and particularly the Torah. Every letter was considered
to be sacred and of divine origin and could not be changed or
omitted.
Did not Rab Judah in fact state in the name of Samuel who had it
from R. Meir: When I was studying under R. Akiba I used to put
vitrio into my ink and he told me nothing [against it], but when
I subsequently came to R. Ishmael the latter said to me, ‘My son,
what is your occupation?’ I told him, ‘I am a scribe’, and he said
287
“Bibliology” is a sub-section of theology that deals with the doctrines
of Scripture.
122
Paul’s Theology: Inspiration & Canonicity
to me, ‘Be meticulous in your work, for your occupation is a
sacred one; should you perchance omit or add one single letter,
you would thereby destroy all the universe’.288
Even the confusion of letters was a grave matter. This is

demonstrated by Hebrew letters which look alike and could be
easily confused: the Hey (‫ )ה‬and the Chet (‫ )ח‬as well as the Dalet
(‫ )ד‬and the Resh (‫)ר‬. Only a very small stroke distinguishes each
of the letters from its close double. Confusion of the two letters
would spell disaster:
It is written [Lev. 22:32] ‫ ֹלא תְחַל ְלוּ א ֶת–שֵׁם ָקֹדשִׁי‬Ye shall not profane my
holy name: whosoever shall change ‫ ח‬into ‫ה‬, destroys the world
[for then ‫ ֹלא תְהַל ְלוּ‬written with ‫ה‬, makes this sense, Ye shall not
‘praise’ my holy name.] It is written [Ps. 150:6] ‫שׁמָה ּתְהַּל ֵל יָּה‬ ָ ְ ‫ ּכ ֹל הַּנ‬Let
every spirit praise the Lord: whosoever changeth ‫ ה‬into ‫ ח‬destroys
the world. [It would read “Let every spirit profane the Lord.”] It is
written [Jer. 5:12], ‫ ּכ ִח ֲשׁוּ ב ַיהוה‬They lied against the Lord: whosoever
changeth ‫ ב‬into ‫ כ‬destroys the world. [It would read “Like the
Lord they lied.”] It is written [Deut. 6:4], ‫יהוה א ֱֹלה ֵינוּ יהוה אֶח ָד‬, The
Lord our God is one Lord: he that changeth ‫ ד‬into ‫ר‬, destroys the
world. [It would read “The Lord our God is another Lord.”]289
Inspiration and Canonicity
Paul wrote in his second epistle to Timothy:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for

reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the
man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.290
The idea of Scripture being “inspired” is not something new with

Paul. In fact, the divine origin of the Scriptures was a doctrinal
pillar in the Judaisms of Paul’s day. We know this from the fact that
288
b.Eruvin 13a.
289
Tanchuma B’reshit.1. [Tanchuma is a compilation of midrashic
comments which feature the frequent teachings of Rabbi Tanchuma
Bar Abba, a Palestinian amora. His principal teacher in halachah
and aggadah was R. Huna.] See the comments in John Lightfoot, A
Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 4 Vols.
(Baker Book House, 1979), 2.102.
290
2Timothy 3:16–17.
123
Chapter 3
those who denied the divine origin of the Torah were considered
as having forfeited their place in the world-to-come.291 But what
did the Sages believe about the inspiration of the Torah, Prophets,
and Writings?
The disputes the Sages had over the canonical status of certain
books is well known. But the divine inspiration and canonicity of
the Torah was never questioned. Since the giving of the Torah
was directly from God to Moses, and then to the people, its divine
origin was certain. Indeed, the fact that the Torah which God gave
to Israel on Sinai was in the form of a covenant constituted it as the
immediate “canon” or rule of faith or halachah. That the concept
of divine canon was extant from the time of Moses is assured on
the basis of covenant alone. Since by “canon” we mean the rule
by which all of life is measured, for Israel, the Torah was canon at
its first giving.
According to the biblical evidence, the Israelite notion of

canonicity begins with the appearance of canonical laws. Laws
are authoritative for all generations…. But the laws are part and
parcel of a covenant: and the covenant bears its own canonical
character.292
The Torah itself enjoined upon the Israelite people the necessity
of receiving its message as the canon against which all other
instruction was to be measured. The canon of Torah comes into
play when a prophet would speak. How were the people to know
if his words were of God or not? They were to be judged against
what the Lord had already revealed.
But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in

My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which
he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall
die. And you may say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the
word which the LORD has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks
in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or
come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken.
The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be
291
b.Sanhedrin 90a.
292
Sid Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and
Midrashic Evidence (Conn. Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1976), 24-
5.
124
afraid of him. 293
To speak “presumptuously” must be understood as speaking

that which was contrary to Torah. If the people wanted to test
the words of a prophet, they had two criteria: did it square with
Torah, and did his words come true? Obviously, speaking in the
name of false gods was a sure sign that it did not square with
Torah!
Once the Torah was given, the question that eventually faced
the Israelite nation, and specifically their Sages, was what of the
additional prophetic literature was to be attached to the Torah
as the divine word of God. Eventually the phraseology utilized
to describe those books that were deemed divinely inspired was
that they “rendered the hands unclean.”
…All [Scripture] Scrolls render the hands unclean save the Scroll
of [the Torah used in the Temple] Court.294
The explanations given for why a sacred object like a Torah scroll
would render the hands unclean vary,295 but the general answer
was simply that it was holy and was therefore not to be handled
as though ordinary. The way to assure such a reverential handling
of the sacred scrolls was to rule that contact with them rendered
a person unclean. The point is that only those scrolls considered
holy, i.e., divinely inspired, made the hands unclean. Scrolls that
did not attain to this level of sanctity, along with all writings of
the pagans, did not render the hands unclean.
The Sadducees say [to the Sages], ‘We protest against you, O
Pharisees, for you say, The Sacred Scriptures render the hand
unclean [but] the books of the Hamiram do not render the
293
Deuteronomy 18:20–22.
294
m.Kelim 15.6, quoted from Blackman.
295
m. Yadayim 4.6 gives one explanation. Like the bones of a loved one
who is buried render the hands unclean, so the Scroll renders the
hands unclean. The bones of the dead are rendered unclean so that
no one would use them for making utensils, so the Scroll is rendered
unclean to prevent it being handled in a common matter. For other
explanations, cf. m.Kelim 15.6 and Blackman’s explanation there, as
well as b.Shabbat 14a.
125
Chapter 3
hands unclean.296
Exactly who the “Hamiram” are is questioned though most

connect this word to Homer, and the Homerian diaries, but the
point is clear: books outside of those received as Scripture do not
make the hands unclean.
The characteristic of the scrolls or books that renders the
hands unclean is that they were the product of the Holy Spirit. In
the disputes over the status of books like Esther, Qohelet,297 and
Song of Songs, the question of whether they are the product of the
Holy Spirit becomes decisive:
Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, [The scroll] of Esther

does not make the hands unclean. Are we to infer from this
that Samuel was of the opinion that Esther was not composed
under the inspiration of the holy spirit [‫ּב ְרּוח ַ ה ַּקֹוֶדׁש נֵאָמ ְָרה‬, b’ruach
hakodesh nei’amrah]?298
But additionally, the scrolls that render the hands unclean must
be written in the original Hebrew or Aramaic, in square script,
on parchment, and in ink.299 Thus, their holy status was the
combination of their divine origin (inspiration by the Holy Spirit)
as well as their current status within the community (canon). The
absence of either requirement could render the scroll less than
Scripture. If the scroll were written properly but not inspired,
it did not render the hands unclean. If the text were historically
considered inspired but was not written properly, the scroll did
not make the hands unclean.
It was precisely these criteria which were put forward in the
disputed books.300 For when the opposing rabbis stated that
the book in question does not make the hands unclean, this was
equivalent to saying that it was not inspired by the Holy Spirit
and therefore could not be included in the canon.301
296
m.Yadayim 4.6, quoted from Blackman.
297
Qohelet is the Hebrew name for the book of Ecclesiastes..
298
b.Megilah 7a.
299
m.Yadayim 4.5.
300
m.Eduyot 5.3; m.Yadayim 3.5; Tosefta Yadayim 2:14; b.Megilah 7a;
b.Sanhedrin 100a.
301
Roger T. Beckwith, “Formation of the Hebrew Bible” in Martin
Jan Mulder, ed., Mikra in Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum
126
For the Sages, then, the Torah and the books of the prophets
that followed had the intrinsic character of divine inspiration, an
attribute which qualified them for inclusion in the received books
or “canon.” While inspiration and canonicity were two distinct
issues, it seems clear that both for the biblical writers and the
Sages there was no notion of uninspired canonical literature. The
books which were received as holy, and thus as making the hands
unclean, were those that bore the mark of divine inspiration.
What Qualified Books for the Rabbinic Canon?
As noted above, the books of Moses or the Torah were received

as both divinely inspired and as canon at the initial giving. Its
covenant nature endowed it with canonical status. Moreover,
any written materials which were to be gathered together with
the Torah as divinely revealed truth needed to be in concert with
the Torah. But how were various books “received” and accorded
canonical status, and at what point in the history of the Hebrew
Bible did the Israelite community recognize a completed canon
and the end of divine revelation?
First of all, for the Sages, Scripture had to be written. This
may be derived from the terms used to denote Scripture: ‫הַּמ ְִקָרא‬,
hamikrah “what is read,” ‫הַּכ ָתּוב‬, hakatuv, “what is written,” ‫ּכִתְב ֵי הַּקָּד ֶׁש‬,
kitvei hakodesh, “Holy Writings,” ‫הַּסֶפ ְִרים‬, hasefrim, “the books,” and
so on.302 This does not negate the importance of Oral Torah for the
Sages, but it does differentiate Oral from Written Torah.303
Secondly, books written after the cessation of prophecy
could not have been inspired, and thus could not be considered
Scripture. Generally, the Sages considered that prophecy ceased
in Israel sometime during the late Persian period or in the early
Hellenistic period, but certainly before the Maccabean revolt.
Though they may have been in dispute about books which were
Testamentum (Van Gorcum, 1988), 61; Leiman, Canonization, 25..

302
Beckwith, “Formation,” 39.
303
The fact that the Oral Torah (‫שּׁבָע ָל ּפ ֶה‬
ְ ‫ּתוָרה‬, torah sheba’al peh) was
prohibited to be written (Tanchuma Va-Yera 5; Tissa 34; b.Temurah
14a-b) shows a clear distinction in canonical status in the earliest
strata. That individual Sages wrote down Oral Torah for themselves,
however, is well attested, y.Gittin 5:3; b.Gittin 46b; b.Ketuvot 49a;
b.Bava Metzia 114a; b.Chullin 95a; b.Menachot 70a.
127
Chapter 3
already considered canonical by this time, there is no indication
that new candidates for canonicity were introduced after the
period of the Maccabean revolt.304
Similarly, the consensus among the Sages was that the
Shechinah ceased to take up residence in the Temple after the
death of Simon the Righteous, the first High Priest following the
Babylonian exile, and a legitimate descendant of Joshua, the High
Priest.305 Simon’s death is generally considered to have been at
310 BCE.306 Therefore
…much of the extant apocryphal, pseudepigraphical, and

Qumran literature probably was never considered for inclusion
in the biblical canon.307
Thirdly, books composed in Greek were automatically

disqualified from inclusion in the biblical canon. Since Hebrew
was considered the “holy language” (‫ל ָׁשֹון הַּקָּד ֶׁש‬, lashon hakodesh), it
alone was the appropriate vehicle for the transmission of divinely
inspired literature. Thus, on linguistic grounds alone books such
as the Wisdom of Solomon and II Maccabees were disqualified.
Fourthly:
Books written in Hebrew and ascribed to the biblical period

which challenged central halachic teachings of the rabbis were
ipso facto excluded from the biblical canon. Thus, the book of
Jubilees, which is predicated upon a calendar at variance
with the Rabbinic calendar, could not be considered a serious
candidate for inclusion in the biblical canon. A call to celebrate
all the festivals on the ‘wrong’ days of the year (with the
consequence that all the festal offerings were invalid; the High
Priest’s entry into the Holy of Holies was on the ‘wrong’ day—a
capital offense; etc.) could only be viewed as rank heresy.308
What must be clarified here is that exclusion came when central

304
Sid Leiman, “Inspiration and Canonicity: Reflections on the Formation
of the Biblical Canon” in E. P. Sanders, ed., Jewish and Christian Self-
Definition, 3 vols. (Fortress, 1981), 2.61.
305
b.Shabbat 33a; b.Sotah 47b.
306
Gershom Bader, The Encyclopedia of Talmudic Sages (Aronson, 1988),
44.
307
Sid Leiman, “Inspiration and Canonicity,” 61.
308
Ibid., 62.
128
halachic issues were at variance, not central theological issues.
Qohelet, for example, appears at first reading to be antinomian,
pessimistic, and even contradictory, yet it remained in the canon
and even gained a prominent position as the appropriate reading
for the festival of Sukkot. Despite its theological conundrums,
Qohelet retained its canonical status precisely because it did not
challenge any central halachah of the Sages. It, like other canonical
books, evidenced a self-authentication owing to its intrinsic
inspiration.
Finally, it seems quite possible that certain books were excluded
from the canon precisely because they were venerated as biblical
by sectarian groups. Such may be the case with Ben Sira. In Judaeo-
Christian groups, the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature
seemed to be held as an inspired literary continuum between the
prophetic writings of the Tanach and the contemporary period.
During the time when sectarian canons were vying for recognition
and thus challenging the Rabbinic canon, these uncertain books
were excluded.
Later, when the Rabbinic canon was well fixed and not
threatened by opposing canons, books like Ben Sira were read
and expounded by the Sages much like other biblical books. It
was considered to be uninspired since it was authored in the post-
prophetic period, but was de facto canonical for the rabbis in that
they accepted it as an authoritative guide for religious doctrine
and practice.309 Yet while the rabbis held the ideas of inspiration
and canonicity as separate and distinct, their biblical canon
consisted of those books which were at once inspired (divine) and
canonical (accepted halachah).
What Books Actually were in the Rabbinic Canon?
Early evidence of the lists of books contained in the Rabbinic

canon are Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Lxx, the Apostolic
Writings, and the Rabbinic literature.
Josephus
Josephus, in his Against Apion, gives evidence of what he

considered the list of canonical books:
309
Ibid., 63; Leiman, Canonization, 92ff.
129
Chapter 3
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among
us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the
Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, eight which contain
the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be
divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws
and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This
interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as
to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes,
king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who
were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times
in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to
God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our
history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but
hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by
our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession
of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit
to those books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for
during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been
so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from
them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to
all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those
books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if
occasion be, willingly to die for them.310
Note several things from this quote. First, it is clear that Josephus
recognized a three-part Tanach: the Torah, Prophets (Nevi’im)
and Writings (Ketuvim), or the “remaining four books.” Secondly,
Josephus’ canon consisted of 22 books, corresponding to the
Hebrew Aleph-Bet, and thus representing a complete list:
Torah – 5 books
Prophets – 13 books
Joshua, Judges/Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah/
Lamentations, Ezekiel, the Twelve (minor prophets), Job,
Daniel, Ezra/Nehemiah, Chronicles, Esther
Four books of Hymns and Precepts
Psalms, Proverbs, Qohelet, Song of Songs
It should be noted that this list shows fluidity in the Prophets and
Writings, for, as we shall see, the Lxx and Rabbinic canons shift a
number of prophetic books to the Writings.
310
Against Apion 1.8 (38-42ֵֵ) quoted from William Whiston, The Works of
Josephus (Hendrickson, 1987), 746.
130
The Lxx
The Lxx purports to be a translation of the Tanach into Greek by

Jewish scholars, beginning with the Torah translated in the 3rd
Century BCE.311 That the translation process included additional
books of the Tanach is evidenced by the preface of Ben Sira and
quotes in Philo. It is likely that by the beginning of the mid-1st
Century CE, all the books of the Tanach were available in Greek
translation.
Aside from the Lxx manuscripts found at Qumran312 and
some early texts dating from the 2nd Century BCE and onward
(mostly fragments of the Torah),313 the major witness to the Lxx
are the papyri of the Chester Beatty/Scheide collection (4th
Century CE and onward) and the great uncials of the 4th Century
CE and onward (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus). Only the
4th Century uncials are complete enough to suggest a canonical
listing.
Significantly, neither the order nor the number of books in these
manuscripts match the Jewish canon enumerated by Josephus.
Vaticanus adds the Apocrypha to the Hebrew Scriptures, with
the exception of the books of Maccabees. Sinaiticus adds Tobit,
Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ben Sira, and the first two books
of Maccabees. Alexandrinus adds the Apocrypha, Psalms of
Solomon, and the third and fourth books of Maccabees to the
Hebrew Scriptures.
Yet it is dangerous to presume that the 4th and 5th Century
witnesses to the Lxx suggest what a 1st Century canon might have
been. While it is clear that a work such as Ben Sira, for example,
was well known and much liked by many of the rabbis,314 it was
still very much disputed in terms of its authority and was clearly
marked out as not to be classed with the books of Scriptures. For
instance, in Mid Rab Qohelet, commenting on Ecclesiastes 12:12,
311
The Letter of Aristeas. For a critical edition, see H. B. Swete, The Old
Testament in Greek (KTAV, 1968), 531-606.
312
4QLxxLeva, for example.
313
Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Fortress, 1992),
138.
314
Cf. Mid Rab Bereishit 91.3; b.Chagigah 13a; b.Yevamot 63b; b.Ketubot
110b; b.BavaBatra 146a; b.Nidda 16b; Mid Rab Vayikra 33.1; Mid Rab
Qohelet 7.19.
131
Chapter 3
we read:
and furthermore (mehemah), my son be, admonished (xii, 12): of

making many books there is no end: [Read the word as] mehumah
(confusion), because whoever brings into his house more than
the twenty-four books [of the Bible] introduces confusion into
his house, as, e.g., the book of Ben Sira [Ecclesiasticus] and the
book of Ben Tagla.315
And in the Bavli, R. Yosef states that “it is forbidden to read the
book of Ben Sira.”316 This seems strange in light of the number of
times Ben Sira is referenced in the rabbinic literature. Some have
suggested that its “forbidden status” related to public reading
(for fear it would seen as canonical) but not to private reading.
This might explain why it was widely known yet “forbidden.”317
Obviously, the rabbinic texts quoted above are late, but had a
book like Ben Sira been widely established as an authoritative,
biblical text in the era of the Tannaim, it hardly seems likely that
Sages among the Amoraim would have made such statements
against it. Furthermore, the Apocrypha is never cited as Scripture
by Philo, Josephus, or the Apostles. From this we should conclude
that the inclusion of Apocryphal and other later works within the
codexes of the 4th and 5th Century Church should not be taken as
indicating their canonical status.
It is not difficult, either, to postulate the scenario which
brought this about. In the 1st Century BCE, the Jewish community
was quite taken with the additional books, and was still debating
about a number of books in the canon. When the “church” broke
away from the Jewish community in the 2nd Century CE, she
no longer was privileged to the debates and discussions about
these books, discussions which eventually determined their non-
canonical status. As separate and independent, the Church took
the additional books which she had in common with the earlier
Jewish community and included them among their sacred texts.
While the Rabbis had good reason to reject the Apocryphal
and Pseudepigraphical writings (since they were deemed non-
inspired), the Church Fathers had no such compulsion. Having
315
Mid Rab Qohelet 12.11.
316
b.Sanhedrin 100b.
317
See note 33 to b.Sanhedrin 90a of the Soncino edition.
132
come to the conclusion that the church had replaced Israel, it was
no longer necessary to consider the canon of the Synagogue as
normative.318 The Church as the “new Israel” simply decided
upon her own canon. It was not until the Protestant Reformation
and the return to the study of the Tanach in its original Hebrew
that the Rabbinic canon was once again considered the standard.319
And even then, it was ordered not after the Hebrew, but after the
Lxx.
Dead Sea Scrolls
The evidence from Qumran gives us an insight into a sectarian

view of canon. Every book of the Tanach has some representation
at Qumran except Esther. Esther may have been excluded on
several grounds, chief being that the Qumran calendar and the
festival of Purim would have conflicted. Other reasons may have
been that the marriage of a Jewish woman to a pagan king was
considered intolerable. Whatever the case, Esther alone is missing
of all the Tanach literature.
What has captivated the attention of scholars, however, is
the high number of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works
found at Qumran, and the number of copies represented. Of
those discovered, it seems certain that 1Enoch, the Testament
of Levi, Jubilees, and the Temple Scroll played a significant role
in the life of the community. Did this mean that the Dead Sea
Scroll community accepted a wider canon than their Pharisaic
counterparts? It may be that they did. However, it should be noted
that those books which are accepted in the standard, Rabbinic
318
Some Rabbinic lists have 24 books, others 22, but the difference
is in how the material is combined, not in adding or leaving out
material.
319
The primary Church councils that determined the canon used by
the Christian Church were the Synod of Laodicea (363), Council
of Hippo (393), Synod of Carthage (397) and Council of Carthage
(419). While all of these councils agreed in general about what books
were to be received as canonical, none of them agreed entirely. As
late as the 5th Century books were still disputed, and the earliest
Greek manuscripts available to us (e.g., Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus,
Vaticanus) all contain books that the modern protestant Church
would consider non-canonical.
133
Chapter 3
canon are regularly introduced by suitable formulae to denote
their Scriptural status, while quotes or allusions to the Apocryphal
and Pseudepigraphical literature are never so introduced. If the
canon of the Qumran society was larger than that of the Pharisees,
it seems likely that they gave a higher ranking to the rabbinically
recognized books than those which would have been considered
new or additional.
Apostolic Scriptures
The Apostolic Scriptures also bear witness to the state of the

canon in the 1st Century. The Torah and Prophets were separate
canonical units320 and both were read in the synagogues.321 The
tripartite canon is attested in the words of Yeshua as He conversed
with two of His disciples on the road to Emmaus.322 He referred to
the Tanach as “Moses, the Prophets, and Psalms,” where Psalms
is no doubt a reference to the Writings. Furthermore, judging
from the citations of the Tanach in the Apostolic Scriptures, the
Writings were considered to have canonical status, for the Psalms
are quoted more than any other book. Yeshua even refers to the
Psalms as the Torah.323 Books from the entire Hebrew canon are
cited by the Apostolic authors with the exception of Judges,
Ezekiel,324 Ruth, Esther, Qohelet, Lamentations, Jonah, Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Chronicles.
But most significant is that no apocryphal or pseudepigraphical
works are cited as Scripture by the Apostles, and this in spite of
the fact that the Lxx appears to have been the version regularly
used by the Messianic community. This would strongly suggest
that the Apostles adhered to the same limited canon which
the Sages had prescribed. Some have suggested that Yeshua’s
reference to the murders of Abel and Zechariah325 might indicate
the first (Genesis) and the last (Zechariah) books of the canon in
320
Luke 4:17; John 1:45; Acts 13:27; 28:23, etc.
321
Acts 13:15.
322
Luke 24:44.
323
In John 10:34 Yeshua quotes Psalm 82:6 describing the passage as
“written in your Torah.”
324
Note 2Corinthians 6:16, which seems to echo Ezekiel 37:27.
325
Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:51.
134
use, but this is dismissed by a number of scholars.326 Regardless,
the evidence of the Apostolic Scriptures is that the canon of the 1st
Century was limited to the 22 books which Josephus represents
as the Jewish Tanach.
Rabbinic Literature
Bava Batra 14b-15a of the Babylonian Talmud contains the listing

of the canon in its tripartite division, including the proper order
of the books and who is accredited with authorship of each.
Twenty-four books are enumerated, rather than the twenty-two
of Josephus, because Ruth and Lamentations are separated from
Joshua and Jeremiah respectively, and placed in the Writings.
Further differences are the arrangement of the Writings to
include Ruth, the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Qohelet, Song of Songs,
Lamentations, Daniel, and Esther, in that order.
Notwithstanding the different arrangement and groupings,
the actual books are exactly those listed by Josephus. Furthermore,
the Rabbinic literature consistently speaks of the twenty-four
books as distinct from “outside” books (‫סְפ ִַרים הָח ִיצּונ ִים‬, sefarim
hachitzunim) that are prohibited.327 The Rabbinic literature never
introduces quotes from the Apocrypha or the Pseudepigrapha
with the typical “it is written,” a phrase which often introduces
biblical quotes.
It is true that the Rabbinic literature contains descriptions of
the controversies which surrounded Ezekiel, Qohelet, and Esther.
These three books (as well as a few others) were contested as to
whether they make the hands unclean, and thus what their status
was within the biblical corpus.
In some instances it appears as though they were “hidden
away” until the issue was settled, but this confirms their canonical
status rather than denying it. “Hidden away” (geniza) was what
was done with scrolls which were damaged beyond repair yet
still had 85 letters distinguishable in them. The halachic standard
for the 85 letters was Numbers 10:35-36, which to this day is
326
See the comments of Sid Leiman, Canonization, 41.
327
m.Sanhedrin 10:1; b.Sanhedrin 100a, and see the comments above, p.
132, regarding Mid Rab Qohelet 12.11 in which the reading of Ben
Sira is prohibited.
135
Chapter 3
marked in Torah scrolls with the Hebrew letter “nun” inverted at
the beginning and end of the passage. Thus, to be “hidden away”
indicated the sanctity of the object, not that it was rejected.
It would seem that the books which were “hidden away”
by the rabbis were done so because 1) they considered them
Scripture, but 2) they presented problems which the Sages could
not reconcile. Once there was sufficient reconciliation of the issues,
the books were once again circulated. For example,
R. Judah son of R. Samuel b. Shilath said in Rab’s name: The

Sages wished to withdraw the book of Ecclesiastes because its
words are self-contradictory; yet why did they not withdraw it?
Because it begins with words of Torah and it ends with words
of Torah.328
The Rabbinic literature, then, gives us the same picture as

Josephus and the Apostolic Writings (and perhaps Qumran):
22 or 24 books constituted the Hebrew canon. What is more,
it seems evident that this canon was recognized as settled and
closed by 150 BCE.329 That sectarian groups (like Qumran or the
Samaritans) may have felt free to reconsider the boundaries of
the canon appears probable, but it seems certain that the majority
view was settled well before the 1st Century CE and that the 22 or
24 books (depending upon how they were numbered) constituted
a grouping of inspired books which were received as the rule or
canon for the Jewish community at large.
The Relationship of Torah to the Prophets and Writings
The Torah constituted the first and primary canon for the Israelite
nation. As such, it was the rule against which all other writings
were to be measured. If a prophet spoke presumptuously, that is,
spoke something contradictory to the already received Torah, his
words were not to be received.
Moreover, it is clear from Rabbinic materials that while the
Prophets and Writings were accepted as inspired and thus as a
bona fide part of the canon, the Torah still held a primary, canonical
place in the rulings of the Sages. That the three divisions were
328
b.Shabbat 30a. For a complete listing of Rabbinic passages dealing
with “withdrawal” of biblical books, see Leiman, Canonization, 72ff.
329
Leiman, “Inspiration and Canonicity,” 61.
136
eventually seen as having equal sanctity can be demonstrated by
the ruling that they could be bound together, but this issue too
was debated:
The Torah and Prophets may be written on one scroll; this is

the ruling of R. Meir (135-170 CE). The Sages, however, say that
the Torah and Prophets may not be written on one scroll, but
that the Prophets and Hagiographa [Writings] may be written
on one scroll.330
Our Rabbis taught: It is permissible to fasten the Torah, the

Prophets, and the Hagiographa together. This is the opinion of
R. Meir. R. Judah, however, says that the Torah, the Prophets,
and the Hagiographa should each be in a separate scroll; while
the Sages say that each book should be separate. Rab Judah
said: it is related that Boethus b. Zonin had the eight prophets
fastened together at the suggestion of R. Eleazar b. Azariah.
Others, however, report that he had them each one separate.
Rabbi said: On one occasion a copy of the Torah, the Prophets,
and the Hagiographa all bound up together was brought before
us, and we declared them fit and proper.331
In fact, the whole of the Hebrew canon was considered Torah:
Asaph said: ‘Give ear, O my people, to my Law’ (Psalms 78:1),

and Solomon said, ‘Forsake ye not my Law’ (Proverbs 4:2). Israel
said to Asaph, ‘Is there then another law, that thou speakest of
my Law? We have already received the Law at Sinai.’ He said to
them: ‘There are sinners in Israel who say that the Prophets and
the Holy Writings are not Torah, and we will not obey them’
(Daniel 9:10). But the Prophets and the Holy Writings are Torah.
Hence it says, ‘Give ear, O my people, to my Law.’332
We should not be surprised, then, when passages from the

Prophets and Writings are referred to as Torah by the Apostolic
authors.333
Yet while the three divisions of the Tanach may have attained
330
y.Megilah 73d-74a, quoted from Leiman, Canonization, 60..
331
b.Bava Batra 13a.
332
Tanchuma , Re’eh, 10a, quoted from C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe,
A Rabbinic Anthology (Schocken, 1974), 158. Note also Midrash Ps. on
78:1 (172b, §1).
333
e.g., 1Corinthians 14:21 uses ‘as the Torah says,’ yet quotes Isaiah
28:11.
137
Chapter 3
equality in terms of inspired Scripture, there was still a priority
given to the Torah. The Prophets acted as spokesmen to draw
out the implications of Torah, not to produce new or innovative
revelation. While the implications of the Torah precepts might
be expanded and newly applied in successive generations, what
the Prophets and Sages taught was always considered to be first
embedded in Torah.
R. Isaac said: The Prophets drew from Sinai the inspiration of all
their future utterances, for God spoke ‘with him that stands here
with us this day’ (Deuteronomy 29:15), that is, with those who
were already created, ‘and also with him that is not here with us
this day’; these are the souls which are destined to be created. So,
too, it does not say, ‘the burden of the Lord to Malachi’ (Malachi
1:1), but ‘by the hand of Malachi’, to show that the prophecy
was already in his hand at Mount Sinai. So, too, in Isaiah 48:16,
it says: ‘From the time that it was, there am I’; that is, ‘From the
hour when Torah was given, I received this prophecy.’ Not only
to the Prophets alone does this apply, but to all the Sages that
are destined to arise in after days, for the Decalogue is described
in Deuteronomy 5:22 as ‘One great voice’, and this was divided
into seven, and then into seventy, tongues for all mankind.334
The Torah, then, remained the touchstone for all subsequent

revelations and the foundation for all halachah. Indeed, new halachah
could not be derived solely from the Prophets or Writings—it had
to be based in Torah. This is stated in the hermeneutical rule of the
Sages, “we do not learn words of Torah from words of tradition,”335
meaning:
Exegetical inferences concerning the Torah cannot be drawn

from the Prophets or the Hagiographa. The reason for this is that
the Prophets were not permitted to introduce new halakot, and
hence only the Torah is an authoritative source of halachah.336
334
Tanchuma , Yitro, §11, 124ab. Quoted from Montefiore and Loewe,
Rabbinic Anthology, 158.
335
‫ּדִב ְֵרי תוָֹרה בִּדִב ְֵרי ַקּבָל ָה ל ָא יָלְפ ִינ ַן‬, literally “words of Torah by words of
tradition (‫ ַקּבַל ַה‬is used in Talmudic language to refer to the Prophets
and Writings or Hagiographa) we do not learn.” cp. b.Chagigah 10b;
b. Bava Kama 2b.
336
Adin Steinsaltz, The Talmud: A Reference Guide (Random House, 1989),
151.
138
While the actual statement of this hermeneutical rule is from the
later Talmud, it seem at least possible that it reflects a similar
perspective in Paul’s day. The Torah was the absolute standard
against which all other beliefs and practices were measured. If a
ruling or teaching did not agree with Torah (at least as the Sages
interpreted it), it simply was not received. Clearly, to propose new
teaching that went contrary to Torah or even to suggest that the
Torah was no longer viable was outside the realm of possibility
for the Sages.
Summary: The Rabbinic View of Scripture
In summary, it is clear that the Sages viewed the Scriptures as

divinely inspired and therefore the accurate and authoritative
revelation of God to Israel. The inspired quality of Scripture
rendered it holy, and thus scrolls containing the word of God
were to be handled accordingly. Scribes considered their work
sacred. The accuracy of the text, down to the individual letters,
was considered of eternal importance.
With regard to the canon of Scripture, we may say that there
is clear evidence of a well defined canon in the 1st Century CE, a
canon which most likely had official status as early as 150 BCE.
This canon consisted of twenty-four books, the same books that
form our present day Tanach, and was grouped into three sections:
Torah, Prophets, and Writings.
While the status of certain books continued to be debated up
into the 1st Century CE, the acceptance of all twenty-four appears
to have been the norm among the primary Jewish sects. Some
sects, such as the Qumran society, may have considered additional
writings divinely inspired, but the accepted canonical books
appear to have been accorded a higher authority nonetheless.
Quotes from the twenty-four books are introduced with a common
formula (e.g. “as it is written”) while quotes from the other works
are introduced differently.
The Apostolic Scriptures attest to the same canon, never
quoting as Scripture any materials outside of these twenty-four
books. This in spite of the fact that the Lxx, which appears to
be the default Bible for the Messianic community, included (at
least in its later 4th & 5th Century form) the Apocryphal books.
What is more, standard introductory formulae for introducing
139
Chapter 3
Scripture are used of the twenty-four, but never of quotes from
other sources.
We may conclude, then, that there was a clear, defined canon
of twenty-four books extant in the 1st Century CE. This is what
is referred to as the Scriptures by the Apostles of the Messianic
community.
Paul’s View of Scripture
Paul does not leave us in the dark about his view of Scripture.
Following in the tradition of the Sages, he tells us pointedly
that the Scriptures are of divine origin and are fully sufficient to
instruct us in God’s truth and lead us in the way we should live.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for

reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the
man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.337
What Paul means by “Scripture” (grafh;, graphe) here is the

Tanach: the Torah, Prophets, and Writings or what the Christian
Church later called the “Old Testament.” The Apostolic Scriptures
were being written in Paul’s lifetime and after, and would not
be compiled together as a collection until the 2nd Century CE
and later. Therefore, that to which Paul instructs his disciple
Timothy to pay attention are the Scriptures of the Tanach as the
divine authority both in his life and in the lives of those he led
and taught.338
The key word in Paul’s description of “Scripture” is the
word “inspired.” Literally, this word means “God-breathed”
(qeovpneusto~, theopneustos), being made up of the Greek words
theos, “God” and pneustos, “breath,” and is found only here in
the Apostolic Scriptures. Furthermore, the word is not found in
the Lxx and has no counterpart in Greek classical literature. As a
result, it may be suggested that Paul formed this word to express
his strong position on the divine nature of the Tanach.
But if Paul did coin this word, he was simply stating in Greek
what was widely recognized by the Rabbinic authorities, namely,
that the Spirit of God was instrumental in the giving of the
337
2Timothy 3:16-17.
338
Cp. also 1Timothy 4:16.
140
Scriptures.
For instance, in the Midrashim the Spirit of God is accredited
with setting Scripture in the mouths of the sons of Korah,339 of
Solomon,340 and of Hosea,341 and it was because the Spirit of God
came upon Solomon that he wrote the books of Proverbs, Song
of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. Once we remember that the Hebrew
word “breath” is ַ ‫( רּוח‬ruach), which can also mean “spirit,” the
concept of “God-breathed” and the “Spirit of God” are connected.
In fact, the Midrashim make just such a play on the word ַ ‫רּוח‬,
ruach, “spirit” by attributing the creative process of Genesis 1:2
to the “breath of God.”342 Paul, in concert with accepted Rabbinic
thought, accredits the existence of the written Scriptures to the
very “breath” or Spirit of God.
We may therefore conclude that Paul could never have
disregarded the God-breathed Scriptures, but surely would have
accepted them as the eternal record of God’s self-revelation to
Israel, and through Israel to all mankind. That Paul would have
considered himself in a position of authority to overturn these
God-breathed Scriptures is simply unthinkable. The Torah, the
Prophets, the Writings—these were God’s words. The only correct
response to these Scriptures was one of joyful submission.
Indeed, no less than 13 times does Paul use words related
to the root a[nomo~ (anomos), which means “not Torah.” Usually
translated “lawless” or some equivalent, the term clearly reveals
that for Paul sin could be summed up as that which was contrary
to the written word of God, the Torah. The notion that Paul would
have considered the inspired words of God in Scripture to have
lost their importance to the disciple of Yeshua simply cannot be
sustained on any grounds. His own clear words speak just the
opposite.
What is more, Paul constantly points out that the gospel he
is preaching is founded upon the “Scriptures.” We may consider
Romans as an example. From the opening of the epistle, he defines
the “Gospel of God” as that which “was promised beforehand
through His prophets in the holy Scriptures.” In the primary
339
Mid. Rab. Lamentations xxiv.
340
Mid. Rab. Ecclesiastes 1:1.
341
Mid. Rab. Exodus xlvii.6.
342
b.Avodah Zarah 29a. cf. Psalm 33:6.
141
Chapter 3
statement of the letter’s theme (1:16-17), in which the power of
the Gospel is seen in its ability to declare God’s means of making
sinners righteous, he immediately quotes Habakkuk 2:4 as
substantiation. After showing both Jew and Gentile to be guilty
before God (1:18-3:20), he turns to the call of the Gospel (3:21) as
the manifested “righteousness of God,” which is “attested by the
Torah and the Prophets.”
As the argument of the epistle unfolds, Paul expounds Genesis
15:6 as a focal point for what is meant by imputed righteousness,
utilizing Abraham and David as prime examples. In 10:5ff he
quotes Deuteronomy 30:12-14 and identifies this as the “word of
faith which we are preaching.” And in the final conclusion of the
epistle (15:9-12), he compiles a mosaic of texts from the Tanach as
a fitting finale to his message.
This same phenomenon (to one extent or another) is
characteristic in all of Paul’s epistles, proving beyond doubt
that what Paul was writing was not something new or novel.
He worked hard to show just the opposite, that his message
and mission were both deeply rooted in and supported by the
Scriptures: the Torah, Prophets, and Writings (the Tanach).
Therefore anyone who claims to have read Paul as suggesting
a “different way” or as somehow encouraging his readers to
abandon the message of the Tanach for a new, more “up-to-date”
message from God has surely misread Paul and accused him of
errant theology. Can we really believe that Paul’s message could
have been founded on the premise that “the Bible is no longer
valid?” But if we say that Paul impugns the Tanach, we say
nothing less, for this was the Bible of his day.
Some might suggest that Paul did not impugn the whole
Tanach, but only the Torah as passe and out of date, or as relevant
to Jews but not to Gentiles. But not only would this go contrary
to his own words, it would also go against the theology that
Paul himself teaches, that all Scripture is divinely inspired and is
therefore the very word of God for the believer.
Indeed, Paul considered the words of his Bible to be the
very oracle of God,343 the words which lead to salvation,344 and
that which God provided for our instruction.345 Rather than
343
Romans 3:2.
344
2Timothy 3:15.
345
Romans 15:4.
142
Paul’s Theology: Paul’s Bible
abandoning or replacing any part of the sacred Scriptures, Paul’s
mission was fueled by a renewed reading of the sacred text, a
reading illumined by the very person of Messiah Himself. What
Paul discovered as he studied the Torah with eyes of faith was that
everywhere it pointed to Yeshua. Far from being “outmoded” or
irrelevant, the Torah for Paul remained the central core revelation
of God that gave meaning to all subsequent revelation.
What Bible Did Paul Use?
In the letters of Paul that we have in the Apostolic Scriptures,346

several things are clear. First, Paul quotes from or makes clear
allusions to the Tanach 111 times.347 In these quotes and allusions,
he references the Torah 46 times, the Prophets 42 times, and the
Writings 23 times (41% Torah, 38% Prophets, and 21% Writings).
The majority of these quotes and allusions (75%) are from the
Torah, Isaiah, and the Psalms.
Interestingly, when the manuscripts at Qumran are tallied, the
three books most represented are Deuteronomy (27), Isaiah (21),
and Psalms (39). This would indicate that Paul’s use of the Tanach
fits into the general perspective of the 1st Century Judaisms.
Another interesting and important statistic is that of all the
quotes in Paul’s letters, 51 of them are from the Lxx (22 of which
contain different readings than the Masoretic text we now have)
while 38 agree neither with the Lxx nor the Masoretic text. At
least four times Paul quotes the Hebrew text against the Lxx.
What might these numbers suggest?
First, it is obvious that Paul, like most of the other Apostolic
authors, had and used the Lxx translation of the Tanach. By all
accounts, the Lxx was the popular Bible of the time and much
346
Apparently Paul wrote letters that we no longer have. For instance,
he refers to having written to the Corinthians previously in what we
know as 1Corinthians (cf. 1Corinthians 5:9). Apparently there was
a previous letter to Corinth, and the epistles which we have were
actually subsequent to this former epistle.
347
According to the table in the UBS 3rd edition of The Greek New Testament
(UBS, 1983), 898-900. E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Baker,
1957), 11, states that there are 93 quotations from the Tanach in the
Pauline letters. (He obviously is not counting close allusions, which
the larger figure of 111 takes into account.)
143
Chapter 3
of the Jewish community used it. In fact, the Jewish community
of Alexandria instituted an annual festival to commemorate
the anniversary of the Lxx’s translation of the Torah.348 Philo
considered the translators of the Lxx to be “prophets and priests
of the mysteries.”349 While there is no certain evidence that the
Lxx was used in synagogal readings, we know that Aquila’s
translation was so used, most likely replacing the Lxx in official
readings.350 Even some references in Mishnah and Talmud reflect
the pre-70 CE situation in which the Lxx was fully accepted by the
Jewish community:
I must say therefore, Scrolls of the Scripture may be written in

any language, and our Rabbis permitted them to be written in
Greek. They permitted! This would imply that the First Tanna
forbade it! What I must say therefore is, Our Rabbis permitted
them to be written only in Greek. And it goes on to state, R.
Judah said: When our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted
it only for a scroll of the Torah.351
In time, however, there was a growing animosity toward the Lxx

among the Jewish communities owing to its polemical use by the
emerging Christian community. By the end of the 1st Century
CE, new versions of the Greek translation (such as Aquila’s)
were circulated within the Jewish communities as the necessary
replacement of the Lxx. The annual celebration of the translation
of the Torah into Greek
…was converted into a day of grief and mourning for the

damage that the version had caused to Judaism.352
Nevertheless, in Paul’s day, the Lxx was received and used among
the Jewish communities in which he traveled. It only makes sense
that he would quote from it as that text with which his readers
were most familiar.
348
Juilo Trebolle Barrera, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible , Watson,
trans. (Brill/Eerdmans, 1998), 124.
349
De Vita Mosis 2.40.
350
Barrera, The Jewish Bible, 124.
351
b.Megilah 9a.
352
Barrera, The Jewish Bible, 124, referencing Sefer Torah I, 8: Megillat
Ta’anit 13.
144
But secondly, Paul also knew and read the Hebrew Tanach. We
know this because in some of his quotes he corrects the readings
of the Lxx in favor of the original Hebrew or even quotes directly
from the Hebrew against the Lxx.353 We cannot say exactly what
Hebrew text Paul had, but we know that it was substantially the
text represented at Qumran and standardized in the 9th Century
CE by the Masoretes. In other words, it was for all practical
purposes the same text which we have in the Tanach today.
Thirdly, it seems clear that Paul considered his Bible to be
sufficiently defined so that he could refer to it as “the Torah” or
the “Torah and the Prophets” or even that which was “Written”
(grafhv, graphe) and expect his readers to understand. Paul did not
consider those books that were being circulated in his day, but
not received as authoritative Scripture, to be possible candidates
for inclusion in his Bible. Paul considered his Bible a canon.
He may have appreciated the teachings of his contemporaries,
and even utilized them in formulating his own viewpoints and
understanding of Scripture, but he did not deem them to be
Scripture or possible candidates for Scripture.
What is more, he may have considered that the recent
outpouring of the Spirit was evidence of a new prophetic era,
and that God was at work to reveal Himself through the inspired
message of prophets. But this does not mean that Paul considered
the Scriptural canon open. We must allow for the possibility that
Paul could have viewed certain words (as those of contemporary
Sages) as thoroughly inspired, yet not part of the canon. In such
a case, the inspired words would be God’s gift for the proper
interpretation of the Tanach, but were not part of the canon he
received.
Did Paul Have the “Gospels” and Did He Consider Them “Scripture?”

In asking the question of whether or not Paul had what we now
call the “Gospels,” we enter into the issue of the so-called “New
Testament.” One of the questions that confronts us immediately
is the timing: Were any of the “New Testament” books circulating
in Paul’s day as Scripture?
First, we know that the Gospel of John was not written until
353
E.g., Romans 11:35; 1Corinthians 3:19; 2Corinthians 8:15; 2Timothy
2:19.
145
Chapter 3
after the death of Paul.354 If there were Gospels circulating in
Paul’s day, they would have been what we now know as Matthew,
Mark, and Luke, or the “Synoptics.” While there is ongoing debate
in the arena of Synoptic studies, the consensus of evangelical
scholarship continues to be that Mark appears to have been the
first Gospel written, and that Matthew and Luke used Mark
in their compositions. Even if Matthenian or Lukian priority is
granted,355 no one suggests the existence of a recognized Gospel
before the date of 65 CE. Indeed, some Synoptic scholars teach
that Mark borrowed from Paul.356 As such, while there may have
been written sources of the sayings of Yeshua circulating among
Messianic groups,357 the Gospels as we have them today were not
extant in Paul’s life, and he therefore could not have held them as
Scripture.
This fact is important to consider when we read Paul’s epistles.
Since the order of books in our Apostolic Scriptures places Paul’s
epistles after the Gospels and Acts, we read them as though they
were written later. In fact, Paul’s epistles were written before
the Gospels were, even though many of the events they record
or to which they allude happened later than those found in the
Gospels.358
354
Its composition is usually dated to the end of the 1st Century CE.
Westcott puts it between 90-100 (Brooke F. Westcott, The Gospel
According to St. John [Baker, 1980], lxxxii) and Blomberg agrees (C. L.
Blomberg, “Gospels (Historical Reliability)” in Joel Green and Scot
McKnight, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [IVP, 1992], 292).
This is the general consensus of scholarship.
355
Note the fine work of Robert Lindsey in attempting to establish
an original Hebrew Gospel (which became what we now know as
Luke) as the first Gospel: Robert Lindsey, A New Approach to the
Synoptics (Dugith Pub, 1984), as well as his translation of Mark back
into Hebrew (A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark [Dugith Pub,
1973]).
356
Lindsey, Mark, 51ff.
357
Some have suggested this was the origin of what recent scholars are
calling “Document Q.”
358
Note the intriguing book Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical
Jesus by Donald Harman Akenson (Oxford, 2000).
146
What Did Paul Think of His Own Epistles?
When we ask the question, “What Bible did Paul use?” we also
open up the question of how Paul viewed his own writings. It is
obvious that he considered them to be authoritative halachah in
some instances (such as 1Corinthians), but it is hardly possible
that he thought his own writings to be on the same canonical
level with the Books of Moses.
A difficulty arises with the statement of Peter, one of Paul’s
contemporaries, when describing communication Paul had made
to his readers. Peter writes:
just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom

given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them
of these things, in which are some things hard to understand,
which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest
of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.359
What is puzzling is that if Paul’s letters were so highly prized

during his lifetime, why is there no further evidence of their use,
circulation, or collection? Even in the book of Acts, the majority
of which is taken up with the life and mission of Paul, not one of
his 13 epistles is referenced. In fact, apart from the mention of his
letters by Peter, the first hint that we have of Paul’s epistles being
collected is from Clement (end of the 1st Century CE) who seems
to be aware of 1Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, Philippians, and
Ephesians.360 Since after the 1st Century it is clear that Paul’s letters
circulated as a collection, it seems reasonable to presume that
there was a gradual collection process. Congregations to whom
the epistles had originally been sent were no doubt repositories
for certain epistles, and from these were collected the Pauline
corpus.
Yet it was not until the 4th Century CE that lists of Paul’s letters
show firm consistency. The Marcion canon (mid-2nd Century CE)
has only ten epistles, while an early papyrus manuscript (known
as ∏46) contains seven epistles (and a possible eighth) as well as
Hebrews. From all the evidence, it appears very likely that some
359
2Peter 3:15-16.
360
A. G. Patzia, “Canon,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (IVP, 1993),
90.
147
Chapter 3
of Paul’s letters were circulated as a collection in the 2nd Century
CE, and received a growing consensus of authority and canonicity
in the 3rd and 4th Centuries. Thus, during the life of Paul, while
his letters were held as authoritative halachah in at least some (and
maybe most) of the Messianic communities to which they were
sent, they did not gain the status of Scripture until later.
What does this mean for us who live in the 21st Century?
The canon of Scripture that we have received consists of sixty-six
books, each of which exists as a result of human authors used to
originate the inspired text. These authors were borne along by
the Spirit Who, while not overcoming their individual humanity,
nonetheless assured that their works accurately revealed the
mind of God in the revelation He desired to give.
This mystery is profound, yet the product of this process is
essential. The inspired, inerrant word of God stands today as the
measure of faith and life. The Bible continues to be for us what it
has been for God’s people throughout the history of the world—
the direct revelation of God to show who He is, and what He has
done. And to call us to fellowship with Him through His Messiah
Yeshua.
But all too often talk of the biblical canon focuses only on the
end product and not the process by which the Bible as we know it
came into existence. Today, the Bible we hold and study represents
an historical process that is integral to the final form itself. To lose
sight of this process is to also to lose sight of a foundational truth,
namely, that the process of canonization was founded upon the
Torah as the first canon, and thus the exemplar for all subsequent
revelation. If the biblical canon were to be viewed as a building,
then the Torah is the foundation. To take the position that anyone
could have successfully written Scripture that disavowed the
primary place of Torah is to unravel the whole canon itself. Once
again, the Torah becomes the foundation for all who claim to
follow and worship the God of Israel.
Summary of Paul’s View of Scripture
We have seen that Paul, like his teachers, considered the Bible to
be divinely inspired and the authoritative body of truth by which
God is known and in which righteousness for living is described.
Paul’s Bible consisted of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings,
148
Paul’s Theology: 1st Century Messianism
the part of our Bibles usually called the “Old Testament.” He did
not have any other writings that he considered to be Scripture
(including what we now call the “New Testament”), nor did he
consider his epistles to be an addition to the Hebrew canon of
Scripture.
We have also seen that Paul used the Greek translation of the
Tanach, sometimes quoting it directly, while other times correcting
it against the Hebrew originals which he had, or at least had access
to.
Paul’s view of Scripture precludes any possibility that he
taught the abolition of the Torah. Since he considered the Torah as
divinely inspired Scripture, he received it as God’s authoritative
revelation for faith and life, and so taught it to those he discipled
and instructed. To say otherwise is to misread Paul and to accuse
him of errant theology.
Finally, the Torah stood as the benchmark for all subsequent
Scripture. Since it was the first canon, all subsequent writing that
sought to be received as Scripture had to conform to the Torah’s
exemplar. Anything given that went contrary to what God
had already revealed simply could not be received as inspired.
Therefore, neither Yeshua nor Paul could have come teaching the
abolition of the Torah. If they had taught such a thing, it would
have been incumbent upon God’s people to reject them as false
teachers.
This, then, is a core issue: can we read Paul as consistently
upholding Torah as the eternal, inspired word of God? Surely we
must, or else we will be forced to admit that he was a false teacher.
These are our only options.
3.9 Paul’s Christology: The Person of Messiah

Messianism in 1st Century Judaisms
Of all the issues being discussed in the study of 1st Century

Judaisms, messianism is one of the most controversial and
disputed. Some of this is an overreaction to the abuses of the
Christian theologians of the past decades who imposed upon the
study of the 1st Century the anachronistic dogmas of the Christian
church. On the other hand, liberal scholarship often appears to
work on the premise that a valid messianism in the 1st Century
149
Chapter 3
is simply an impossibility. In the midst of these extremes, it is
important for us to discover what the Jewish communities of the
1st Century looked for and expected regarding the Messiah.361
This information will help us more fully understand how Yeshua
as Messiah fulfilled these expectations for Paul, and how He
figured as the cornerstone in Paul’s theology.
Messiah in Rabbinic Literature
It is not an exaggeration to say that the concept of Messiah is a

central one for the Rabbis. Fixed into the Shemonei Esrei (recited
daily),362 the hope of Messiah is celebrated at every circumcision
(at which the Chair of Elijah is made prominent), on every Shabbat
(in which the call for Elijah to come with the Messiah is included),
and in the blessing after every meal (birkat hamazon). Indeed,
according to the halachic rulings of the Sages, the resolution of
every unresolved dilemma is reserved for the time when Messiah
will return to give the ruling. Moreover, each of the yearly festivals,
in one way or another, has a mention of Messiah in the traditional
liturgy and presents the longings of the Jewish community for
His coming.
The Talmud speaks of two Messiahs: Messiah son of Joseph
who would suffer, and Messiah son of David who would be
victorious and reign.
Our Rabbis taught, The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to
the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily
in our days!), ‘Ask of me anything, and I will give it to thee’, as
it is said, I will tell of the decree, etc. this day have I begotten
361
For more information on early messianic expectations, and the
whole study of Christology, see my The Messiah: An Introduction
to Christology (TorahResource, 2006).
362
The 15th Benediction: “The sprout of David, Your servant, speedily
cause to flourish and exalt his power with Your deliverance, for
Your deliverance we hope all day. Blessed are You, Adonai, Who
causes to sprout the power of salvation.” Note that the “sprout”
terminology comes from the messianic prophecies of in the Tanach:
Isaiah 4:2; Jeremiah 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12. In each of these texts,
the corresponding Targum interprets the “Branch” (‫צֶמַח‬, tzemach) as
the Messiah.
150
thee, ask of me and I will give the nations for thy inheritance.
But when he will see that the Messiah the son of Joseph is slain,
he will say to Him, ‘Lord of the Universe, I ask of Thee only
the gift of life.’ ’As to life’, He would answer him, ‘Your father
David has already prophesied this concerning you’, as it is said,
He asked life of thee, thou gavest it him [even length of days for
ever and ever].363
How early was this belief in both a suffering and reigning

Messiah? The Qumran materials give evidence of messianic
expectations in the late Second Temple period. The Dead Sea
Scrolls contain numerous references to Two Messiahs, one from
the line of David, and the other from the line of Aaron.364 While
some have cautioned against equating this with the Messiah of
Israel,365 others have noted that the manner in which the Twin
Messiahs are spoken of in the Qumran literature follows the
course and growth of messianism generally in the Judaisms of
the late Second Temple period.366
Indeed, one Qumran text, 4Q521 Messianic Apocalypse, is
considered by some scholars to be speaking specifically of a future,
eschatological Messiah to whom “the heavens and the earth will
listen.” This same text indicates that the Messiah would “preach
good news to the poor,” alluding to Isaiah 61:1 (“anointed…to
preach good news to the poor”). Moreover, other passages from
Isaiah are also paralleled: Isaiah 35:5-6 (“the eyes of the blind shall
be opened”), Isaiah 26:19 (“your dead shall live, their bodies shall
rise”), and possibly Isaiah 53:5 (“he was wounded…and with
his stripes we are healed).”367 The fact that these very same texts
were used by Yeshua Himself to point to His Messianic mission is
363
b.Sukkah 52a-b.
364
1QS 9.10-11; CD 12.22-23; 13:20-22; 19:34-20.1; 14.18-19; 19.9-11[7.20-
21].
365
Lawrence Schiffman, “Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran
Scrolls,” in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah: Developments in
Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Fortress, 1992), 116-129.
366
J. D. G. Dunn, “Messianic Ideas and Their Influence on the Jesus of
History” in Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah (Fortress, 1992), 365-381.
367
See the remarks of C. A. Evans, “Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521)” in
Craig Evans and Stanley Porter, eds. Dictionary of the New Testament
Background (IVP, 2000), 696.
151
Chapter 3
remarkable and significant.368
While some modern scholars still hold to the idea that a
royal Messiah-Savior figure is not found in late Second Temple
Messianism,369 others affirm that there is growing evidence for
just such a messianism from the Pseudepigrapha and Qumran
texts. Craig Evans writes:
The data therefore suggests that the messianism attested in

early sources, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, coheres with what
can be ascertained from other Jewish sources from this period
of time (such as some of the pseudepigrapha and NT writings)
and even later (such as the targums and Rabbinic literature).370
Some thirty texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls speak of anointed personages.
About half of these are in reference to what is probably the traditional,
royal Messiah.371
But do the Qumran scrolls contain evidence of a belief in

a suffering Messiah? While this question is hotly debated, a
growing number of scholars support the idea that there was a clear
expectation of a Messiah among the early Judaisms, including a
suffering Messiah. Some have even found in a fragment of the War
Scroll a reference to a “Pierced Messiah,”372 though subsequently
scholars have questioned this interpretation, some even calling it
368
cf. Matthew 11:5.
369
e.g. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S. J., The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins
(Eerdmans, 2000), 79; Jacob Neusner, Messiah in Context (Fortress,
1984), 30.
370
C. A. Evans, “Messianism” in Evans and Stanley, eds., Dictionary of
the New Testament Background (IVP, 2000), 700.
371
Ibid., 701.
372
4Q285 has been labeled the “Pierced Messiah” text, primarily on the
basis of early interpretations by scholars such as Robert Eisenman of
California State University who claimed that it spoke of the Messianic
Leader being killed. Subsequent investigations by scholars have
reinterpreted the text to indicate that the Messianic Leader is the
one who does the killing, not who is killed. Eisenman later agreed
that this was a possibility. Cp. Robert H. Eisenman and Michael
Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Element, 1992), 24ff; Hartman
Stegemann, The Library of Qumran (Brill/Eerdmans, 1998), 102ff.
152
nonsense.373
Yet it has become increasingly clear that the whole idea of a
messiah who suffers for the redemption of his people was not
foreign to the Judaisms of the 1st Century CE. Israel Knohl, Chair
of the Bible Department at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem,
has written a book entitled The Messiah before Jesus: the Suffering
Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Knohl shows convincingly that
at least one messianic strain among the Dead Sea Scroll sect
anticipated the coming of a suffering Messiah who by his suffering
would redeem his people. Such a claim is significant because the
Qumran Scrolls are the only direct, literary evidence we have
of 1st Century Judaisms.374 They contain what seems to be clear
evidence that some of the Judaisms of the 1st Century were
looking for a messiah who would redeem his people through his
own personal suffering.
The Pseudepigraphic literature also includes important texts
that speak of Messiah. 1Enoch 48:10 references the rejection of “the
Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah,” while 52:4 reads, “All these
things you have seen happen by the authority of his Messiah so
that he may give orders and be praised upon the earth.” Though
4Ezra 7:28-29 has some textual uncertainties, it reads:
For my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are
with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred
years. And after these years my son the Messiah shall die, and
all who draw human breath.
Furthermore, 4Ezra 12:32 identifies the “lion” of the vision being

described as “the Messiah whom the Most High has kept until
the end of days, who will arise from the posterity of David.”
Additionally, the Psalms of Solomon contain multiple references
373
Stegemann, The Library of Qumran, 103.
374
It is true, of course, that the early midrashim, along with the
Mishnah and the Apostolic writings, give us much evidence of the
character of early Judaisms. However, the extant manuscripts of
these writings are later, and detractors often presume that they have
been tampered with to accommodate the later, emerging Christian
Church (Apostolic Writings) or the post-70 CE Rabbinic Judaism
(midrashim and Mishnah). Thus, the Dead Sea Scrolls occupy a
unique position as the only extant manuscript evidence that dates
from the 1st Centuries BCE and CE.
153
Chapter 3
to the Davidic Messiah.375
If one is willing, therefore, to read the ancient literature with
open eyes, the fact is clear: the hope of the Messiah and the
anticipation of His soon appearance was well established in the
Judaisms of the Second Temple period. The accusation that such a
messianic expectation was the manufactured product of the later,
emerging Christian Church is simply not accurate.
The Rabbinic literature gives us further indication that the
hope of a coming Messiah continued to be a recurring theme
in the Judaism that survived the destruction of the Temple. For
instance, the Targumim,376 in their expanded translations, often
include a Messianic interpretation of what were considered
messianic texts. As examples, Targum Jonathan sees a reference
to the Messianic era in its interpretation of Genesis 3:15. Likewise,
all of the Targumim interpret the “Shilo” prophecy of Genesis
49:10-12 as speaking of the coming Messiah.377 Moreover, Targum
Jonathan understands Isaiah 52:13–53:12 to be speaking of the
Messiah, translating the opening verse of the section: “Behold my
servant Messiah shall prosper….” Even among the later Talmudic
scholars there were those who considered the Isaiah 53 passage to
be speaking of the suffering Messiah.
Rab said: The world was created only on David’s account.
375
cf. 17:32, “Lord Messiah” (as in the Greek and Syriac manuscripts).
The character of the Messiah in the Psalms of Solomon is that he will
appear on the appointed day (18:5), drive out the wicked (17:27),
purge Jerusalem of sinners (17:30, 32, 36; 18:5) and will lead Israel,
judging the tribes of the people (17:26) and distributing the land
according to their tribes (17:28). See the comments of C. A. Evans,
“Messianism” in The Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds, 701.
376
The Targumim are expanded translations of the Hebrew Bible into
Aramaic. The dates of the codified Targumim are disputed, but there
seems to be clear evidence of the existence of recognized Aramaic
translations of the Tanach in the 1st Century CE and earlier. Fragments
of Aramaic translations have been found at Qumran (4QTgLev,
4QTgJob, 11QTgJob), and the emerging rabbinical regulations of the
Targumim would indicate that they were gaining popularity and
use in the pre-rabbinic era.
377
The Qumran scrolls likewise interpret the Genesis 49:10-12 text
messianically, 4Q252.
154
Samuel said: On Moses’ account; R. Johanan said: For the sake
of the Messiah. What is his [the Messiah’s] name? — The School
of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh
come. The School of R. Yannai said: His name is Yinnon, for it
is written, His name shall endure for ever: e’er the sun was, his
name is Yinnon. The School of R. Haninah maintained: His name
is Haninah, as it is written, Where I will not give you Haninah.
Others say: His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is
written, Because Menahem [‘the comforter’], that would relieve
my soul, is far. The Rabbis said: His name is ‘the leper scholar,’
as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our
sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and
afflicted.378
Similarly, the earlier Sages considered the prophecies of Zechariah

to be referring to the Messiah. Note Zechariah 6:12-13:
“Then say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Behold, a

man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where
He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD. Yes, it is He
who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear
the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a
priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between
the two offices.”’
Targum Jonathan renders the opening phrase:
“And you shall say to him saying, thus says Adonai of Hosts,
saying, Behold the man, Messiah is his name.”
Later Rabbinic interpretations on this Zechariah text steer clear

of the Messianic reference,379 but it seems that this is motivated
by a reaction against the Church’s use of the passage.380 Thus,
reflecting the earlier messianism of pre-destruction Judaisms, the
Talmuds maintain and expand the messianic expectation.
Likewise, the One pierced in Zechariah 12:10 is understood by
378
b.Sanhedrin 98b. cf. also Mid. Rab. Ruth on 2.14; Yalqut ii.571; ii.620.
379
See the comments of Rashi, Eben Ezra, and Kimchi on Zechariah
6:12f in ‫ירושלים( מקראות גדולות‬, 1924), 7.345-46.
380
For further resources on the Rabbinic view of Messiah, see Raphael
Patai, The Messiah Texts (Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979); Rachmiel
Frydland, What the Rabbis Know About the Messiah (Messianic Pub.
Co., 1993).
155
Chapter 3
some early Rabbis to refer to the Messiah (even though reactions
against the use of this verse by early followers of Yeshua caused a
shift in Rabbinic interpretation):
…It is well according to him who explains that the cause [of the
mourning] is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, since that
well agrees with the Scriptural verse, And they shall look upon
me because they have thrust him through, and they shall mourn
for him as one mourneth for his only son.381
We may affirm, therefore, that a developing messianism was a

part of the Judaisms in the time of Yeshua, including the concept
of a suffering Messiah. A growing messianism can be traced
in the emerging Rabbinic Judaism, a messianism which is in
harmony with Paul’s teaching. But for Paul, the seeds of messianic
expectation sown throughout the Tanach, nurtured in the fertile
soil of the prophetic literature, come to fruition in the appearance
of Yeshua. Yeshua is the promised Messiah Who suffers for His
people, fulfilling the words of the Prophets and the “promises
made to the fathers.”382 In Him the covenants find their viability
and ultimate application.
“The Promise”
Interestingly, the term “covenant”383 is not the dominant word

used in the Apostolic Scriptures when referring to the historical
covenants made with the Fathers. In fact, in Acts and the Pauline
Epistles the word is only found 11 times. In comparison, the word
“promise” is used some 40 times in direct reference to the ancient
covenants. Why would Paul and the other Apostles prefer the
word “promise” to the word “covenant”?
The answer is two-fold. First, the fact that the Abrahamic and
Davidic covenants were understood to be essentially unilateral
gave way to the emphasis upon “promise.” Covenants or treaties
of the Ancient Near East were usually patterned either after the
Suzerain-Vassal treaty or the Royal Grant treaty.
381
b.Sukkah 52a.
382
Acts 13:32-33.
383
‫ּב ְִרית‬, berit, in the Hebrew, diaqhvkh, diatheke in the Lxx and Apostolic
Scriptures.
156
The Suzerain-Vassal treaty was made between a Great King
and his appointed Vassal in order to guard the interests of the
Great King and assure the loyalty of the Vassal. By their very
nature, these treaties were bilateral, meaning that the blessings
or rewards from the Great King were dependent upon the
obedience and compliance of the Vassal. If the Vassal did his part,
the Great King would respond in blessing. If the Vassal rebelled
or disobeyed, the Great King would respond with punishment
and the curses as outlined in the covenant. In these treaties the
Vassal would be required to take an oath, and the outcome of the
covenant, in great measure, depended upon his obedience to this
oath.
In contrast, the Royal Grant treaty was made between a Great
King and his Vassal as a reward for the Vassal’s loyalty. In this
kind of treaty the Great King would grant a parcel of land to the
Vassal, declaring it tax-exempt and the possession of the Vassal
throughout perpetuity. When the Vassal died, the land would
become the possession of his family throughout their generations.
No one could take the land from them, and no one could require
a tax from it, even by the successor to the Great King. In this
case, the rights of the Vassal were guaranteed in the treaty, and
the Great King was the one who took the oath. There were no
stipulations laid upon the Vassal, or measures to which he would
need to perform in order to receive the gift. The whole matter was
guaranteed on the word and oath of the Great King.
It is not difficult to see that the covenants of the Tanach
have been specifically patterned after these ancient treaties in
order to reveal God’s purposes in them. The Abrahamic and
Davidic covenants are clearly patterned after the Royal Grant
treaty, guaranteeing the Land to Abraham and his descendants
as the gracious gift of God. In Genesis 15, therefore, the Great
King, the Lord, takes the oath as demonstrated by His presence
passing between the slain pieces of the sacrifice. Abraham, on the
other hand, is put into a deep sleep to show graphically that the
covenant does not depend upon him, but upon God alone.
In contrast, the Mosaic covenant is patterned after the Suzerain-
Vassal treaty. Israel is God’s Vassal, commissioned to carry out
His work upon the earth. As such, the covenant contains both
blessings and cursings, and Israel is required to obey. If she keeps
the covenant as prescribed, she will receive blessings. But if she
157
Chapter 3
disobeys and disregards the covenant, the curses will come upon
her.384
With this background it is easy to understand why the word
“promise” became the term of choice for the Apostles as they
referenced the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. Since by its
very structure God had emphasized the unilateral nature of these
covenants, the word “promise” captured this Divine initiative in
fulfilling the covenant and bringing to fruition that which He had
promised in it. Note Paul’s use of the word in Acts 13:32-33:
And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to

the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in
that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm,
‘You are My Son; today I have begotten You.’
as well as in his own defense (Acts 26:6-7):
And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made
by God to our fathers; the promise to which our twelve tribes
hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day. And
for this hope, O King, I am being accused by Jews.
Thus, Paul’s use of the word “promise” to refer to the

Abrahamic and Davidic covenants was to emphasize the unilateral
nature of these covenants.
But there is a second and all important reason why the word
“promise” is so prevalent in Paul’s covenant vocabulary. Along
with the other Apostles, he had come to understand and believe
that ultimately the promises of the covenant were bound up with
and fulfilled by the person of Yeshua, the Messiah. The wide
scope of covenant issues could all be summed in the person and
work of Messiah, the “promised One.” This is nowhere more
clearly stated than in the words of Ephesians 2:12 where he
describes the unbelieving Gentiles as “strangers to the covenants
of promise.” But the Greek original has the article “the” before the
word “promise.” Thus, Paul speaks of “covenants (plural) of the
384
For information on the Royal Grant Treaty/Covenant see M.
Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the
Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90(1970); T. Hegg, “Covenant of Grant
and the Abrahamic Covenant,” Masters Thesis: Northwest Baptist
Seminary (Tacoma, 1980).
158
Paul’s Theology: The Work of Messiah
promise (singular).” All of the outworking of God’s redemptive
plan, revealed through the historical covenants, are summed in
the singular promise of the Messiah Yeshua.
In fact, the promise of Messiah, beginning with Genesis 3:15,
becomes the primary thread that unifies the whole of the Tanach,
from the micro through the macro structures. Kaiser385 and
Sailhamer,386 among others, have shown how the central theme of
the Messianic promise not only unifies the Tanach, but also was a
core idea that helped mold the very shape of the Hebrew canon.
Far from being a peripheral belief held by a few fringe groups,
the promise and hope of a coming Messiah lay at the very heart of
post-exilic Israel and of God’s revelation to her via His prophets.
Paul’s Messiah
In classical treatments of the doctrine of Messiah (usually called

“Christology”) the material may be broadly divided into two
categories: the person of Messiah and the work of Messiah.
Once again, as we read the epistles of Paul with an eye to these
categories, we discover that he has formulated his understanding
of Messiah from the pages of the Tanach.
The Person of Messiah
Paul did not walk with Yeshua as the Twelve did, even though he
certainly knew of Yeshua before his Damascus Road experience.
Yet all that Paul knew of Him from a societal perspective was
negative, since he learned of Him as an antagonist. In fact, Paul
plainly states that he could no longer consider Yeshua “according
to the flesh,”387 but was apparently given over entirely to
understanding Him from the testimony of others, and directly
from the Scriptures of the Tanach. He accredits to oral testimony
(“that which I also received”) what he knew about Yeshua’s
385
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Toward an Old Testament Theology (Zondervan,
1978), 20-69; “The Eschatological Hermeneutics of ‘Epangelicalism’:
Promise Theology” JETS 14 (1972), 91-99.
386
John Sailhamer, Introduction to the Old Testament Theology: A Canonical
Approach (Zondervan, 1995); “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible”
JETS 44.1 (2001), 5-23.
387
2Corinthians 5:16.
159
Chapter 3
final Passover, including His newly inserted words in the seder
regarding His broken body and shed blood. He further learned
through the testimony of others that the Pesach seder would, from
that time on, also be a memorial of the deliverance He had won
for His people as the Savior of the world.388
Paul knew that Yeshua was born of a woman,389 and that He
was from the family of David,390 statements fully affirming His
humanity. He knew that Yeshua had died, that He had risen three
days later as He had said, that He had appeared to His disciples as
well as to others (including Paul), and that He had ascended to the
Father.391 Paul also affirms Yeshua’s eternality, His equality with
the Father, His status as the Son of God (a label well recognized
as messianic),392 and that He was worthy to be worshiped.393 Paul
taught the present intercessory activity of Yeshua at the Father’s
right hand394 and His future return to retrieve His own.395 In
all of these affirmations, Paul never writes as though needing
to defend something by way of debate. It was only in the later,
creedal activity of the 3rd and 4th Century Christian Church that
388
1Corinthians 11:13ff.
389
Galatians 4:4.
390
Romans 1:3; 2Timothy 2:8.
391
1Corinthians 15:3ff; Romans 8:34.
392
Philippians 2:1-5. The older scholarship which relegated the title
“Son of God” to the later, Greco-Roman influence, has currently
come under heavy attack by the appearance of the “Son of God”
text (4Q246) at Qumran. That the parallels in this text closely align
with the verbiage of the Lukan infancy narrative cannot be denied,
and is further proof that the “Son of God” terminology was not
only extant in the early centuries, but was used to denote Messiah
figures. On the terminology “son of Man” as Messianic, see C. F.
D. Moule, “The Son of Man: Some of the Facts” NTS 41(1995), 277-
279; John J. Collins, “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism” NTS
38(1992), 448-466; Thomas B. Slater, “One Like the Son of Man in
First-Century Judaism” NTS 41, 183-198; William O. Walker, “The
Origin of the Son of Man Concept as Applied to Jesus” in John Maier
and Vincent Tollers, eds. The Bible in its Literary Milieu (Eerdmans,
1979), 156-165.
393
Philippians 2:10.
394
Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1.
395
1Thessalonians 4:16-18.
160
the linear logic of the Greek and Latin fathers found some of these
categories inconsistent. In attempting to unravel the “mystery of
godliness,”396 they forced an “either-or” into categories which, in
Hebrew thought, were “both-and.”
For instance, Paul has no problem affirming the humanity of
Yeshua, but he can also, without explanation, tell the elders of
Ephesus that God purchased the congregation of believers “with
His own blood.”397 Does God have blood? Here Paul unveils his
working presupposition, namely, that Yeshua is God. Yet even
recognizing this open declaration of Yeshua as “God,” Paul can
state in another place that God is the “King eternal, immortal,
invisible…”398 and not concern himself with what appears to the
Western mind as an open contradiction. He can do this because
within the thinking process of the Semitic mind there is no
need for a comprehensive linear logic across all aspects of life’s
experiences and thoughts.399 Within the sphere of the Divine, God
is invisible. But when He desires to appear to His creation, He can
do so without compromising His essential nature. In the same
way, Paul has no difficulty affirming the full eternality of Yeshua
(no beginning or end) while at the same time acknowledging His
full humanity. Holding these apparent opposites in tension only
heightens the nature of the mystery and majesty of God, Who is
both above and beyond us, yet dwells with us.
The same phenomenon occurs in the Tanach, where the
descriptions of God appear to be contradictory. For instance, in
Exodus 33:20 God explicitly states, “You cannot see My face,400
396
1Timothy 3:16, a recognized confession of faith of the early followers
of Yeshua.
397
Acts 20:28. The manuscript data for the two readings kuvrio~ and qevo~
is as follows: qevo~ - ‫א‬, B , 056, 0142, 104, 614, 629, 1505, 1877*, 2412,
2495, lectionaries, itar,c vg, syrp,h copboms kuvrio~ - P74 A, C, D, E 33, 181,
436, 451, 630, 945, 1739, a few lectionaries, itd,e,gig,p syrh-mg copsa,bo arm.
Furthermore, the easier reading is “Lord,” since the text as read
with “God” is a blatant affirmation of the deity of Yeshua. See the
comments in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek
New Testament (United Bible Societies, 1971), 480-81.
398
1Timothy 1:17, cf. Colossians 1:15.
399
Marvin Wilson calls this “block logic.” Marvin Wilson, Our Father
Abraham (Eerdmans, 1989), 150ff.
400
It should be remembered that the Hebrew word “face” (‫ּפ ָנ ִים‬, panim) is
161
Chapter 3
for no man can see Me and live!” Yet in the same book (Exodus
24:10), after Moses and Aaron and the elders of Israel ascend Mt.
Sinai, the text states:
and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared
to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.
It is obvious that the narrative contains what to the Western

mind would be a blatant contradiction, yet neither Moses nor the
scribes who copied these texts throughout the millennia felt the
need to reconcile them. Why? Because the Semitic mind of the
ancient world expected the tension of competing concepts to be
the norm within the thinking process. Often our need to reconcile
these tensions leads us down a path the original authors never
intended.
Thus Paul, the Hebrew of Hebrews, fully affirms the eternality
of Yeshua and at the same time confesses Him to be “born of a
woman,” a descendant of David “according to the flesh.” Paul
believes that Yeshua had no beginning when he describes Him as
the Creator, as well as “before all things” (Colossians 1:15-18):
And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of

all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the
heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones
or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been
created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and
in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the
church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so
that He Himself might come to have first place in everything.
If we look at Paul’s words from a Hebrew perspective we

avoid the misinterpretations so easily attached to this text by
Western thinking. First, the structure is obvious in the Greek,
and discernible in the translation. It is made up of three stanzas,
each in chiastic401 arrangement, with the first and third stanzas
often translated “presence” in our English translations. The phrase

in question could therefore just as well be translated, “You cannot
see my presence and live.”
401
“Chiastic” means a structure in which elements are parallel from the
outer to the inner (a-b-c-b-a), thus forming an “X,” the letter “Chi”
in Greek.
162
also parallel. In the overall arrangement of the stanzas, the first
one is parallel to the third, utilizing the same key words for each
respective line. Thus, line 1 begins “He is the image . . .” and line
7 begins “He is the beginning . . . .” Likewise, line 2 begins with
“first-born” as does line 8. Line 3 begins with the Greek preposition
ejn (en, “in” or “by”) as does line 9. This kind of arrangement is
not uncommon in ancient writing, and particularly in the Semitic
languages. Since Paul is writing as a Hebrew, it is not strange to
find these kinds of structures in his Greek epistles. Here is how
the text might be arranged:
Line Text
1 He is the Image of the invisible God

2 first-born of all creation
3 By Him all things were created; through Him and for Him
4 And He is before all things

5 in Him all things hold together
6 And He is the head of the body, the ekklesia
7 He is the beginning
8 first-born from the dead
9 In all things He is first place
What does this arrangement402 tell us? It emphasizes the

preeminence of Yeshua as Creator and Sustainer of the Universe.
In the opening line He is the image of the invisible God, which is
paralleled by line 7, “He is the beginning.” This word “beginning”
corresponds to the typical Rabbinic use of the term to denote the
work of creation (‫מַעֲׂשֶה ב ְֵראׁשִית‬/‫ יֹוצ ֵר‬yozer/ma’aseh b’reshit).403 As
402
o¢ß e˙stin ei˙kw»n touv qeouv touv aÓora¿tou
prwto/tokoß pa¿shß kti÷sewß
e˙n aujtwˆ◊ e˙kti÷sqh ta» pa¿nta ta» pa¿nta di∆ aujtouv kai« ei˙ß aujto\n e¶ktistai:
kai« aujto/ß e˙stin pro\ pa¿ntwn
ta» pa¿nta e˙n aujtwˆ◊ sune÷sthken,
kai« aujto/ß e˙stin hJ kefalh\ touv sw¿matoß thvß e˙kklhsi÷aß:
o¢ß e˙stin aÓrch/,
prwto/tokoß e˙k tw◊n nekrw◊n,
e˙n pa◊sin aujto\ß prwteu/wn,
403
b.Sotah 40a; b.B’rachot 58a; b.Rosh HaShanah 11a, etc. The phrase ‫מַעֲׂשֶה‬
‫ ּב ְֵראׁשִית‬involved the “mysteries of creation,” which were forbidden by
the Rabbis to be taught in public, cf. b.Chagigah 11b. The Greek ajrc;h,
the word for “beginning” in the Colossians text, regularly translates
163
Chapter 3
“first-born” of the creation, parallel with “first-born” from the
dead (lines 2 & 8), He is proclaimed to be the One who rightfully
inherits both the fruits of creation as well as resurrection. Line 3
reiterates the proclamation of Yeshua as Creator, and its parallel,
line 9, emphasizes His preeminence in this position.
The first and third stanzas act as “bookends” to hold the
central stanza. Here, Yeshua is once again proclaimed as the
preeminent One, but now in relation to His people, the ekklesia.
And the middle sentence of the whole, which apparently Paul
intends to emphasize the most, proclaims Yeshua as the One by
whom all things maintain their current viability, including (and
perhaps especially) the ekklesia. Such language corresponds to the
Rabbinic teaching that God is constantly in the process of creating
and maintaining the creation, for the same phrase “work of
creation” is found in the liturgical affirmation that God “renews
every day, continually, the work of creation.”404 This means that
without His continual work of creation all would cease to exist.
So what does Paul affirm about Yeshua in this text? That He
is the Sovereign, the Creator, the Preeminent One, and the One by
whom the whole universe is constantly maintained. Any reading
of this text which puts Yeshua in a secondary place, or a position
diminished from God, has not read it with integrity. Paul is using
clear, Hebraic and even Rabbinic language to describe Yeshua
as the Creator, and such an affirmation ascribes to Yeshua an
absolute oneness with Adonai (‫)יהוה‬, a unity which goes beyond
our ability to explain.
But this is not some innovation on the part of Paul. Even
the Rabbinic literature alludes to the fact that the Messiah and
HaShem share the same Name:
What is the name of King Messiah? R. Abba b. Kahana said: His

name is ‘the LORD’ (‫ ;)יהוה‬as it is stated, And this is the name
the Hebrew ‫ ראשית‬of the Tanach. Furthermore, this same Greek word
(ajrc;h) can mean “government” and is so used in the Lxx of Isaiah
9:6-7 [Hebrew text 9:5-6] to translate the Hebrew ‫הַּמִׂשְָרה‬.
404
‫מחדש בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית‬, in the Morning Service, cf. Joseph H.
Hertz, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book (Bloch, 1975), 114-115. The
concept is based upon the use of the participle ‫עֹוׂשֶה‬, ‘oseh, “making”
in Psalms 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 136:5; 146:6, indicating a present
and ongoing work.
164
whereby he shall be called, The LORD (‫ )יהוה‬is our righteousness
(Jeremiah 23: 6).405
In like manner, the Name was vested in the Angel of the Lord
Who led Israel on her journey to the Promised Land,406 meaning
that His word was to be accepted as having the same authority as
the very word of God. This same Angel of the Lord is described
by Isaiah as the “Angel of the Face,” that is, the very Presence of
God, Who wrought salvation for the people of Israel.407
Thus, Paul affirmed the eternal nature of Yeshua, His
sovereignty as Creator and Sustainer of the universe, His
humanity as the son of David, Messiah, and His unity with the
Father as possessing all the divine attributes associated with the
Name. Paul never attempts to unravel this mystery, but affirms
and teaches it as the core reality of the Messiah he served.
Paul goes one step further in this remarkable opening chapter
of Colossians. Following the “hymn” of 1:15-18 he concludes in
verses 19-20:
For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell
in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself,
having made peace through the blood of His cross; through
Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
We should pay close attention to Paul’s affirmation that it was the

“Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him.” This
is paralleled in the next chapter (2:9) by the words:
For in Him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form….
Here, the additional word “deity” (qeothvto~, theotetos ) denotes

“the nature or essence of deity, that which constitutes deity.”408
The mystery of the incarnation is captured in this term for Paul.
He does not say the fullness of “God” dwells in bodily form, but
he adopts a term which contains the attributes of deity while
maintaining a clear distinction between God the Father and the
405
Mid. Rab. Lamentations 1:51; cf. b.Bava Batra 75a.
406
Exodus 23:21.
407
Isaiah 63:9.
408
BDAG, qeothvto~.
165
Chapter 3
Son of God as Immanuel.409
What exactly is Paul teaching here? The word “fullness”
(plhvrwma, pleroma) means “completeness.” While its meaning in
this text has attracted considerable debate, the growing consensus
is that in the Lxx and other places it “expresses the conviction that
God’s power and presence fill the universe.”410 This concept is
found in early Jewish works,411 and the idea of the divine presence
indwelling human beings is also present in Jewish writings.412
The point is obvious: Paul affirms the mystery of the
incarnation. He felt no need to give a philosophical explanation
on the level of Latin persona413 or Greek philosophy of ontology
409
That the Kabbalists tried to find a way to explain the obvious
multiplicity within the self-revelations of God as the conflation
of sepharot is in itself an attempt to explain the unexplainable, not
unlike the explanations derived by the later, Constantinian Church.
But any manufactured attempts at explaining the divine mystery of
God’s self-revelation rather detract from the glory of the mystery
than explain it. That God is both invisible and visible, that He is both
“wholly other” while at the same time “Immanuel” is the essence
of the mystery, and the strength of the tension which by faith we
accept but cannot (and perhaps should not) try to simplify in order
to render a satisfactory explanation.
410
James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Eerdmans, 1998),
204.
411
cf. Jeremiah 23:24; Ben Sira 1:6-7; Epistle of Aristeas 132; Philo, Legum
Allegoriae 3.4; De Gigantibus 47; De Confusione Linguarum 136; De
Vita Mosis 2.238. One should also note the Synagogue Liturgy, in
the two blessings before the Shema, the first (called ‫יוצר אור‬, “Who
creates light”) includes the ‫ קדוש קדוש קדוש‬prayer of Isaiah 6:3, which
contains the words “the whole earth is full of His glory (‫מלא כל־הארץ‬
‫)ּכבֹודֹו‬. Fearing that the biblical concept of the glory of God filling
the earth might be misinterpreted, the Sages ordained that Ezekiel
3:12, “Blessed is the glory of the Lord from His place,” be inserted
next. While God’s glory or presence may fill the universe, He is still
distinct from the universe and still maintains His rule of the world
from His exalted throne.
412
Testament of Zebulun 8:2; Testament of Benjamin 6.4; 1Enoch 49:3; Wisdom
1.4.
413
The Latin word persona has a root meaning of “mask,” and was used
in the Roman theater to denote the various “persons” a given actor
would portray. It has no equivalent in Hebrew or Greek.
166
(basis of reality). As a Hebrew, his way was to accept the mystery
of the unexplained and hold in tension two truths which would
appear to be self-contradictory but which were both surely true:
God is One, invisible, eternal, unchanging; Yeshua is One with the
Father, visible, human, yet eternal and divine. While the eternal
wonder of the incarnation no doubt remained a supreme mystery
in the heart of the Apostle, he felt no compulsion to attempt an
explanation which would satisfy human reason.
Unfortunately, this need would exist in the Western, Greek
mind, whose understanding of truth was necessarily built upon
the Greek definitions of reality. Yeshua could not be known or
understood (or trusted in) unless His “person” could be analyzed
and His “parts” defined. Was He fifty percent man and fifty
percent God? Did His humanity and deity blend to form a new,
unique “substance”?414 Such questions would never have occurred
to Paul, which is why the answers eventually formulated by the
Church Fathers are based upon philosophy and dogmatics, but
not on Paul’s letters nor any other Scriptures. Unfortunately, the
dogmatic creeds adopted by the Church in the 4th and 5th Centuries
to satisfy the Western mind went further to fuel the heretic fires
than they did to explain Paul. If we are to listen to Paul’s teaching
on the person of Messiah, we must do our best to read his letters
apart from the later dogmatic theology manufactured to explain
him. Indeed, nothing is more important for a clear understanding
of Paul’s theology than to read him “with both hands,” and not
with Luther’s theology in one hand, and Paul’s epistles in the
other.
Summary - The Person of Messiah
In summary, what can we say that Paul affirms about the person
414
The very fact that the later Church Creeds (such as the Athanasian
Creed) required the use of the term “substance” when speaking of
the nature of God, shows beyond doubt that a Greek model of reality
was the basic framework out of which the Creed was conceived. But
to consider the God of Hebrew Scripture from the framework of
Greek philosophical categories is to invite sure disaster. The eternal
Almighty of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not encompassed by
Greek philosophical explanations, notwithstanding valiant attempts
by Augustine and others so to explain Him.
167
Chapter 3
of Yeshua? He is the promised Messiah, the King and Priest of
Israel, of the tribe of Judah and the house of David. He is the very
presence of God with us (Immanuel), and in Him the fullness of
deity dwells. He is the only Savior, the One who died as a sacrifice
for sins and who rose from the dead as proof that the Father
accepted the atonement He made. He ascended to the Father
where He intercedes for His people, and will return to gather His
own to Himself and to rule as the rightful King of Israel. He is the
One of whom the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings speak,
and He is worthy to be worshiped because He is our Savior and
God.415
The Work of Messiah
Sha’ul, as he was no doubt known within his Jewish community,

awaited the coming of Messiah before he ever confessed Yeshua
to be that Messiah. Trained by Gamaliel and advanced beyond
his peers in matters relating to the Tanach and the teachings of
the Rabbis based upon it,416 he would have lived with the hope
that Messiah would come in his life-time and restore Israel to her
rightful place as God’s treasured people, Am Segulah (‫)ע ַם ס ֶגּול ָה‬.417
Convinced that the primary work of the Messiah was to subdue
Israel’s enemies and make her prominent among the nations, the
teaching and actions of Yeshua of Nazareth did not fit the fixed
picture Sha’ul had of the Messiah, nor did His humble servant
life meet Paul’s expectations of the victorious reigning Messiah.
In the blindness of eyes and the deafness of ears which Isaiah had
prophesied,418 Israel had missed their Messiah, and Sha’ul along
with them.
But Messiah had not missed Sha’ul! Breaking into his life at a
time he could have never expected, Paul was drawn to the truth
415
Romans 9:5, though disputed as to the exact syntax and structure,
is best understood as affirming the deity of Yeshua (cf. C. E. B.
Cranfield, Romans 2 vols in International Critical Commentary (T & T
Clark, 1979), 2.464f; cf. Titus 2:13, noting the application of Granville
Sharp’s rule, see note 499 below.
416
Galatians 1:14.
417
Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2; 26:18.
418
Isaiah 6:10; 43:8.
168
not only of who the Messiah was, but of His purpose in coming
as the Lamb of God. The victory He was to win was not first and
foremost over the enemy-nations of Israel, but over the Enemy
of souls and over the condemning sin which had infected all of
mankind.
Paul’s encounter with Yeshua not only changed his
understanding of who the Messiah was, but also of what the
Messiah’s work would be. It was not as though the prevailing
opinions of his day had entirely neglected or missed the idea that
Messiah would effect redemption when He came. The Sages knew
that the Messiah would lead Israel in the ways of righteousness
and bring her back from ways in which she had erred. Even at the
time of Hillel and Shammai (1st Century CE) it was recognized
that the controversies and varied interpretations of the Torah
and halachah were in conflict, and that the return of Messiah was
necessary for a proper resolution.
At first there was no controversy in Israel except over the laying

on of the hands alone. But Shammai and Hillel arose and made
them four. When the disciples of the School of Hillel increased,
and they did not study sufficiently under their masters, the
controversies in Israel increased, and they became divided
into two companies, the one declaring unclean, the other
declaring clean. And (the Torah) will not again return to its
(uncontroversial) place until the son of David (i.e., the Messiah)
will come. 419
In like manner, the later Rabbis wrote:
It has been taught, R. Nehemiah said: in the generation of

Messiah’s coming impudence will increase, esteem be perverted,
the vine yield its fruit, yet shall wine be dear, and the Kingdom
will be converted to heresy with none to rebuke them. This
supports R. Isaac, who said: The son of David will not come
until the whole world is converted to the belief of the heretics.
Raba said: What verse [proves this]? It is all turned white: he is
clean.420
This last reference is to Leviticus 13:13 which teaches that if

the whole body is white (in the inspection for Tzara’at, usually
419
y. Chagigah II,4.
420
b.Sanhedrin 97a.
169
Chapter 3
translated “leprosy”), then he is clean. The Rabbis interpret this
as illustrative of the time just prior to the Messianic age when
the whole world will follow the heretics (be entirely “white”
with leprosy) and thus be ready for the cleansing work of the
Messiah.
But did the Judaisms of Paul’s day see a correlation between
the sacrificial system of the Temple and the work of Messiah
as a necessary sacrifice for His people? Was the concept of a
substitutionary sacrifice foreign to Paul before he came to faith
in Yeshua, or was that concept a well-grounded one in his belief-
system? Is the whole idea of the sacrifices as a foreshadowing of
Messiah’s death a later Christian fabrication?
The Rabbinic literature affirms that the sacrifices atoned,
though the Sages also attribute atoning qualities to repentance,
suffering, and one’s death.421 The discussions relating to Yom
Kippur (Day of Atonement), however, show a clear affirmation
that sins exist that cannot be atoned for on the basis of one’s own
repentance or suffering, and that therefore the Yom Kippur sacrifice
is essential.
Yet even in this, one’s repentance must be active in respect to
the sacrifice or else it has no personal benefit. In this the Rabbis
teach the necessity of a personal connection with the sacrifice
and guard against a mechanical view of atonement, or worse yet,
some kind of magical or ritualistic use of the sacrifice.
The sin-offering and the guilt-offering [for the] undoubted

commission of certain offences procure atonement, death and the
Day of Atonement procure atonement together with penitence.
Penitence procures atonement for lighter transgressions: [the
transgression of] positive commandments and prohibitions.
In the case of severer transgressions it [penitence] suspends
[the divine punishment], until the Day of Atonement comes
to procure atonement. If one says: I shall sin and repent, sin
and repent, no opportunity will be given to him to repent. [if
one says]: I shall sin and the Day of Atonement will procure
atonement for me, the day of atonement procures for him no
atonement.422
421
Mekilta Bahodesh 7 (249-251 in the Lauterbach edition); cf. b.Yoma
86a.
422
m.Yoma 8:6, Gemara b.Yoma 85b.
170
What is more, the Rabbis connect God’s forgiveness with
atonement, at times speaking of them as nearly synonymous.
It appears, then, that God’s forgiveness was included under
the general term ‘atonement’. The Rabbis did not go to the
trouble of saying that man, by confessing and praying on the
Day of Atonement, makes atonement and God forgives him.
They simply said, ‘The Day of Atonement atones’. That they
understood that atonement includes God’s forgiveness is clear
from the way in which ‘atone’ and ‘forgive’ can interchange.423
Even the well established Rabbinic teaching that “repentance”

atones needs to be understood in the context of the Hebrew word
‫ּת ְׁשּוב ָה‬, teshuvah, the word most often translated by the English
“repentance.” While the English word repentance (at least in its
etymology) means “to rethink” or “to think differently,” the
Hebrew word teshuvah means literally “to turn” or “return.” The
one can be viewed as a thinking process, the other as a change
in actions. That the Scriptures understand “repentance” to be a
change in one’s actions is without dispute. In a classical statement
about repentance, Ezekiel writes:
“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to

his conduct,” declares the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn away
from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a
stumbling block to you”.424
Note the same theme in the words of John the Baptizer directed to
some of the Pharisees who were coming to him:
Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance.425
A common thread appears: repentance is found to be false if a

change of behavior is not apparent. To say “I’ll sin and repent, sin
and repent” only betrays a false heart, and a subsequent despising
of the sacrifice. Thus, true repentance flows out of a heart already
in submission to God. When the issues of forgiveness, repentance,
and sacrifice are combined as the way of life for covenant members,
it is not difficult to see that the work of the anticipated suffering
423
E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 161.
424
Ezekiel 18:30.
425
Matthew 3:8.
171
Chapter 3
Messiah would be that of redemption—bringing His people to
enjoy God’s forgiveness through the atonement He would effect.
His suffering would provide sacrificial payment for sins as the
people participated via repentance.
The concept of the Suffering Messiah surely existed in Paul’s
day (as I have shown above), and proves that such a Messianic
interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures was not something new
or innovative with Paul. That the Messiah would come to rescue
and deliver His people from their enemies, and bring them back
to the Land from which they had been exiled was only part of the
Messianic anticipation. There was also the understanding that in
some way the Messiah Himself would do business with the sins
of the people as well, and that He would bear their transgressions.
The very fact that the Sages posited both a suffering as well as
a victorious Messiah proves that they understood the Messianic
work to involve both corporate deliverance and individual
cleansing. For while the corporate solidarity of Israel could
view sin at the national level, transgression and the atonement
required for its expiation was an individual issue, carried out by
the individual in the Temple ritual of sacrifice.
It was with these concepts well in mind, that Paul reread
the Tanach as the revelation of Messiah Yeshua, and proclaimed
afresh, by God’s gracious guidance, the Abrahamic faith which
was the possession of the believing remnant in every generation.
This Gospel was not exclusively for Israel, but envisioned the
whole world, and offered a way to attain membership in the
covenant for both Jew and Gentile. This “way” was the simple
yet profound exercise of faith in God’s Messiah—His method of
giving a sinner a righteous status. It was through the sacrifice of
the Lamb of God, the Messiah, foreshadowed by every sacrifice
in the Tabernacle and Temple. And anyone could put his hands
upon the head of this infinite Sacrifice, identifying it as his own
vicarious substitute, by the simple exercise of faith.
Yet through the layering of tradition,426 this Gospel, Paul’s
426
I use the word “tradition” here in the sense in which it is found in
Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8, 9, 13, that is, the teachings
of men which effectively set aside the truth of God. Those traditions
which encourage and promote true faithfulness to God and His
Torah should not be despised but utilized according to one’s freedom
in Messiah.
172
Gospel,427 was in danger of being eclipsed. Ritual had taken such
a primary place in the life of Israel that for many, the faith that the
ritual was to enhance and uphold had been all but neglected. The
High Priesthood was corrupt, the Temple precincts controlled by
those whose primary purpose was personal gain. The Rabbinic
halachah had grown to such an extent that the common person was
lost in a maze of regulations that could easily snuff out personal
communion and genuine worship of Israel’s God.
Paul himself had been caught up in this swiftly running river
of tradition, and had excelled as a champion of its rituals. But a
single encounter with the Messiah stripped away the wrappings
that obscured the truth of the ancient Gospel, uncovering it to his
mind and conscience. He did not discover something new—he
did not formulate a new way. Rather, he recovered the simple,
eternal truth of the Gospel revealed in the Scriptures. But it was
not until he was blinded by the “glory of God in the face of
Messiah”428 that the veil had been lifted and he saw the Messiah
in truth.
Thus, for Paul, the work of Messiah was the heart of the
Gospel. And the Gospel could be summed up in Yeshua’s death,
resurrection, ascension, intercession, and return to reign as the
victorious King.429
When Paul uses the term “Christ,” Crivsto~, christos, which
means “anointed” in the Greek and corresponds to the Hebrew
ַ ‫מָׁשִיח‬, mashiach, he has in mind all of this work of redemption,
including the mystery of the incarnation necessary for Yeshua
to come and complete the deliverance for His people. Paul uses
the word “Messiah” (Christ) nearly 400 times in the letters he
left.430 Usually the word is without the article (“the”) which has
led some to think that Paul used “Christ” as a proper name.431
Yet there are numbers of times he does include the article (“the
427
Romans 2:16; 16:25; 2Timothy 2:8.
428
2Corinthians 4:6.
429
1Corinthians 15:3-4; Romans 8:34; 1Thessalonians 4:16-18; 1Corin–
thians 15:25; 2Timothy 2:12.
430
This figure is based upon the text of the UBS 3rd edition of the Greek
New Testament and does not consider the few times where textual
variants exist.
431
James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Eerdmans, 1998),
197-8.
173
Chapter 3
Christ”),432 indicating that he did use the word as the Greek
equivalent of Hebrew “Messiah.” But even if “Christ” in Paul’s
letters sometimes takes on the function of a name, it never loses
its tie to the Hebrew idea of Messiah.
Paul also uses a number of combinations of terms to refer
to Yeshua. While he mostly refers to Him simply as “Messiah”
(212 times), he also uses “Yeshua Messiah” (54 times), “Messiah
Yeshua” (80 times), “Lord Yeshua Messiah” (50 times), “Messiah
Yeshua the Lord” (or) “Messiah Yeshua our Lord” (9 times), and
“Yeshua Messiah the Lord” (or) “Yeshua Messiah our Lord” (5
times). He uses the simple “Yeshua” 29 times.
What might we learn from these various combinations?
Sometimes the differences could simply be a matter of style
or an attempt to avoid repetition. On the other hand, certain
combinations may emphasize one aspect of Yeshua’s work or
person in a given context. For instance, since the majority of
times Paul uses the combination “Messiah Yeshua,” we might
consider that “Yeshua Messiah” puts greater emphasis upon
His humanity or incarnation. In like manner, the addition of
“Lord” in the combined terms may emphasize Yeshua’s eternal
sovereignty and His unity with the Almighty. Whatever the case,
the very presence of these combined terms in Paul’s letters shows
his desire to portray Yeshua to his readers in all of His attributes,
and as accomplishing the work Messiah was prophesied to do.
Yeshua’s Death
The death of Yeshua upon the execution stake (cross) was at the
very center of Paul’s theology. After proving that all mankind is
guilty before God, Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, turns not to
Yeshua’s life but to His death, and the “propitiation through His
blood.”433 Indeed, throughout Romans the death and resurrection
of Messiah is central to all of Paul’s exhortations and teaching.
In 1Corinthians Paul affirms that his message is “Messiah
crucified,” even though it is a stumbling block to the Jews, and
432
oJ Crivsto~ (with nominative article) is found 14 times in the Pauline
letters. Crivsto~ with the article (in whatever case) is found 82 times,
but a majority of these are in constructions using Crivsto~ in an
attributive manner.
433
Romans 3:25.
174
Paul’s Theology: Yeshua’s Death
foolishness to the Gentiles. In 2Corinthians Paul identifies his
sufferings with those of Yeshua and places his hope upon the
resurrection, even as Yeshua was raised. Furthermore, to the
Corinthians he stresses again that the death of Messiah was a
constraining factor that compelled him to preach the complete
message of the Gospel to all.
Galatians carries the same message: Messiah who is accursed
upon the execution stake is the solution to the problem of how
the Gentiles may be brought into the Abrahamic covenant. As
believers in Messiah, they are children of promise, and thus
Abraham’s offspring. The center of the Gospel is Yeshua, not
ceremony or ritual, and forgiveness for sins is found in Him, not
in one’s status as a Jew.
Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians boast the same theme:
redemption is “in His blood” and it was by His resurrection that
we have life. Our transgressions were “nailed to His cross,” and
it is by His death that Jew and Gentile become “one new man”
because He has “abolished in His flesh the enmity.” Paul identified
himself in terms of Messiah’s death because he considered himself
“crucified with Messiah.” What is more, Yeshua’s present state
of exultation followed His obedience to the Father, accepting
sacrificial death, “even the death on an execution stake.” The
proper relationship of husband to wife is modeled by the love
of Messiah for His congregation, who “gave Himself for her that
He might redeem her.” Finally, those who opposed Paul’s gospel
were “enemies of the cross,” a phrase that must certainly identify
the central, core message of Paul’s teaching.
The same is true for the epistles to the Thessalonians. Once
again, Paul’s sufferings are parallel to the suffering of Messiah,
who was “killed” like the prophets of old. Yet Paul and the
Thessalonians are not destined for wrath but for salvation,
because Yeshua “died for us,” and therefore life beyond the grave
is assured.
Even the Pastorals contain the theme of Messiah’s death and
resurrection: Yeshua is the One who gave Himself as “a ransom
for all,” and who gave “good confession before Pontius Pilate.”
Paul exhorts Timothy to “remember Yeshua Messiah, risen from
the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel.”
These few excerpts highlight the well recognized fact that in
the letters Paul wrote, the death and resurrection of Messiah figure
175
Chapter 3
as the center of all his exhortations and instructions. But what
did the Apostle believe about the death and resurrection of the
Messiah? From this overview we may affirm the following: 1) that
the death of Messiah was a sacrifice following the pattern of the
Temple sacrifices, 2) that His death was a vicarious, substitutional
death on behalf of sinners, 3) that His death was the only possible
payment for sin, and that it was fully sufficient to cover the sins
of all who believe in Him.
Yeshua’s Death as a Sacrifice
The language Paul adopts when speaking of the death of Yeshua

is clearly from the sacrificial language of the Torah. Most often
Paul has the sin-offering (‫ ַחּטָאת‬, chatat) in mind or the Yom Kippur
sacrifice. He also recognizes that Yeshua is the Pesach Lamb,
originally slain and its blood put on the door posts of the Israelite
houses.434 The use of the word “expiation” or “propitiation”
(iJlasthvrion, hilastarion) in Romans 3:25 (“whom God displayed
publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith”) most
surely had in mind the use of this Greek word in the Lxx. There
the word is used to translate the Hebrew ‫ּכ ַּפֹוֶרת‬, kapporet, “mercy
seat,” where the blood was placed on Yom Kippur.435 As far as Paul
is concerned, Yeshua is the “mercy seat,” the very place where the
atoning sacrifice finds its effectiveness.
Paul uses sacrificial language when he speaks of Yeshua’s
death as a “fragrant aroma,”436 a common phrase to describe
the sacrifices of the Tabernacle and Temple.437 Likewise, Paul
identifies Yeshua’s death as a “sin-offering” in Romans 8:3, where
the single word “sin” (aJmartiva, hamartia ) parallels the Hebrew
word ‫( חַּטָאת‬chatat), rendered “offering for sin.” This Hebrew word,
in the exact same form, can mean either “sin” or “sin offering.”
For instance, in Genesis 4:7, God says to Cain:
“If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if
434
1Corinthians 5:7.
435
Exodus 25:17, 18, 19, 20(x2), 21, 22; 31:7; 35:12; 37:6, 8(x2), 9; Leviticus
16:2(x2), 13, 14(x2), 15(x2); Numbers 7:89.
436
Ephesians 5:2
437
Exodus 29:18, 25; Leviticus 1:9, 13, 17, etc.
176
you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is
for you, but you must master it.”
The exact same Hebrew word translated “sin” in this verse means
“sin offering” in Exodus 29:14:
But the flesh of the bull and its hide and its refuse, you shall
burn with fire outside the camp; it is a sin offering.
The knowledge that the one word in Hebrew can mean either
“sin” or “sin offering” enables us to understand yet another
verse in which Paul speaks of Yeshua’s death as a sin offering. In
2Corinthians 5:21 we read:
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we

might become the righteousness of God in Him.
The language of this verse has perplexed commentators and

theologians, and many explanations have been compiled to
explain how the Messiah could “become sin.” But realizing that
Paul would have used the single word “sin” to describe a “sin
offering,” the meaning is plain: God made Yeshua a sin offering,
not for His own sin, but for ours, so that we might have a righteous
status in God’s eyes.
The fact that Paul portrays Yeshua’s death on the execution
stake as a Temple sacrifice is significant in a number of ways.
First, we must presume from Paul’s analogy that those to whom
he wrote would both understand and appreciate the metaphor.
Secondly, the parallel drawn between Yeshua and the sacrifices
helps us to understand Paul’s perspective on the whole issue of
substitutionary atonement.
Paul did not originate the idea that Yeshua’s death was a
sacrifice. John the Baptizer had identified Yeshua as the “Lamb of
God,”438 and Yeshua Himself had spoken of His death in sacrificial
language. For example, at His final Pesach meal Yeshua spoke of
His death as the blood of the covenant which was to be “poured
out” for many.439 “Pouring out” is language connected both with
the blood at the altar440 as well as the libations that accompanied
438
John 1:26, 29.
439
Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20.
440
E.g., Leviticus 4:12; 8:15; 9:9.
177
Chapter 3
some of the Temple sacrifices.441
What did Paul expect his readers to understand by the fact
that he presented Yeshua’s death as a sacrifice? First, the Torah
is clear that sacrificial animals must be without blemish.442 Paul
is telling us in the language he uses of Yeshua’s sacrifice that He
was without defect, without sin. Modern studies on Yeshua have
relegated the idea of Yeshua’s sinlessness to the later fabrications
of the emerging Christian Church. But such a viewpoint overlooks
the sacrificial language of Paul and others. If Yeshua’s death was
a sacrifice for others, then Yeshua Himself could not have had
His own sin. Had He been a sinner, He would not have been the
spotless Lamb required by God for an acceptable sacrifice.
The assertion of Yeshua’s sinlessness may offend some modern
minds. “How is this possible,” some would ask, “if Yeshua were
truly human?” “How could He be human and not have to deal
with the issues of human failure?” But this is the point: Yeshua,
according to Paul, stands as the last Adam,443 and is therefore the
very picture of what God intends for the mankind He has created.
Adam, in the Garden of Eden, was fully human before he sinned.
The fact of sin in humankind does not mean that sin is an essential
ingredient of humanness. Yeshua, sinless, perfect, is man as God
intends, and the model to which we who believe in Him will be
conformed.
Secondly, the fact that Paul speaks of Yeshua’s death as a
sacrifice emphasizes the one-to-one correspondence between the
sinner and the atonement Yeshua makes. Even as in the Temple
the worshiper would place his hands upon the head of the
sacrificial animal before it was slain and offered, so the death of
Yeshua is offered for each one who believes in Him. The transfer
of the individual’s sin upon the Messiah is the picture Paul wants
us to have. Yeshua did not die for a corporate identity (whether
family, clan, or nation) but for each individual who would receive
Him as Savior.
The fact of Yeshua’s death as one-life-for-one-sinner highlights
the vicarious nature of His atonement. His death therefore does
not make forgiveness possible. Rather, forgiveness is assured
for each one for whom He died. Even as the worshiper in the
441
E.g., Exodus 29:40, 41; Numbers 15:5, 7, 10, 24.
442
E.g., Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, etc.; cf. 1Peter 1:18-19.
443
1Corinthians 15:45.
178
Temple went away from the sacrificial ritual fully confident that
the sacrifice had been offered on his behalf, in his stead, so each
one who, by faith, appropriates the sacrifice of Yeshua for himself
may be assured that his sins have been forgiven. It is on this basis
that Paul speaks of Yeshua’s death as accomplishing salvation.
Yeshua’s Death as Atonement
Thirdly, Yeshua’s death as a sacrifice teaches us that He is the

only way to forgiveness of sins because He is the only sacrifice
that satisfies God’s justice. This seems a bit confusing, since the
Tanach apparently assigns to the Levitical sacrifices the ability to
effect atonement.444 For example, note Leviticus 1:1-4:
Then the LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent
of meeting, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them,
‘When any man of you brings an offering to the LORD, you
shall bring your offering of animals from the herd or the flock.
If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer it,
a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent
of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD. And he
shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may
be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf.’”
Similar language is often found in the descriptions of the ancient

sacrifices. So how are we to understand this? Did the sacrifices
444
The idea that “atonement” (from the Hebrew ‫ )כפר‬was only a temporary
covering for sin until Yeshua came to make a full washing away of
sins is neither borne out by Scripture nor by sound thinking. When
the term ‫ּכ ִּפּוִרים‬, kippurim, “atonement,” was used, it was envisioned
within the realm of the Tabernacle/Temple. Since the blood was
placed on the mercy seat in the sight of the One who is “enthroned
upon the cherubim” (1Samuel 4:4; Isaiah 37:16; Psalms 80:1; 99:1)
it accomplished its purpose of being a substitute life for the sinner.
The holiness of God, symbolically guarded by the Cherubim, was
satisfied by the substitute’s life, and thus the life of the sinner was
spared. The faithful thus had their sins forgiven, completely, not
partially or in some “lay-away” fashion. Their sins were removed
as far as the east is from the west because God, Who exists in the all
eternal present, as much accredited Yeshua’s work to them as He
does to us.
179
Chapter 3
in the Tabernacle and subsequent Temples actually atone for
sin? Were the various offerings prescribed in the Torah actually
accepted by God as payment for a person’s transgressions?
The writer to the Messianic Jews (called “Hebrews” in our
English Bibles) did not think so:
For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away
sins.445
If the blood of bulls and goats could not effect atonement for
sin, how are we to understand the language of the Torah which
affirms that it did?
First, the word “atone” (from the Hebrew ‫ּכָפ ַר‬, kaphar) always
includes the sense of substitution.446 The ancient Israelite who
brought a sin offering, if he understood God’s revelation in the
sacrificial system, knew that he was unable, of his own, to atone
for the sin he had committed. The ability to effect atonement
was outside of himself. To accept such a premise is likewise to
accept the humility that comes with a recognition of one’s own
inabilities.
Secondly, that the sacrifices brought by worshipers were not
entirely sufficient is seen by the fact that the Yom Kippur sacrifice
was also prescribed.447 The sinner, even after bringing his guilt or
trespass offering, would need to rely upon the work of the High
Priest who, in his stead, would offer the yearly sacrifice. Since this
sacrifice was entirely out of his hands, it could only effect him via
the faith which he had in God’s promise to receive the sacrifice on
his behalf. In the Yom Kippur sacrifice, therefore, the mediatorial
work of the Priest was established as absolutely necessary for the
forgiveness of sins—for atonement.
Thirdly, the message of the prophets to Israel—the promise of
445
Hebrews 10:4,
446
Walter Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology , 117; cf. Exodus
21:30; 30:12; Numbers 35:31-32; Psalms 49:8; Isaiah 43:3-4. Note also
the contributions of Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross
(Eerdmans, 1955), 160-78; J. Herman, “‫ ”כפר‬in Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament, 3:303-10.
447
On the idea that the Yom Kippur sacrifice was for intentional sins
while the guilt and trespass offerings were for unintentional sins,
see below p. 183f.
180
the coming Messiah as the One who would effect the ultimate and
final atonement—was the source of revelation for the people of
Israel as to the object of their faith, that is, the Messiah. For some,
this may seem far-fetched. Was the promise of the Messiah given
to Israel through the progressive revelation of the Scriptures clear
enough to offer the Messiah as an object of faith? Did the remnant
of ancient Israel exercise faith in a Messiah who would die for
them? Was their faith the same as Paul’s?
In answering this question, we may first affirm that as far as
the Apostles were concerned, the faith of the ancient heroes of the
faith was one and the same with their faith. Peter, for instance,
affirms in his message on Shavuot (Acts 2) that David was a prophet
and looking ahead saw the resurrection of the Messiah. Only a
dead Messiah needs resurrection, so David also understood that
Messiah would die. Furthermore, Peter connects this knowledge
of the death and resurrection of the Messiah with the fulfillment
of the Davidic covenant:
Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch

David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us
to this day. And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God
had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on
his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the
Messiah, that He was neither abandoned to hades, nor did His
flesh suffer decay.448
Peter makes this explicit in his first Epistle as well:

As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace
that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries,
seeking to know what or what manner of time the Spirit of Messiah
within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of
Messiah and the glories to follow. 449
Thus, the prophets understood that the Messiah would suffer and
that as a result “glories” would follow. They only sought to know
when this would happen and what would characterize the time
448
Acts 2:29-31.
449
1Peter 1:10-11. The translation here departs from the NAS95 and the
NIV, both of which miss the nuance of the Greek: ejraunwּּ`nte~ eij~
tivna h] poi`on kairo;n, which does not mean “what person” but “what
and what manner of time.” The KJV has it right.
181
Chapter 3
or age of the fulfilled promise of the Messiah.
Indeed, Yeshua Himself understood the Scriptures in this
manner, for He “exegetes” Himself from the Tanach as He makes
explanation to the disciples on the road to Emmaus:
And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe

in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the
Messiah to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” Then
beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained
to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.450
Likewise, Paul’s understanding of Abraham’s faith was that

it had Messiah as its object. This is proven by the simple fact that
the very faith he enjoins upon his readers is the same faith that
Abraham exercised.451 And surely the faith Paul expects of his
readers is faith in the Messiah Yeshua Who died and rose again.
The author of Hebrews had this same point of view. The whole
picture of Yom Kippur is applied to Yeshua both as the High Priest
and the atoning sacrifice, particularly in chapters seven through
ten. From the author’s perspective Yeshua is not merely the later
application of these ancient rituals but the very reality to Whom
the types pointed. It was not as though Yeshua happened to “fit”
the picture, but that the picture itself proclaimed Yeshua as the
only possible fulfillment.
And he presumes that Moses understood this as well, for
he describes Moses’ willingness to suffer with his people as an
identification with Messiah:
By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called

the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-
treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing
pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Messiah greater
riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the
reward.452
If Abraham, Moses, David, as well as the rest of the prophets
450
Luke 24:25-27. Note that the Greek word translated “explained”
is diermeinuvw, diermeinuo, which means “to translate, explain” and
involves a text-based explanation, thus “exegesis.”
451
Romans 4:1ff; note especially 4:12ff; Galatians 3:8ff.
452
Hebrews 11:24-26.
182
were given this revelation of Messiah, is it possible that the
believing remnant who received their divine revelations in the
Scriptures somehow remained ignorant? It seems far more
likely that the ancient Israelite understood that his faith was in a
Messiah Who would come, die for sins, and raise from the dead.
He must have known by faith that this One would make an eternal
expiation for sin and that the extensive sacrificial system, rich as
it was with symbolic reality, both foreshadowed and explained
how Messiah would bring about this eternal redemption.
The sacrificial system itself as detailed in the Torah moves in this
direction. The two most often used words for expiatory sacrifices,
‫( חַּטָאת‬chatat) and ‫‘( אָׁשָם‬asham) both carry the idea of “payment for
sin.”453 What is more, even the word ‫( ּכָפ ַר‬kaphar) usually translated
“atonement” incorporates the sense of “substitute of one kind or
another”454 and carries with it the idea of “payment.” Yet if the
regular guilt offerings were understood as payment for a specific
transgression, why the need for Yom Kippur?
The explanation that the guilt or trespass offerings were
for unintentional sins but that Yom Kippur was for intentional
transgressions cannot be sustained from the text of Torah.
All sins of weakness or rashness were capable of being atoned

whether they were done knowingly or unwittingly. Leviticus
specifically affirmed that the trespass offering was for sins such
as lying, theft, fraud, perjury, or debauchery (Lev. 6:1-7).455
What then is the distinction made in Numbers 15:27-36 between

sins committed “unintentionally” and those done “defiantly?” The
word translated “unintentionally” is ‫ּבִׁשְג ָג ָה‬, bishgagah, and denotes
actions classed as sins but which can be atoned for by sacrifice.
The basic meaning is “mistake” or “unacceptable behavior.”456
453
George Buchanan Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Oxford, 1925),
58ff; BDB, KB, “‫ ”חטאת‬and “‫”אׁשם‬
454
cf. Exodus 21:30; 30:12; Numbers 35:31-32; Psalms 49:8; Isaiah 43:3-
4. Note also the valuable comments of Leon Morris, The Apostolic
Preaching of the Cross (Eerdmans, 1955), 160-78; J. Herman, “iJlavskomai”
in TDNT, 3:303-310.
455
Walter Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Zondervan, 1978),
117.
456
KB, “‫ׁשְג ָג ָה‬.”
183
Chapter 3
On the other hand, sins defined as “defiant” (literally, “with an
upraised hand”) are sins of overt rebellion against God. For these
there is no expiation—the sinner in this case is cut off from his
people.
What is the point? Simply put, the regular guilt or trespass
offerings, while displaying the repentance of the sinner and
procuring the forgiveness of God as a result of his repentance and
return to obedience (seen through his willingness to bring the
sacrifice), is not in and of itself sufficient. A sacrifice offered, not
by the sinner, but by the High Priest on his behalf is still necessary.
And that this sacrifice occurred only one time in the yearly cycle
symbolically pointed to an ultimate sacrifice that would be a
once-for-all affair. The individual’s guilt or trespass offering was
good for the moment, expressing as it did his genuine faith, but it
looked forward to the Yom Kippur sacrifice by which “all” the sins
of “all Israel” comprised of “all” who were repentant (“afflicted
their souls”) would be atoned for.457
The state of the heart was all important in the sacrificial
system. An obvious example comes from the words of Isaiah in
which he commands the people to stop bringing their sacrifices.458
If merely bringing a sacrifice sufficed to atone for sin, such an
injunction would make no sense. If the perfunctory exercise of
sacrificing animals actually atoned for sin, then those who were
sinners (as Israel clearly was in Isaiah’s day) would need to bring
more sacrifices, not less.
But Isaiah’s message is perfectly understandable if the
sacrifices had no meaning apart from genuine faith.459 Since Israel
was engaged in syncretism, mixing idolatrous practices together
with the worship of Israel’s God, there was a clear lack of true
faith in their bringing of sacrifices.460 Indeed, it was precisely
457
Leviticus 16:16-31.
458
Isaiah 1:10ff.
459
On the whole issue of the necessary faith needed to accompany
the bringing of sacrifices, note Leviticus 16:29, 31; Psalms 50:10-13;
Proverbs 21:27; Jeremiah 6:20; 7:21; Hosea 5:6; 6:6; Amos 5:25; Micah
6:6-7.
460
Once again, the text of the Tanach links obedience as the expression
of true faith. In Isaiah 1, the remedy for Israel’s condition is honest,
humble obedience, 1:17-18. But humble obedience comes as the
result of trusting God—it is bound up in faith or faithfulness. The
184
Paul’s Theology: Yeshua’s Resurrection
because they were doing the sacrifices out of mere duty apart from
faith that these offerings were a stench in the nostrils of God. For
the sacrifices were given to reveal something more, something
eternal. They foreshadowed Messiah, and those who were given
the gift of faith saw this even if from a distance.
It is for this reason that Paul did not see any rivalry between
the sacrifices of the Temple and the sacrifice of Messiah. Even
after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Yeshua, the
Apostles encouraged Paul to engage in sacrifices in the Temple.461
If the Apostles had believed that sacrifices offered after the death
of Yeshua were not only superfluous but even demeaning to
Yeshua’s finished work, they surely would not have encouraged
Paul to offer them. What this indicates is that the sacrifices had
as their ultimate purpose a portrayal of Messiah’s atoning work.
As long as they point to the death of Messiah, they fulfill their
divinely appointed function. This would be just as true before
Yeshua’s death as after it.
John the Baptizer understood this, and expected that those to
whom he preached would understand it as well. When he called
out “behold the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the
world,”462 he was not speaking nonsense. The people understood
that he was proclaiming Yeshua to be the long awaited Messiah
Who would accomplish atonement.
Yeshua’s Resurrection
For Paul, without the resurrection, our faith is useless.463 This is

more than a statement of his Pharisaic fundamentals—it is at the
heart of his understanding of how God can remain just and still
declare sinners righteous.
This is because first and foremost the resurrection of Yeshua is
the greatest proof that His sacrifice was accepted before the bar of
God’s justice. The Torah describes the garments of the High Priest
to include bells alternating with embroidered pomegranates on
one always is found with the other.

461
Acts 21:15-26.
462
John 1:29, 36.
463
1Corinthians 15:14.
185
Chapter 3
the hem of his outer robe.464 These were ancient symbols of life.465
Yet they adorned the robe of someone who was engaged in death,
sprinkling the blood of a sacrificial victim upon the altar and
mercy seat.
Here the picture of Yom Kippur becomes increasingly rich. For
on Yom Kippur, the one day on which the High Priest entered the
Most Holy Place, he did not wear the colorful vestments of the
ephod nor the outer robe decked with bells and pomegranates.
He simply wore the pure white linen garments of his office.466
Having removed the symbols of life, he entered the Most Holy
Place bearing the blood of the sacrifice—identifying with the
sacrificial victim as He approached the Almighty on behalf of the
people.
Such duty could be dangerous, for history records what
became of Aaron’s sons when they failed to do as God had
commanded.467 Yet the High Priest entered the place of sanctity,
there to do business with the Lord of all the earth.
At what point were the people able to know for certain that the
offering had been accepted? Secluded from viewing the work that
went on in the Most Holy Place, the people could only await the
reappearance of the High Priest after he had finished his duties.
His coming out of the Tabernacle after entering its hallowed space
was proof that God had accepted the atonement.
Once again, the actions of the High Priest on Yom Kippur
foreshadow and explain the work of Yeshua. His reappearance
from the tomb was proof that His sacrifice had been accepted.
Thus, the resurrection became the keystone in the arch of the
gospel as it was proclaimed by His apostles.
Isaiah’s prophecy of the Suffering Servant also viewed the
resurrection as proof that God was satisfied with His offering. In
Isaiah 53:10-11 we read:
But the LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief;
464
Exodus 28:33; 39:25.
465
The bells signaled activity, while pomegranates were an ancient
symbol of fertility, their shape resembling the womb. cf. J. C. Trever,
“Pomegranate” in Buttrick, ed. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible
6 vols. (Abingdon, 1962), 3:841.
466
Leviticus 16:4-6.
467
Leviticus 10.
186
Paul’s Theology: Yeshua’s Resurrection
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His
offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of
the LORD will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish
of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; by His knowledge
the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will
bear their iniquities.
The death of the Messiah as a guilt offering results in His seeing His
offspring, prolonging His days, and experiencing the prosperity
which the Lord gives. These are not activities associated with
death! What is more verse 11 which is parallel to verse 10 notes
that as a result of the anguish of His soul He will see it. The word
“it” is not in the Masoretic text, but the translators have inserted
it because the object of the verb “see” appears to be missing.
Interestingly, both the Qumran Isaiah Scroll as well as the Lxx
have the word “light” here:468 “He will see light and be satisfied.”
If this is the preferred reading (and I think it is), then a reference
to “resurrection” is surely included, for “death” is characterized
by “darkness,” and “life” by “light.”469 The “satisfaction”470 which
the Messiah experiences after the anguish of His soul is that He
clearly sees His work to have accomplished its desired end—the
eternal salvation of those for whom He died.
Similarly Paul claims that Yeshua was “declared to be the
Son of God with power” via the resurrection,471 and that He was
“raised with respect to our justification.”472
But the resurrection of Yeshua was more than forensic proof
that His sacrifice was accepted before the bar of God’s justice.
Yeshua’s resurrection was also the paradigm for the pattern of life
468
A number of the modern translations, including the NIV and the
NRSV, include the word “light” in their translation.
469
Note Psalm 23 with the expression “valley of the shadow of death,” an
idiom meaning “deepest darkness,” using “death” as a superlative.
Likewise Isaiah 9:1 parallels “shadow of death” with “darkness” (cf.
Luke 1:79). On the other hand, Job 33:28, 30 use “to see light” as the
opposite of “the pit” (grave). Paul proclaims “that the Messiah was
to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He
should be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to
the Gentiles” (Acts 26:23).
470
‫ ׂשבע‬in the Hebrew which means “to be satiated” or “satisfied.”
471
Romans 1:4.
472
Romans 4:25.
187
Chapter 3
envisioned for Himself and His followers:
Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into

death, in order that as Messiah was raised from the dead through
the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
(Romans 6:4)
It was the “power of the resurrection”473 that the Apostle prayed

for as he attempted to live out the life of his calling, and it was
this same power that he hoped for in the lives of those he taught
and led.
This “resurrected life” was not some ethereal, mystical
experience or philosophical meandering, but was living life with
the recognition that there had been a very real and substantial
change in the soul of the believer. The old self had died, and a
new self had been resurrected. Desires and passions formerly
enslaved the soul and dictated the path of one’s choices and
actions. Conversely, the “new man,”474 recreated in the image
of God,475 is free to become a “slave of righteousness,”476 to be
lead by the Spirit,477 to live along the patterns of the “obedience
of faith,”478 and to honor God by living “soberly, righteously, and
godly” in the present age, being “zealous for good works.”479 In
short, the resurrection power that Paul longed for in even greater
measure is the power of a new life, a life not only desirous of but
also able to live in obedience to God’s Torah.
Such power for righteous living did not come from the
Torah itself, not because the Torah was faulty, but because of the
weakness of the flesh.480 This power came as the result of Yeshua’s
work, and thus the righteous requirements of the Torah are
actually lived out by those who walk not according to the flesh
but by the Spirit.481
But the resurrection of the Messiah also stood in the Apostle’s
473
Philippians 3:10.
474
Romans 6:5ff; Ephesians 2:15ff; Colossians 3:9ff.
475
Colossians 3:10.
476
Romans 6:17-18.
477
Romans 8:14.
478
Romans 1:5; 15:26.
479
Titus 2:11-14.
480
Romans 8:2.
481
Romans 8:1-4.
188
Paul’s Theology: Yeshua’s Session
mind as positive proof of the future resurrection of all those
redeemed by His death and life. Thus, Paul refers to Yeshua as “the
first fruits”482 of those who had died. It is significant that he uses
the metaphor of “first fruits” to describe Yeshua’s resurrection,
because tied as it was to the Festival of Shavuot (Pentecost),483
Yeshua as the first fruits envisions a harvest of much more to
follow.
Thus, the resurrection of Yeshua is eschatological in the sense
that it sets the pattern for the resurrection of the righteous and their
place in the world-to-come. For Paul, the resurrection of Yeshua
was a fact he personally experienced, for he was confronted with
the risen Messiah on the road to Damascus. Yeshua therefore
became the proof par excellence for Paul that the resurrection
was a reality, and something for which every righteous person
could validly hope. For Paul, then, the pattern of resurrection life
experienced now in the believer is but a foretaste of the life in the
world-to-come.
The Ascension and Session of Yeshua
In Romans 8:34 Paul gives four “pillars” of salvation as he

understood it. Each of these directly relate to the work of
Yeshua.
Who is the one who condemns? Messiah Yeshua is He who

died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of
God, who also intercedes for us.
In addition to the death and resurrection of Yeshua, Paul speaks

about His being seated at the right hand of God (referred to as His
“session” by classical theologians) and His work of intercession.
For Paul, all four are needed. The lack of any one of them would
482
1Corinthians 15:20, 23.
483
The Festival of First Fruits is one and the same with that of Shavuot,
Numbers 28:26. (The bringing of the barley first fruits is never
detailed as a ‫ח ַג‬, chag, “festival”). The controversy which apparently
existed between the Sadducees and the Pharisees as to exactly when
to begin counting the days between Pesach and Shavuot does not bear
significantly upon Paul’s label of Messiah as the “first fruits of those
who sleep.”
189
Chapter 3
render the redemption that Yeshua intended ineffective.
The fact that Yeshua is noted as “sitting at the right hand”
is clearly an allusion to Psalm 110 and filled with Messianic
significance.484 The Master (Lord) of David is seated at the right
hand of God awaiting His enemies’ demise. That Yeshua Himself
used this Psalm to query His detractors no doubt gave rise to its
wide use among His early disciples. 485
At the same time, the well-known Psalm goes on to ascribe
the priesthood of Melchizedek to this One who sits at the right
hand, combining King and Priest, and linking the session with
intercession, something which perfectly fits the redemptive work
of Yeshua.
But why was the fact of Yeshua’s session so foundational in
Paul’s view of Messiah? Already in the Judaisms of Paul’s day, the
idea of the Messiah seated on a throne at the right of the Almighty
was being taught. Akiva (50-135 CE) is noted as teaching just such
a doctrine.486 Similarly, in 1Enoch the “son of man” or “elect one
of God” is seated by God on his throne of glory to pass judgment
on nations and angels.487 Moreover, even after the rise of the
Christian Church in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries, the Rabbinic
literature continued to present a messianic interpretation of the
Psalm.488 Indeed, the Targum applies the Psalm to David as a
messianic figure, and the Midrash Tehillim interprets the Psalm
messianically.489 For Paul, therefore, to utilize this well-known
phrase and apply it to Yeshua is to affirm that He is the One
spoken of by the Psalmist, and to ascribe to Him the majesty and
glory attached to sitting at the right hand of the Almighty.
Thus, the phrase “seated at the right hand of God” envisions
a place of sovereignty and power, a position of control by which
484
David M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity
(Abingdon, 1973).
485
cf. Matthew 22:24f.
486
b.Sanhedrin 38b. Though this was disputed by other Sages, it is
significant that someone with the stature of Akiva should affirm this
teaching.
487
1Enoch 45:1, 3; 51:3; 52:1-7; 55:4; 61:8; 69:27-29.
488
R. Hama b. Hamina (ca 260), R. Eleazar b. Pedat (ca 270), R. Levi (ca
300), R. Abbahu (ca 300), and R. Huna b. Abbin HaKohen (ca 350) all
interpret the Psalm as messianic.
489
As noted by Hay, Glory at the Right Hand, 28.
190
Paul’s Theology: Yeshua’s Intercession
the outcome of redemption can be secured. What is more, the
metaphor of “sitting” is one of a job finished and completed.
While the standing Messiah in Stephen’s vision490 emphasizes His
activity in welcoming the martyr into glory, the sitting posture is
symbolic of the finished work of redemption.
It is significant that no articles of furniture for sitting existed
in the Tabernacle or Temple. The priests’ work was never done,
each sacrifice giving way to the next. But the seated Messiah was
pictured as having completed His work, and being satisfied that
it had accomplished all for which it was designed, He sat down.
Never again would He need to render Himself as a sacrifice for
sin, since He had obtained “eternal redemption.”491
Therefore, Paul’s inclusion of the session (which presupposes
the ascension) of Messiah in the pillars of his redemptive theology
emphasizes that there is one way, and only one way, for salvation.
This way of obtaining right-standing before God is through the
redemptive work of Yeshua as the Messiah of Israel. Paul knows
no other way. The fanciful idea that Paul considered one way of
salvation for Jews and another way for Gentiles is not only to
undermine his overall theology, but to admit having not read
him with any sense of clarity. For Paul there is one God, and one
Messiah for all those who would come into the family of God.
This is because there is only One Messiah sitting at the right hand
of God, and therefore only One Messiah Who can honestly and
perfectly obtain eternal salvation for lost sinners.
Furthermore, the location of Messiah’s present work is at the
right hand of God. Paul could never have admitted to the later
errant doctrine that the very body and blood of Messiah remained
here upon the earth. For him, the exulted Messiah had taken His
rightful place at the right hand of God, and would remain there
until such time as the end would come. Moreover, His return
would mark the final victory already secured and won through
His death and resurrection.
The Intercession of Messiah
The final pillar in Paul’s foursome of Romans 8:34 is that of

Messiah’s intercession. Taking the parallel from Psalm 110 in
490
Acts 7:55 which has Yeshua “standing at the right hand of God.”
491
Hebrews 9:12.
191
Chapter 3
which the session of Messiah is linked with the declaration that
He is a priest after the order of Melchizedek,492 Paul affirms “who
also makes intercession for us.” The concept of “intercession”
(ejntugcavnw, entugxanw) is that of “entreaty” and particularly
“entreaty in prayer.” For Paul, Yeshua’s ongoing work reflected
that of a priest who interceded on behalf of the people. But why
were Yeshua’s priestly activities necessary as far as Paul’s view of
Messiah was concerned?
The answer resides in understanding the picture of redemption
outlined in the Tabernacle and Temple ritual, particularly on
Yom Kippur. The sacrifice is slain at the Altar of Sacrifice, in the
courtyard. The blood is then taken into the Holy Place, where
the High Priest also gathers coals from the Altar of Incense and
a specifically ground mixture of incense. These he takes into the
Most Holy Place, putting the incense on the coals to envelop
the space with the sweet-smelling aroma, and then he applies
the blood to the mercy seat. The point is clear: unless the blood
makes it from the altar to the mercy seat, it is not efficacious for
the atonement of sin. And the means by which the blood finds
its application to the mercy seat is the intercessory activity of the
High Priest. Representing the people of Israel, he acts out the ritual
of atonement for sins by applying the blood to the mercy seat.
Once again, for Paul the blood (signifying the substitutionary
death) of Yeshua is not efficacious for atonement until it has been
492
The JPS translation of Psalm 110:4 is interesting: “The LORD has
sworn and will not relent, ‘You are a priest forever, a rightful king
by My decree.’” The traditional “after the order of Melchizedek” is
put in a footnote. The only explanation for such a translation is to
take ‫ מלכי־סדך‬as “king of righteousness,” meaning “rightful king,”
but this disregards the Masoretic maqqef which joins the two words
together as a unit. The only other time the words are found this way
is in Genesis 14:18, where the JPS has “Melchizedek.” It seems very
likely that the Messianic use of this verse bothers the modern Jewish
community, even to the extent of bending over backwards to find
an alternate translation. At least the Stone Tanach is more honest
with the text: “you will be a priest forever because you are a king
of righteousness.” Yet even this translation ignores the Masoretic
maqqef. Surely the most natural translation would be that which
would follow Genesis 14:18. Even Rashi understands it to read
Melchizedek!
192
Paul’s Theology: Yeshua’s Return
applied to the mercy seat of the heavenly Tabernacle. But what
must be included in the Apostle’s mind is that Yeshua, through
His prayers for His own, secures the outcome of His death for the
atonement of His people. It is by His prayers as symbolized by
the incense493 that He secures the full and final application of His
death and resurrection to His chosen people. Without this final
work of Yeshua’s intercession, the atonement He effected in His
death would never be applied to the individual sinner. He does
this by securing every means necessary to draw His own to the
Father by faith. Thus, the ongoing success of the gospel, as far
as Paul was concerned, rested first and foremost upon Yeshua’s
continual work as intercessor. The inevitability of salvation to the
elect is premised upon the effectual work of Yeshua as Intercessor
for His people.
Yeshua’s Return and Reign as King
Paul affirmed the historical as well as the present activity of

Yeshua as the promised Messiah. But he also believed in a future
work that Yeshua would yet accomplish at the end of the age. Still,
Paul gives every indication that he considered the end of the age
to have dawned, and thus the return of Yeshua to bring all things
to a conclusion was imminent. For example, he did not want the
congregation at Thessalonica to be alarmed at the fact that some
of their number had died before the return of Yeshua. But why
would this have been a problem? The only reasonable answer is
that they must have believed Yeshua’s return to be imminent, and
that those who had died before His coming had somehow missed
out on being included in Yeshua’s reign in the world-to-come.
Paul, however, assures them that those who are “asleep” would
be awakened and raised first at Yeshua’s coming.
Yet there is a tension in the presentation of Paul’s eschatology.
For while there are indications that he and his readers anticipated
the imminent return of Yeshua, there are equal indications that
Paul considered the eschaton to be in the more distant future. For
instance, the ingathering of the nations in accordance with the
promise to Abraham is a theme in Paul’s epistles and especially in
Romans 9–11. Here, the “fullness of the Gentiles” must take place
before the final revival of Israel, and while it is possible that Paul
493
cf. Psalm 141:2; Revelation 5:8; 8:3.
193
Chapter 3
thought this would happen within his lifetime, it also opens the
door to the possibility that he considered the final Day of the Lord
would occur in a more distant future.
It may also be the case that the rising tensions that finally gave
way to the first Jewish revolt (66 CE) caused Paul’s understanding
of the eschaton to shift somewhat. Perhaps he understood that
the final ingathering of Israel was more distant than he had first
thought. After all, the divine revelations given to him were more
about how the Gentiles would be gathered together into Israel494
than the unveiling of mysteries regarding the Day of the Lord.
It may not be unwarranted, then, to see a progression of Paul’s
eschatology from his earlier epistles through his later ones.495
Still, there are certain tenets of the end times in which Paul is
very consistent. In line with the Prophets of the Tanach, as well
as the apocalyptic literature of his day, Paul emphasizes the two
primary concepts in the future Day of the Lord: the final salvation
of God’s elect, and the judgment of the unrighteous. Interestingly,
the common terminology of the “Day of the Lord” in the Tanach
(‫ יֹום יהוה‬or ‫יום ל ְיהוה‬, Yom Adonai or Yom l’Adonai) is referenced
by Paul as “the Day of the Lord Yeshua the Messiah,”496 “Day
of the Lord Yeshua,”497 “Day of the Messiah Yeshua,”498 “Day of
the Messiah,”499 as well as simply “the day” and “that day.”500 In
applying the Tanach expression “Day of the Lord (‫ )יהוה‬to “Day
of Yeshua Messiah” (and similar expressions), Paul has clearly
indicated his understanding that the purposes of God in the
final day of His victory are centered upon the person and work
of Yeshua. Even more, Yeshua is identified with Adonai (‫ )יהוה‬in
His eschatological victory, for His appearance is viewed as the
appearance of God Himself:
494
Ephesians 3:4ff.
495
See the further comments on the development of the Pauline
eschatology in L. J. Kreitzer, “Eschatology” in Gerald F. Hawthorne
and Ralph P. Martin, eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (IVP, 1993),
260-61.
496
1Corinthians 5:5.
497
1Corinthians 1:8; 2Corinthians 1:14.
498
Philippians 1:6.
499
Philippians 1:10; 2:16.
500
1Thessalonians 5:4; 1Corinthians 3:13; 2Timothy 1:12, 18; 4:8.
194
…looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of
our great God and Savior, Messiah Yeshua; who gave Himself
for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and
purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for
good deeds. 501
Indeed, it is the “appearance”502 or the presence (parousia)503 of

Yeshua that brings the final victory of God, both in overcoming
the evil age as well as granting to His chosen ones the reward of
their righteousness.
Thus, in line with the Rabbis of his day,504 Paul uses the broad
501
Titus 2:13. The Greek construction of this verse makes clear the
intention of the Apostle to equate “God” with the following “Savior,
Yeshua Messiah.” kai; ejpifavneian th`~ dovxh~ tou` megavlou qeou` kai;
swth`ro~ hJmw`n ∆Ihsou` Cristou` should be understood on the basis
of Granville Sharp’s rule, which states that “when two or more
nouns (singular, not plural) or substantival participles are joined
in coordination by ‘and,’ they are all referring to the same person
(or persons) if there is just one article preceding the list.” There is
some question among scholars whether this rule was functioning
in the Koine Greek of the Apostolic Scriptures (see Nigel Turner,
Grammatical Insights into the New Testament [T & T Clark, 1965], 16;
but also see Nigel Turner, “Syntax, vol. 3” in Moulton, Howard,
Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 4 vols. [T & T Clark, 1963],
3.181 in which he suggests that Granville’s rule does apply to Titus
2:13). For a comprehensive study and support for the viability of the
application of this rule to Tit 2:13, see Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar
Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan,
1996), pp. 270ff.
502
The Pastoral epistles show a significant change in vocabulary in
the area of the Pauline eschatology, utilizing the Greek ejpifavneia
(epiphaneia), “appearance” in the place of the more common
Pauline term “parousia” (parousiva), “coming, arrival, presence” or
“apokalypsis” (ajpokavluyi~), “revelation.”
503
Parousiva is found in 1Corinthians 15:23; 1Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13;
4:15; 5:23; 2Thessalonians 2:1, 8-9. Thus Paul is the major Apostolic
source for the use of the term in connection with the return of
Messiah.
504
See the comments and examples of Rabbinic phraseology in
Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Eerdmans, 1972), 14.
195
Chapter 3
categories of “this age” and “the age to come” (or similar words)505
to divide cosmic time, though he gives us very little description
of the “age to come.” Generally he characterizes “this age” as
unrighteous and deserving of judgment (sometimes using the
word “world,” kovsmo~–kosmos as a parallel term) while the “age to
come” is that which is characterized by the reign of Yeshua.506 In a
similar vein, this age is ruled by Satan,507 whom Paul considered
an actual being and hostile to God and all true believers.508
Likewise, for Paul the resurrection of the dead was in every
way tied to the victory of God in the eschaton. 1Corinthians 15
is a classic Pauline treatise centering on the resurrection, first of
Messiah, and then of all who are in Him. Apparently there were
those in Corinth who had come to understand the resurrection
teaching of Paul as applying to a non-physical reality, and were
therefore denying any need for a future, bodily resurrection.
Paul quickly and effectively corrects such an error, affirming the
teachings of the Tanach regarding the bodily resurrection both of
the Messiah and of all the righteous.509
The coming of Yeshua in the victory of the last days is also
closely associated with judgment. All will be held accountable
before the “judgment seat of Messiah”510 into Whose hands have
been given all authority511 and Who therefore has both the right
and the power to render final judgment.512 It is in the application
of the finished work of Yeshua that death is therefore swallowed
up in this final victory, and life forever in the eternal Shabbat of
the world-to-come is rendered a reality.513
505
1Corinthians 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18; Galatians 1:4; 1:21.
506
Ephesians 1:21.
507
2Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2.
508
Romans 16:20; 1Corinthians 5:5; 7:5; 2Corinthians 2:11; 11:14; 12:7;
1Thessalonians 2:18.
509
Deuteronomy 32:39; 1Samuel 2:6; Job 19:25-27; Isaiah 25:8; 26:19;
Ezekiel 37:1-10; Daniel 12:2-3. Note also Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 3
vols. in The Anchor Bible (Doubleday, 1970), 3.xli-lii.
510
Cp. Romans 14:10, where Paul has “judgment seat of God” with
2Corinthians 5:10 where he writes “judgment seat of Messiah.” Once
again, the declaration of Yeshua as God does not bother Paul.
511
Philippians 2:9ff.
512
Ephesians 1:21.
513
1Corinthians 15:54, cf. 2Corinthians 5:4.
196
The final judgment in Paul’s theology is also marked by God’s
wrath upon those who reject Yeshua, and particularly upon Satan
and his angels.514 Those who are in Messiah will be rescued
from the wrath of God, but those who are not will feel its full
force.515 Yet the wrath of God against unrighteousness is in the
process of being unleashed in the present.516 And in the unfolding
revelation of God’s wrath against all ungodliness, the chaos of
the final days will be master-minded by the “anti-Torah man,”517
also called the “son of destruction.” It is not unlikely that John,
having in some measure access to the epistles of Paul, utilized
this diabolical figure as the basis for his own anti-Messiah in the
book of Revelation.518 Even God Himself will contribute to the
final chaotic judgment by sending a “deluding influence”519 upon
those who have rejected the truth. Thus the wrath of God against
all ungodliness is already at work but will find its fullness in the
final “Day of the Lord.”
Paul’s understanding of God’s faithful promises to Israel is
central to his teaching on the last days. Romans 9–11 show clearly
that while God had allowed a partial hardening to come upon
the nation, which explains their rejection of Yeshua as Messiah, it
would come about in the last days that Israel, as a nation, would
turn once again to God and in that turning accept Yeshua as
the true Messiah. In this way “all Israel will be saved.”520 One
of the factors that would cause Israel to return to God would be
through her jealousy of the Gentiles who had come to faith and
were enjoying the blessings of God that Israel thought belonged
exclusively to her. Yet Paul is concerned in this passage lest the
Gentile believers, in neglecting a genuine Torah life, would be
viewed by their Jewish brothers and sisters as members of a new
and different religion, in which case the ministry of “jealousy”
would be lost. Thus Paul admonishes them to remain within the
514
Romans 16:20.
515
Romans 5:9; 1Thessalonians 1:10; 5:9.
516
Romans 1:16ff.
517
oJ a[nqrwpo~ th`~ ajnomiva~, ho anthropos tes anomias, which literally means
“the no-Torah man,” usually translated “the man of lawlessness”
(2Thessalonians 2:3).
518
See R. H. Mounce, “Pauline Eschatology and the Apocalypse,” EvQ
46(1974), 164-66.
519
2Thessalonians 2:11.
520
Romans 11:26. 197
Chapter 3
Torah life of Israel, living out the “obedience of faith.”521 But the
final blessing of Israel is secure because even though she may be
an enemy of the gospel, she is nonetheless “beloved for the sake of
the fathers, for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”522
There is not the slightest hint in Paul of what the later Christian
Church formulated as her doctrine of “replacement theology,” or
supersessionism, in which she twisted the teachings both of Yeshua
and Paul and taught that the Church had replaced forsaken Israel
as God’s “new Israel.” On the contrary, Paul not only sees a future
for national Israel, but he even postulates that the ingathering
of the nations has as one of its purposes the drawing of Israel
through jealousy. From this viewpoint, then, even the salvation of
the Gentiles has Israel in view.
Summary - The Work of Messiah
The work of Messiah may be summed up in His death, resurrection,

current exalted place at the right hand of the Father, and His
intercession for all of those who are “in Him.” His current status
as Supreme Authority is best manifested in the congregation of the
righteous, when His life is lived out in them. And His followers
are seen as righteous when, following His instructions in Matthew
5:17-21, His disciples live out the Torah and teach others to do the
same.
As the Son of God, He is one with the Father in a mysterious
way; yet He is the Father’s Messiah. He is the Creator and
Sustainer of the universe, for He is Himself uncreated, without
beginning or end. He is therefore worshiped as the Creator, and
given homage as the Sovereign of eternity.523
As the final application of the redemption (accomplished
through His death, resurrection, ascension, and intercession),
Yeshua will return to the earth to reign, at which time the victory
of God will be realized in a cosmic way; all forces of evil being
subdued, and righteousness established. It is at this time that the
“dead in Messiah” will be resurrected and all who are not “in
Messiah” will experience the wrath of God. For Paul, the final
victory of the ages is entirely summed up in the reign of the
521
cf. Romans 1:5; 15:18; 16:26.
522
Romans 11:28-29.
523
cf. Micah 5:2.
198
Paul’s Theology: The Spirit
resurrected Messiah, Yeshua.
3.10 The Spirit of God in Paul’s Letters

Paul’s Terminology
The title “Holy Spirit” is found 16 times in the Pauline epistles. In

addition, Paul uses “Spirit of God,” as well as “Spirit of the Lord,”
and sometimes just the word “Spirit” to denote what the Tanach
speaks of as God’s Spirit.524 Furthermore, Paul interchanges
“Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Messiah,”525 showing his underlying
position of the oneness of God.
What is striking is the prominence of the Spirit of God in
Paul’s epistles when compared with the Tanach. In round figures,
ruach (ַ ‫רּוח‬, “Spirit”), when referring to the Spirit of God in the
Tanach, is found 90 times in the received Masoretic Text, while
pneuma (pneuvma “Spirit”) in a similar usage is found about 100
times in the Lxx. By comparison, among the much smaller corpus
of Pauline epistles, the word pneuma, referring to the Spirit of God
occurs as many as 115 times.526
The Spirit and the Eschaton
This increased emphasis upon the Spirit of God should be

understood first as the result of progressive revelation. The
ministry of the Spirit of God in the inauguration of the eschaton
and the fulfillment of the promise (especially in the gathering of
the nations) was now increasingly understood as His activity was
seen and experienced in the Messianic community.
Secondly, these experiences of the Spirit’s activity were known
first-hand by Paul. According to the Acts account, when Paul
regained his sight at the hands of Ananias, he was “filled with the
524
“‫ ”רּוח ַ א ֱֹלה ִים‬is found 16 times in the Tanach, while “‫ ”רּוח ַ ה ַּקֹוֶדׁש‬is found
3 times. “‫ ”רּוח ַ יהוה‬is found 29 times.
525
Romans 8:9.
526
These numbers are from T. Paige, “Holy Spirit” in Gerald F. Hawthorne
and Ralph P. Martin, eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (IVP Press,
1993), 405.
199
Chapter 3
Holy Spirit.”527 Furthermore, his ministry as an apostle of Yeshua
was marked by visions,528 signs and wonders,529 miraculous
healings,530 speaking in tongues,531 and prophecies.532 It is no
wonder, then, that the Spirit of God takes up a new dimension in
the writings of the Apostle as well as in the emerging Messianic
community of the Apostolic era.
But this is not something unexpected or exceptional from
the viewpoint of the Tanach nor the Judaisms of Paul’s day. The
prophets had linked the activity of the Spirit of God with the last
days and the appearance of the Messiah. Isaiah had prophesied
that the Spirit of God would be upon His Servant (a messianic
title), and that by the Spirit the Messiah would perform justice for
the people and would cause the light of the Torah to shine to the
nations.533 Matthew applies this text to Yeshua and His miraculous
ministry,534 interpreting Isaiah’s phrase “And the coastlands will
wait expectantly for His Torah” as “and He shall declare judgment
(justice) to the Gentiles.”
What is more, the outpouring of the Spirit upon Israel was
prophesied as a mark of the last days. Joel explicitly states this,535
as does Ezekiel.536 The work of the Spirit upon Israel would be
to cleanse her of her waywardness, to bring her back to God, to
give her a new heart, and even to bring her to life from the dead.
The application of Joel’s prophecies to the events at the Shavuot
following Yeshua’s death shows that Peter and the other Apostles
clearly saw the “filling up” of these prophecies to have begun in
their day because the Messiah had come.
The extant Rabbinic literature gives testimony to the Jewish
understanding that the Spirit of God would be active in the
Messianic era, and in the regathering of Israel. The Midrashim
combine the prophecies of Joel and Ezekiel as indicative of the
527
Acts 9:17.
528
Acts 16:9; 18:9; 26:19.
529
Acts 14:3; 15:12; Romans 15:19; 2Corinthians 12:12.
530
Acts 19:11, 12; 28:8.
531
1Corinthians 14:18.
532
1Timothy 1:8.
533
Isaiah 42:1ff.
534
Matthew 12:18ff.
535
Joel 2:28ff [Hebrew text 3:1ff].
536
Ezekiel 36:27; 37:14.
200
time when Israel will return to the Lord and experience peace.537
Likewise, Ezekiel’s prophecy that the Spirit would give Israel a
new heart and sprinkle her with clean water is interpreted by the
Sages as applying to the Messianic reign.538 Indeed, the prophecy
of Zechariah 9, which pictures the Messiah riding on a donkey, is
combined in the Midrash with Ezekiel 36 and the ministry of the
Spirit in cleansing and giving a new heart to Israel.539 That Yeshua
would therefore identify Himself as one Who works miracles
by the power of the Spirit is also in line with the messianic
expectations of His day.
The Work of the Spirit
Agreeing with the general teachings on the Spirit of God in the

1st Century Judaisms, Paul speaks of the Spirit as the source of
the inspiration of Scripture;540 as the means by which the soul is
made alive unto God;541 and, as the power of God for holy living
through His indwelling presence.542 Of course Paul considers the
537
Mid. Rab. Deuteronomy vi.14.
538
Mid. Rab. Exodus xli.7.
539
Mid. Rab. Genesis xciv.8 (on Genesis 49:11). For Zechariah 9:9 as a
Messianic text in the Rabbinic literature, cf. Mid. Rab. Genesis lxxv.6;
xcvii.9; Mid. Rab. Ecclesiastes 1:28; b.Sanhedrin 99a where Hillel is
quoted as saying “there is no messiah for Israel since the days of
Hezekiah are past.” But R. Joseph pleads that Hillel be forgiven, for
he reasons that Hezekiah lived before Zechariah, and the prophecy
of Zechariah 9:9 refers to the coming Messiah. cf. also b.Sanhedrin
98a for a reference to the Messiah riding a donkey in His appearance
to Israel.
540
2Timothy 3:16. In Rabbinic literature, cf. b.B’rachot 4b; b.Yoma 73b;
b.Megilah 7a; b.Sotah 46a; the Scriptures are regularly attributed to
the speaking of the Holy Spirit in the Midrash Rabba, e.g., Mid. Rab.
Genesis lxiii.11,14; lxxxv.2; Mid. Rab. Exodus xxxvi.3; lii.2.
541
Titus 3:5. The whole idea of “resurrection” is connected with the
Holy Spirit, b.Sotah 49b, cp. b.Avodah Zarah 20b.
542
Romans 8:9, 11; 1Corinthians 3:16; 2Timothy 1:14. Tanchuma, VaY’chi,
14, contains an interesting remark on the phrase “Benjamin is a
ravenous wolf” (Genesis 49:27). “It says, ‘The Lord God will do
nothing but He reveals His secret unto His servants the prophets
(Amos 3:7). For God’s secret counsel was first limited to those who
201
Chapter 3
work of the Holy Spirit (or Spirit of God), and that of the Spirit of
the Lord,543 as well as the Spirit of Messiah,544 to be fused together
in the whole plan of redemption; a plan that culminates in Yeshua
the Messiah.
For Paul, the Holy Spirit is also the dwelling of God with man,
for the Spirit of God is equally the Spirit of Messiah.545 Having the
love of God poured out in the heart of every believer through
the Holy Spirit,546 the child of God is a temple, an abode for the
dwelling Spirit.547 Like the Shechinah, the Spirit of God therefore
leads,548 giving wisdom and urging the believer in ways of
holiness.549
A number of times Paul speaks of the Spirit as the “down
payment” (or arabbon)550 to the believer on the promised
completion of his redemption. Since the Spirit has been given as
the indwelling presence of God, the follower of Yeshua may rest
assured that his full redemption will occur.551 Such a doctrine is
no doubt linked to the whole matter of God’s presence with His
people. That the Tanach so often enjoined upon the righteous
the command “do not fear” because “I am with you,”552 only
shows that the abiding presence of God in the believer was, for
fear Him (Psalm 25:14). Then He gave it to the upright (Proverbs

3:32). Then He gave it to the Prophets (Amos 3:7). For all that the
righteous have accomplished, they have done through the Holy
Spirit [‫רּוה ַ ה ַּקֹוֶדׁש‬, ruach hakodesh].”
543
2Corinthians 3:17.
544
Romans 8:9.
545
Romans 8:9, 11.
546
Romans 5:5.
547
1Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2Corinthians 6:16. The Sages taught that the
Shechinah was no longer manifest in the Temple after the death of
Simon the Just (3rd Century BCE), b.Shabbat 33a.
548
Romans 8:14.
549
Galatians 5:16, 17, 22; 6:8; Ephesians 3:16; 2Timothy 2:13.
550
‫ע ֵָרבֹון‬, ‘eiravon is an Aramaic word (note Hebrew ‫ )ערב‬which means
“pledge” or “earnest-money,” e.g., b.Bava Metzia 48a; m.Avot 3.16.
For Paul’s use of the term, cf. 2Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:14.
551
cf. Romans 8:16-23 where the Spirit is referred to as the “first fruits”
in the sense that more is anticipated. Also see Philippians 1:6.
552
Genesis 26:24; Isaiah 41:10; 43:5; Jeremiah 46:27-28; 1Chronicles
28:20.
202
the Apostle, the sure guarantee of God’s blessings. The Prophet
Haggai even uses this language:
As for the promise which I made you when you came out of
Egypt, My Spirit is abiding in your midst; do not fear!’553
Thus Paul’s understanding of the indwelling and abiding Spirit

with the believer is founded upon the words of the Tanach.
The Spirit of God was also seen by the Apostle as active in
equipping the followers of Yeshua to be witnesses to the nations.554
That the disciples were to wait in Jerusalem for this power to
come upon them before they engaged in witnessing to the nations
was included in Yeshua’s final instructions before His ascension.555
Surely Paul was made aware of this as well, for when some
disciples of John who had lived in the desert (perhaps with the
Qumran society) were asked about their involvement in this
special, spiritual equipping, they were unaware of its availability.556
553
Haggai 2:5, but notice the context of verses 1-9.
554
Paul accredits his own ministry to the Gentiles as the inner working
of the Spirit, Romans 15:19; 1Corinthians 2:4.
555
Acts 1:6-8.
556
Acts 19:1ff. The language of this passage is a bit confusing. When
Paul asks the disciples of John whether they “received the Holy
Spirit” when they were baptized by John, they answer, “No, we have
not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” This sounds as though
they were unaware of the existence of the Holy Spirit, but how
could this be, seeing that the Holy Spirit is clearly spoken of in the
Tanach? If the Greek were translated woodenly it would read: “but
neither if the Holy Spirit is have we heard” (ajll j oujd j eij pneu`ma e[stin
hjkouvsamen), which should be paralleled to the explanatory words of
John in his gospel (7:39), tou`to de; ei\pen peri; tou` pneuvmato~ o{ e[mellon
lambavnein oiJ pisteuvsante~ eij~ aujtovn. ou[pw gavr h\n pneu`ma, o{ti jIhsou`~
oujdevpw ejdoxajsqh. This is usually translated “for the Spirit was not
yet” or “for there was no Spirit yet because Yeshua had not yet been
glorified.” But such translations miss the context of this statement.
The truncated expression “for neither was the Spirit” should be
understood as “for neither was the Spirit manifest in His promised
outpouring in the last days.” The same should be understood in Paul’s
questioning of John’s disciples. It was not that they were uninformed
about the existence of God’s Spirit, but whether the Spirit had been
manifested as the prophets had foretold. They had not received the
203
Chapter 3
Once they had affirmed their acceptance of Yeshua as Messiah
(witnessed through a mikvah), they received the Spirit’s enabling
as evidenced by speaking in tongues and prophesying. These
were signs particularly germane to the spreading of the gospel to
the nations (in other languages) and proclaiming in the power of
the Spirit that the Messiah had come, and that therefore the time
of the final harvest had arrived.
Perhaps one of the most significant functions of the Holy
Spirit in the Pauline teaching is the unity of the body of Messiah
that comes through His presence and indwelling. All, regardless
of social or economic status, have been baptized by the same
Spirit into the one body of Messiah.557 It is therefore the gifts of
the Spirit that equip each member in the body of Messiah for
service one to the other,558 and the presence of the Spirit which
nurtures a peaceable fellowship among the diverse members of
the congregation.559
This ministry of the Spirit was understood by Paul as the
fulfillment of the anticipated prophetic predictions for the last
days. As such, the work of the Spirit was no doubt expected to
be more expansive, but it is a misreading to understand it to be
entirely new and unique. The greater visibility and expanse of
the Spirit’s work and presence was only different in quantity, not
quality.
In the Tanach, for instance, the Spirit of God gifted individuals
for special work. This is seen in the Tabernacle craftsmen,560 as
well as the Spirit’s empowering judges561 and prophets.562 But the
same must have been true in terms of faith and salvation. For Paul
clearly teaches that it is only by the Spirit of God that the soul of
the sinner is quickened,563 and that unless the Spirit of God (also
empowering of the Spirit because they had been secluded from the
body of believers in Jerusalem. The Spirit was given and manifested
within the corporate entity of Messiah’s congregation and not to the
unconnected, independent groups existing on their own.
557
1Corinthians 12:13.
558
Ephesians 4:3ff; 1Corinthians 12-14.
559
Ephesians 4:2ff; Philippians 2:1.
560
E.g., Exodus 3:1-3.
561
Judges 3:10; 6:4; et al.
562
Ezekiel 2:2; 3:12, et al.
563
Titus 3:5.
204
Paul’s Theology: Spirit vs. Letter
called the Spirit of Messiah) indwells a person he is not a child of
God.564 At the same time, Paul has used Abraham and David (in
Romans 4) as the prime examples of justification by faith, the very
faith he enjoins upon his readers.
If therefore Paul considers the presence of the indwelling Spirit
to be integral to the salvation of an individual, he must surely
have believed Abraham and David to be so indwelt. Indeed,
since Paul knows of only one way of salvation, it follows that
Abraham and David were saved in the same manner as all others.
This would include the regenerational work of the Spirit, along
with His indwelling ministry of sanctification. That the Spirit was
given in a new ministry to the believing community of Paul’s day
is sure. But this ministry involved a new equipping to reap the
harvest of the nations, not a new or additional way of justification
and sanctification.
Spirit vs. Letter
Several times in the Pauline epistles the opposing concepts of

“letter” and “Spirit” are encountered.
But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that

which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his
praise is not from men, but from God. (Romans 2:29)
But now we have been released from the Law, having died to
that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of
the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. (Romans 7:6)
being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by

us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God,
not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts…who
also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the
letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
(2Corinthians 3:3, 6)
“Letter” and “Spirit” have been regularly interpreted as

referring to the “Old Testament” or the “Law” in contrast to
the “New Testament” ministry of the Spirit of God. In such an
interpretation, since Paul writes that “the letter kills but the Spirit
gives life,” it is taught that the Torah and the Spirit are opposed
564
Romans 8:9ff.
205
Chapter 3
and that therefore the way of the Spirit is not the way of Torah.
But what exactly does Paul mean when he uses the terms
“letter” and “Spirit” in opposition? First of all, it is impossible
that Paul uses “letter” as a substitute for “Torah.” We know that
Paul considered the Torah to be inspired by the Spirit, and that
it therefore was “spiritual.”565 Furthermore, Paul explicitly states
that the Torah is holy, righteous, and good.566 Therefore, when he
contrasts “letter” and “Spirit” he cannot be saying that the Torah
is bad. To interpret him as saying this is to do so out of context
and without consideration of his broader teaching.
But how then are we to interpret his use of “letter” and “Spirit”
in these passages? If we look more closely at the contexts in which
this language occurs, we will see that what Paul is contrasting in
each case are those who exercise genuine faith and those who do
not.
In Romans 2:28-29, Paul speaks of those who have only
the external sign of circumcision but who, through their life
of disobedience to the Torah, show they have no true faith. In
contrast, there are those who keep the Torah even though they do
not have the physical sign of circumcision. Those who disobey
the Torah yet are circumcised, are identified as having the “letter
of the Torah.” Thus “letter” is connected with those who are
not believers but who attempt to keep the Torah in their own
strength.
Likewise, the passage in Romans 7 that utilizes the “letter/
Spirit” dichotomy is contrasting those who have been released
from the condemnation of the Torah (those who have come to true
faith in Messiah and therefore are indwelt by the Spirit), with those
who are still under its condemnation. But Paul speaks directly to
the fact that the Torah is not to be blamed for the condemnation
of sinners, but rather their sin.
What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the
contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the
Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had
not said, “You shall not covet.” (Romans 7:7)
Therefore, in using the term “letter” here to identify those who
565
Romans 7:14.
566
Romans 7:12, 16; 1Timothy 1:8.
206
Paul’s Theology: Spirit vs. Letter
are without faith, Paul is not casting a negative light upon the
Torah. The Torah condemns when faith is absent, but in so doing
it is only performing one of its God-ordained functions.
This same motif of contrasting faith with the absence of faith
is found in the context of 2Corinthians 3 where, once again, Paul
uses “letter” in contrast to “Spirit.” Here Paul compares the
ministry of Moses with his own ministry, and finds the ministry
of Moses to result in death, while his own to issue in life. What
made the difference? Was it that Moses had “bad material” (i.e.,
the Torah) while Paul had the life-giving message of the Gospel?
No. Rather, it was the hardened hearts and deaf ears of the people
that rendered Moses’ ministry one of death.567 But (and this is all-
important), when the Spirit takes away the hardened heart and
opens the ears, the message of Moses is received as that which gives
life,568 for in Paul’s day the only Scriptures available were the
Tanach. Thus when the veil is taken away (which is the work of
the Spirit), the glory of Messiah shines forth bringing salvation.
The reason that the Spirit is necessary to understand the Torah
is simply because the goal of the Torah is Messiah.569 Yet apart
from the Spirit, the Messiah is missed or neglected in the study
of Torah. It was this very thing that caused Israel to stumble, for
though the Torah she pursued was righteous in every way, she
failed to “arrive at that Torah”570 because she did not see the object
of true faith in the Torah, even the person of Messiah Yeshua. But
the Spirit always leads to Messiah, and this is especially true in
the reading of the inspired word of God. Thus, to read the Torah
without the illumination of the Spirit is to miss the Messiah, and
this will only issue in condemnation. “But where the Spirit of
the Lord is, there is liberty,” that is, freedom to obey God as His
567
For further discussion on Paul’s use of “Spirit” in contrast to “the
letter,” see the excursus in my commentary on Romans, Paul’s Epistle
to the Romans, 2 vols (TorahResource, 2005-2007), 1.167f.
568
In 2Corinthians 2:14–4:6, when Moses is read with unveiled face,
Yeshua is seen. Also note Romans 10:6-8 where Paul quotes
Deuteronomy (Torah) as describing the gospel within the context
of faith.
569
Romans 10:4, where “end” means “goal” as it also does in 2Corinthians
3:13.
570
Romans 9:31.
207
Chapter 3
bondslave.571
Therefore, for Paul “letter” means to attempt to obey Torah
(God’s teaching) without having the Spirit of God. Conversely,
“Spirit” in contrast to “letter” refers to the illuminating and life-
giving work of the Spirit in connection with the word of God which
always leads to the Messiah and always brings life. The contrast
then is one of faith versus no faith, of the work of the Spirit in
contrast to that of the flesh, of obedience to God’s word through
the power of the Spirit versus one’s own attempts at pleasing God.
Paul is not putting the Torah and the Spirit at odds. He teaches
that the Spirit and the inspired word of God (Torah) always work
in tandem.
Summary - Paul’s Pneumatology
In the Pauline epistles there is a clear and significant emphasis

upon the Holy Spirit and His work. This is because the last days
have arrived with the appearance of the Messiah. The promises
of God regarding the redemption of Israel and the ingathering
of the nations are now on the horizon. The prophetic activity of
the Spirit in inspiring Scripture as well as in leading and guiding
the people of God is once again active as the prophets promised.
What is more, the Spirit equips the followers of Yeshua for their
expanded work of witnessing to the nations about the person of
the Messiah and the redemption He has made for all His elect.
Thus the ingathering of the nations is accomplished through the
power of the Spirit indwelling and empowering the believers to
reap the final harvest.
This increased work of the Spirit of God in the last days is not
something different in kind but in expanse. Even as God’s Spirit
equipped and indwelt the believers of old for specific work and
mission, so He is doing now, but in an ever-expanding way as the
nations are brought into the body of Messiah. There is therefore
no “new salvation” or “new way,” but rather an increased number
who come to worship God through the same means given to the
ancient believers: faith in the Messiah and empowering by the
indwelling Spirit.
Paul furthermore teaches that apart from the Spirit of God no
571
2Corinthians 3:17; cp. “and having been freed from sin, you became
slaves of righteousness,” Romans 6:18.
208
Paul’s Theology: Pneumatology – Summary
one has ever been able to obey God and follow His Torah. His
use of the word “letter” conveys the idea of attempting to live
according to God’s ways without the indwelling Spirit. This only
produces death. But when the Spirit of God illumines the word
of God and empowers the believer to live in accordance with the
living Word, this brings life. Paul does not contrast the Torah and
the Spirit, but teaches their necessary connection.
209
Chapter Four
Paul & the New Covenant
Paul and the New Covenant
Chapter 4: Paul and the New Covenant

Words have power. The terminology we use conveys much more
than we often think. This is especially true in theological jargon.
What do we mean when we contrast “Old Testament” with
“New Testament?” What do we teach when we separate the “Old
Testament” from the “New Testament” with a title page, or other
pages in our English Bibles?
All too often, even when unintended, the words “old” and
“new” telegraph the meanings “no longer useful” and “something
that is for us now.” “Old” means “antique,” something worth
putting on the shelf to admire, but not something one intends to
use. In fact, to use an “antique” often causes it to lose its value
because it is fragile and frail, and better to look at than to actually
use. “New,” however, means relevant, up-to-date, that which
speaks to my life. Have we really considered these ideas, and do
we believe this is what Yeshua and His apostles taught? Do we
honestly think that they were considering the Tanach as suddenly
passé and their teachings as now replacing the irrelevant older
Scriptures?
The contrast between “Old” and “New” Testaments is
actually intended as a distinction between the “Old” and “New”
covenants. “Testament” is the Latin term for “covenant.” But are
there clear and fixed definitions for what constitutes the “old
covenant” and the “new covenant?” To the surprise of many who
have never asked the question, there is substantial disagreement
among scholars exactly how these terms should be defined.
This may be because the terms are seldom used in the
Scriptures. In fact, “old covenant” is only found one time in the
Bible , in 2Corinthians 3:14.
But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the
reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted,
because it is removed in Messiah.
The phrase “new covenant” is found once in the Gospels,572

twice in Paul’s epistles to the Corinthians,573 and three times in the
572
Luke 22:20.
573
1Corinthians 11:25, quoting from Luke 22:20; 2Corinthians 3:6.
213
Chapter 4
book of Hebrews.574 Yet never, in any of these occurrences does it
designate what has become known as “the New Testament.” So
how did the Gospels and the Epistles combine to form a body of
Scripture that was eventually called the “New Testament?”
It was only as the emerging Christian Church began to see
herself as the replacement for Israel that the terminology “New
Testament” was applied to the Apostolic Scriptures. Designating
the Tanach as the “old” covenant or testament and the Apostolic
scriptures as the “new” covenant or testament subtly but
powerfully supported the emerging doctrines of replacement
theology held by the leading Church Fathers.575 If the Tanach was
574
Hebrews 8:8; 9:15; 12:24. In this last reference instead of diaqhvkh kainhv
(diatheke kaine) the text reads diaqhvkh~ neva~ (diatheke veas). It should
be noted that every current English translation includes the word
“covenant” in Hebrews 8:13, but in fact no Greek manuscript has
the word “covenant” here. Those translations that utilize italics as
a means of alerting the reader that something has been added, put
the word “covenant” in italics. Unfortunately, a number of modern
versions do not designate words that the translators have added,
and so the reader is left with the impression that “new covenant” is
the leading idea in v. 13 when it is not. Actually, the contrast of the
Levitical priesthood with the Melchizedekian priesthood is still the
main focus. The author’s appeal to the New Covenant is simply to
substantiate why a new priesthood is needed, and why the old one
is fading away.
575
While the terminology “new covenant/old covenant” is not used
in the Epistle of Barnabas (usually dated between 100-120 CE),
the seeds of contrasting the covenant made with Israel and that
mediated by Yeshua is clearly found. cf. Epistle of Barnabas 4:6-8.
Likewise, Clement of Alexandria (150-220 CE) in The Instructor, Book
1, chapter 5 (Anti-Nicene Fathers 2.2.415) contrasts the “older people”
with the “new people” (meaning Israel as “older” and the Church
as “newer”) as those who turned to idols versus those who turned
to Yeshua. Origen (185-254 CE) speaks of “the divine writings—
that which is called the old covenant, and that which is termed the
new” (De Princip. iv. 1). It was the old Latin version that substituted
testamentum for the Greek diaqhvkh (diatheke, “covenant”) and thus
“Old Testament” and “New Testament” became the nomenclature
in the churches that used Jerome’s Vulgate. Tertullian (155-240 CE)
writes that in his time it was common to speak of the Bible as made up
of old and new testaments (see William Dickson, “New Testament”
214
“old,” and the Scriptures containing the words of Yeshua and His
apostles were “new,” then God had shifted the covenant from the
“old” Israel to the “new” Israel by enacting a “new” covenant or
testament.
While the three-part division of the Tanach into “the Torah,
Prophets, and Psalms” occurred very early, 576 the exact order
of the books of the Prophets and the Writings was not entirely
consistent. A baraita in the Bavli577 gives the accepted order of the
Prophets and of the Writings, putting 2Chronicles last.578 If this
was an early, standard order, it means that the last word in the
final section of Paul’s Bible was the seemingly incomplete ‫ו ְיָע ַל‬,
v’ya’al, “and He will go up.” But what does this mean? It appears
to stop in the middle of the sentence, as though more must be
written. And this was the point: the Tanach was shining its light
forward to the coming of the Messiah, the One Who was its focus
throughout the whole. To have the Bible end in such a manner left
the reader looking for the Promised One, and may even have been
the intention behind the ordering of the books.579 But when the
Christian Bible determined its order of the books of the Tanach,
putting Malachi last, the final words of the prophets ring out with
a possible curse against Israel and the land. If she receives the
Messiah, she will be blessed, but if she rejects Him, she will be
cursed. Such an ending to the “Old Testament” in the Christian
Bible fits perfectly into the replacement theology that emerged at
in Patrick Fairbairn, ed. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, 6 vols., (Blackie
& Son, n.d.), 4.364-65.
576
It would appear that Yeshua uses this designation as He converses
with the disciples on the road to Emmaus. In Luke 24:44, He refers
to “Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms,” where “Psalms” no doubt
identifies the “Writings” since the Psalms begin this section of the
Tanach and is the largest component of it.
577
b.Bava Batra 14b.
578 The later masoretic traditions did not follow this traditional order
for the Writings, however, as noted in both the codices of Lennigrad
and Aleppo. Both L and A begin the Writings with Chronicles. L
ends the Writings with Nehemiah and it is speculated that Aleppo
did also, though the text itself is damaged and ends at Song of Songs
3:11.
579
See John Sailhamer’s remarks in his article “The Messiah and the
Hebrew Bible” JETS 44.1 (March, 2001), 12.
215
Chapter 4
the hands of the Church Fathers.
The same may be true with the ordering of the Apostolic
Writings. It is well established that the Gospel of John is much
later than the other three gospels.580 What is more, it is clear that
Luke was the author both of the Gospel by his name and the
book of Acts. Yet in the final shape of the Christian canon, John
is interposed between Luke and Acts. Why? What is more, the
ordering of Paul’s epistles in the final shape of the Christian canon
is never duplicated in any of the earliest manuscripts.581 What
caused the order to be changed and what was the outcome?
Is it possible that the insertion of the Gospel of John between
Luke and Acts was done to distance the synagogal Yeshua from
the ministry of Paul? John’s Gospel is an “in-house” debate among
Jewish sects about Yeshua and His claim to be the Messiah. John
tells us this at the conclusion of his Gospel.582 But read outside
of the context of the Judaisms in which John lived and moved,
it came to be read as an anti-Jewish, (and eventually) an anti-
Semitic diatribe. Rather than a strategic and ground-zero debate
between the prevailing authorities and the emerging Messianic
congregations, John was read as a struggle between the Christian
Church and the Jews. And read with these “glasses,” it was
interpreted as a divine judgment upon the Jews, giving warrant
for reading the end of the “Old Testament” as predicting just such
a judgment. Had the Gospel of John been put toward the end of
the Apostolic Scriptures (perhaps even linked with John’s other
work, the Revelation), then the Synoptics and Acts would have
been vitally linked, and Paul’s ministry connected more directly
to that of Yeshua’s.
But the biblical phrase “new covenant” was never intended
to designate a collection of Scriptural books,583 nor was the term
580
Most evangelical scholars put the writing of the Gospel of John at 80
or 90 CE, 40 to 50 years after the death of Yeshua.
581
See David Trobisch, Paul’s Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins
(Fortress, 1994).
582
John 20:30-31.
583
It does no better to call the Apostolic Scriptures the “Renewed
Covenant” or “B’rit Chadashah” (‫)ּב ְִרית חֲדָׁשָה‬, as is so common in
Messianic circles. The Apostolic Scriptures do not constitute a
covenant in any sense. They are the divinely inspired words
of Yeshua and His apostles, giving us the ongoing progressive
216
“old covenant” meant to be a reference to the Tanach. On the
contrary, both of these terms speak to the specific application (or
lack thereof) of the covenant which God made with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob.
In our attempts to understand what Paul meant by the phrase
“new covenant,” we must first look at its origin in the prophecy
of Jeremiah 31:31-34.
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the
house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their
fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out
of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although
I was a husband to them, ”declares the LORD. “But this is the
covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those
days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them, and
on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they
shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his
neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest
of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity,
and their sin I will remember no more.”
In this passage, contained in the prophecies of Jeremiah for

the future people of Israel, we receive first-hand from the prophet
what this “new covenant” (‫ּב ְִרית חֲדָׁשָה‬, b’rit chadashah) will be.
First, the “new covenant” is specifically made “with the house
of Israel and the house of Judah.” This designation emphasizes
the complete tribes of Israel or the regathering of the dispersed
northern tribes together with the southern tribes as a united
nation.584 Note carefully that in verse 33 Jeremiah only uses the
revelation of God to His people. They are the application of Torah to
the people of God in the last days as inaugurated by the coming of
Messiah, and they constitute the divine halachah for the congregation
of Jew and Gentile as envisioned in the blessing of the Abrahamic
Covenant. They in no way constitute a “new” or “different” or even
“renewed” covenant. They are simply the progressive revelation of
the covenants which were given to the Fathers.
584
The “two-house” movement that champions the idea of the 10 lost
tribes reemerging in the contemporary Messianic movement has
neither biblical nor historical foundation. It is merely a revival
of unsound beliefs held by the British Israelites with a stronger
217
Chapter 4
designation “house of Israel” rather than both “house of Judah
and house of Israel.” Here the prophet envisions a return to the
unified nation under the one designation “Israel,” the term used
in the Torah for the whole nation.585 Thus the “new covenant”
is enacted at a time when Israel as a nation is restored to her
fullness.
Secondly, the “new covenant” is contrasted with “the covenant
which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand
to bring them out of the land of Egypt.” This exodus covenant is
further designated as “My covenant which they broke.” This no
doubt refers to the Sinai covenant or the covenant of Moses.
But notice carefully what the contrast entails. The Mosaic
covenant is described as “My covenant which they broke.”
This is compared with the “new covenant” in which the Torah
is written on the heart. In clear terms Jeremiah describes the
stark contrast of “breaking” the covenant on the one hand and
having the Torah written on the heart on the other. The contrast
is not between two different ways of salvation, or two different
methods of worshiping the Lord, one old and one new. Rather,
what is apparent in Jeremiah’s words is that the contrast is
between rebellion and submission, between stubborn selfishness
and genuine faith in God.
The Torah was rejected by the nation of Israel at Sinai even
though she gave lip-service to it. The proof that Israel as a nation
rejected God’s Torah is that she immediately engaged in idolatry,
manufacturing and worshiping the golden calf. True, a remnant
received God’s covenant by faith and lived according to its
Torah emphasis. What Jeremiah prophesied was the regathering of

the dispersed tribes of Israel back to a united whole. Nowhere in
Scripture are the northern tribes described as lost. As late as the 1st
Century CE, Peter could address his epistle to the 12 tribes in the
diaspora (1Peter 1:1ff). The northern tribes were originally taken to
Assyria , and eventually Assyria was taken over by Babylon. When
the southern tribes were exiled to Babylon, there is every reason to
believe that the nation was unified in her exile. What is more, the
reunification of all the tribes is prophesied as occurring in her return
to the Land, not in the USA or Europe.
585
The first use of “Israel” to designate the nation is in Exodus 4:22,
“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Israel is My
son, My first-born.’”
218
sanctifying precepts, but the nation as a whole rejected it. What
is more, never in the history of the nation of Israel has the nation
as a whole walked according to God’s ways. In every generation,
only a remnant has been faithful—the nation as a nation has been
unfaithful to her Husband.
But it is a revival on the national level that Jeremiah prophesies
here. For the first time in her history, the nation will have the Torah
written on a heart of flesh and will espouse the covenant through
genuine faith. This is what is “new” about the “new covenant” as
far as Jeremiah is concerned. It is not a different Torah or a different
way of knowing and loving God. It is the same Torah which was
in every generation written on the hearts of each individual who
made up the believing remnant, but this time applied to the heart
of the whole nation at once.
That Jeremiah is speaking of the same Torah is evident. He
describes the covenant made with Israel at Sinai by their rejection
of God’s Torah: “My covenant which they broke.” Yet the covenant
that is promised “after those days” is described as “I will put
My Torah within them, and on their heart I will write it.” In the
context, “My Torah” (‫ּתֹוָרת ִי‬, torati) surely denotes the same Torah
that was formerly rejected.
What does it mean to have the “Torah written on the heart,”
a characteristic of the “new covenant” with the nation of Israel?
This language signals the realization of the Shema,586 in which
the word of God is written or bound to the heart, a phenomenon
which always results in obedience to God by doing or living out
the Torah that He has given. To have the Torah written on the
heart is to have one’s life regulated and marked by its precepts.
For instance, in the Shema, the fact that the words of the Torah are
“on the heart” result in teaching them to one’s children, talking
about them throughout life, living in accordance with them, and
guarding them so that they can be done. In other words, having
the Torah written on the heart means that one’s life is conformed
to the Torah, for it is from the heart that the issues of life flow.587
All too often in our times the language of the “heart” is taken to
mean that what was once “external” is now “internal,” that what
was formerly concerned with outward action is now simply within
586
Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and 11:13-21.
587
Proverbs 4:23.
219
Chapter 4
one’s thoughts or meditations. But this is not what the Scriptures
mean by having the precepts of God “written on the heart.” To
think that one can “love the Lord” inwardly (of the heart) without
such love governing every action and outward activity is to have
swallowed a theological lie. Rather, the Scriptures are clear that
what is true of one’s heart is always manifest in one’s actions.
And furthermore, it is by one’s actions that the true nature of the
heart is revealed. Does not Yeshua teach us that it is by one’s fruit
(outward actions) that a person is truly known?588
This is precisely what James means when he writes that the
believer is “justified by his works.”589 He is not at odds with Paul,
who taught that one is justified by faith and not by works.590 Both
were saying the same thing, because both understood that when
the Torah is written on the heart, one’s actions inevitably conform
to it. Paul is often concerned with how the Torah is written on
the heart (it is inscribed there by faith). James is emphasizing the
inevitable fruit of having the Torah written on the heart (it always
produces righteous works).
But how should one know what works are righteous in God’s
eyes? How should a believer decide what God considers holy
and what He marks as profane? The bedrock standard of God’s
righteous ways is the Torah. If one wants to live life by God’s
standards, one will therefore gladly espouse the Torah as the
revelation of God’s will for His children.
And Yeshua agreed. He stated categorically that He came not
to “abolish” the Torah but to “fulfill” it, and He goes on to tell us
what He means by “fulfill”:
Do not think that I came to abolish the Torah or the Prophets;
I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you,
until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or
stroke shall pass away from the Torah, until all is accomplished.
Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments,
and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of
588
Matthew 7:16, 20.
589
James 2:24.
590
Luther could not reconcile these two apparently contradictory
statements because he had come to an anti-Torah view of Scripture.
Had he continued in his later years giving the same place to Torah as
he did in his earlier years of reformation, the picture of the reformed
church might have been drawn very differently.
220
heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called
great in the kingdom of heaven.
What this translation “hides,” however, is that the word “keeps”

(in the phrase “but whoever keeps and teaches them shall be called
great in the kingdom of heaven”) actually translates the Greek
word poievw (poiew) meaning “to do.”591 What Yeshua intends for
those of His followers who desire to be “great in the kingdom” is
that they “do” the commandments, not just think about them or
meditate upon them.
Thus Yeshua “fulfills” the Torah by making it real and active
in the lives of His disciples. What He desires for each of His
followers is that they both do the commandments and teach
others to do them as well. It is in this living out of His life that one
is considered great in His kingdom. And it is through the lives of
His disciples that Yeshua causes the Torah to be fulfilled.
Yeshua’s words only reiterate what is stated over and over in
the Tanach. With regard to the Torah, God instructs His people that
the commandments should be “guarded” or “kept” in order that
they may be “done”—“keep and do” becomes a repeated refrain
in the speech of God to Israel.592 Furthermore, it is in the guarding
or keeping of the Torah, in order to do the commandments, that
one is separated unto God. And being separated unto God is the
meaning of being “holy.”593 If we are to be holy as He is holy,594
then doing what He has commanded will be the course of our
591
The KJV has it correct: “but whosoever shall do and teach them, the
same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Likewise the
NIV translation: “but whoever practices and teaches these commands
will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” The NRSV is also
good: “but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great
in the kingdom of heaven.”
592
Exodus 15:26; Leviticus 20:22; 22:31; Deuteronomy 4:6; 7:11-12; 11:22;
29:9.
593
The root meaning of ‫קדׁש‬, kadash, is “to be separate from that which
is profane” and in the Tanach pertains primarily to the Tabernacle/
Temple and Priests, and by extension, to the people of Israel as a
nation of priests and within whom God takes up His dwelling. Being
“holy” means “being separated from what is profane,” and “being
holy unto God” means “being separated unto God” or being in such
a state that is fitting for God’s dwelling.
594
Leviticus 11:45; 19:2; 20:26. cf. 1Peter 1:15-16.
221
Chapter 4
lives. Indeed, doing what He has commanded is proof of our love
for Him, for when Yeshua said, “If you love Me, you will keep My
commandments,”595 He was only reiterating what His Father had
said throughout the history of Israel.596
Thus, when Jeremiah promises a “new covenant” with Israel
in which the Torah is written on the heart, he prophesies that the
nation as a whole would one day live out the righteousness of
the Torah. Surely it was this thought that Paul had in mind as he
looked forward to the time when “all Israel will be saved.”597
That this national revival in faith is what Jeremiah intends is
proven by the language he uses to describe the restored nation.
He writes:
“And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and
each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall
all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,”
declares the LORD.598
What often escapes our notice is that Jeremiah uses the word
“know” in a covenant sense. “Know” in the semitic languages can
mean more than an intellectual exercise. That marital relations are
couched in the term “know,” as in “Adam knew his wife,”599 shows
us that the word itself can connote relationship. A further study
of the word in covenant texts of the Ancient Near East shows that
it was used to describe covenant loyalty. For instance, in a Hittite
treaty we read:
And you, Hugganas, know only the Sun regarding lordship:

also my son of whom I, the Sun, say, ‘This one everyone should
know…‘ you, Hugganas, know him! Moreover, those who are
my sons, his brothers, or my brothers know as brother and
associate. Moreover, another lord…do not…know. The Sun
alone know! Moreover, any other do not know!600
595
John 14:15.
596
Exodus 20:6; Deuteronomy 5:10; 7:9; 11:1, 22; 30:16; Joshua 22:5;
Nehemiah 1:5; Daniel 9:4. cf. John 15:10; 1John 2:3; 5:3.
597
Romans 11:26.
598
Jeremiah 31:34.
599
Genesis 4:1.
600
H. B. Huffman, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew ‫ידע‬,” BASOR
181(1966), 31-37. For further data on the covenant use of ‫ידע‬, see H. B.
222
Thus “to know” someone in a covenant setting is to be loyal to
that person within the covenant relationship and to no one else.
This meaning seems clearly to be the case in a number of Tanach
texts. For example, note Hosea 13:4.
Yet I have been the LORD your God since the land of Egypt; and
you were not to know any god except Me, for there is no savior
besides Me.
That God “knows” only Israel means that He has made covenant
with no other nation.
You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore
I will punish you for all your iniquities.601
Yeshua uses the word “know” in this way when He states:
And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from
Me, you who practice lawlessness.”602
Therefore, when we hear Jeremiah saying that no one will need

to teach the nation of Israel, saying “know the Lord,” we should
understand this to mean that no one will have to urge Israel to be
loyal in a covenant sense to the Lord, for everyone will “know”
Him, that is, be faithful to Him in covenant relationship, from the
least to the greatest.
But according to Jeremiah, this national revival, marked by
national covenant loyalty to God, is at its heart the result of sins
forgiven.
…for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin
no more.603
The reality of forgiveness, the happy gift that comes by faith in
Huffman and S. B. Parker, “A Further Note on the Treaty Background

of Hebrew ‫”ידע‬, BASOR 184(1966), 36-38. Goetze, “Hittite sek-/sak
‘(Legally) Recognize’ in the Treaties,” JCS, 22(1968-69), 7f. takes
exception to Huffman’s findings, as does Botterweck, “‫ ”ידע‬in TDOT,
5.478.
601
Amos 3:2.
602
Matthew 7:23.
603
Jeremiah 31:35.
223
Chapter 4
God’s Messiah, becomes the possession of the nation, not just
the remnant. Here is the consummation of the prophetic voice
to Israel, promising that in the final victory of God, she surely
would be His people, and He would be her God.604
What, then, have we learned by looking closer at Jeremiah 31
and his use of the phrase “new covenant?” First, this covenant is
with the nation of Israel and will not be fulfilled until the nation
as a whole has the Torah written on their heart. Secondly, the
manifestation of the fulfilled “new covenant” will be when Israel
as a nation walks in covenant loyalty to God, meaning she lives
out the Torah that is written on her heart. As Paul has taught us,
such a recognition of Torah involves receiving Yeshua as Messiah,
for the Messiah is the very goal of the Torah. Thirdly, the whole
basis for the “new covenant” is the redemptive work of the
Messiah, for it is by His sacrifice that sins are forgiven.
We now are able to understand more clearly what Yeshua
meant when He declared the wine of the Pesach meal to be
symbolic of His death, described as “the new covenant in My
blood.”605 By these strategic words Yeshua declared that the means
by which the “new covenant” with Israel would be realized was
His own sacrificial death. Even as the blood of the Pesach lamb
was the redemptive sign on the door posts of every Israelite
home, so Yeshua would die for His people, and by His suffering
they would be healed. In this declaration Yeshua states without
equivocation that the fulfillment of the “new covenant” promised
by Jeremiah would be realized through His death. That which
would be foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the
Jews would, in fact, procure the revival of the nation.
But did Paul have this same view of the “new covenant?”
Did he give to Jeremiah’s words their historical, literary meaning,
or did he reinterpret them typologically and invest them with a
new sense—a kind of allegorical sensus plenior or “deeper sense”
which had been unknown before his writings?
While it has been commonplace within the Christian Church
to suggest and even demand that Paul has given new meaning to
Jeremiah’s “new covenant,” such a hermeneutic leads to confusion
at best, and bad theology at worst. If Paul has not taken Jeremiah’s
604
Jeremiah 24:7; 32:38; Ezekiel 11:20; 34:30; 37:23, 27; Zechariah 8:8;
2Corinthians 6:16; Hebrews 8:10.
605
Luke 22:20, cp. Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24.
224
words as he intended them, how can we be confident in his use
of the Tanach in general? And if we presume that somehow Paul
was given direct revelation from God that Jeremiah’s words
were to be understood in a sense different than he gave them,
we likewise would expect this to be corroborated throughout the
Scriptures. For the only benchmark we have of what is truly from
God is that it conforms to the revelation He has already given. But
if Paul is the sole witness to such a meaning, his words remain
uncorroborated and cannot be received. It is only in the mouth of
two or three witnesses that a matter is established.606
On the contrary, it is clear that Paul employs the historical,
literary hermeneutic when he quotes the Tanach. Thus, when
he refers to the “new covenant,” he has Jeremiah’s meaning in
mind.
Besides Paul’s quote of the words of Yeshua at the Pesach
meal,607 which he applies to the observance of the Festival by
the followers of Yeshua, his only other reference608 to the “new
covenant” is in 2Corinthians 3:6, in which he identifies himself
and his co-workers as “servants of a new covenant.” In this
context, he is contrasting his ministry with that of Moses, even
as Jeremiah did. Moses’ ministry was met with rebellion and
disobedience by the people not because his message was wrong
but because the very heart of the Torah, the Messiah, was veiled
to them. And it was veiled to them because they lacked faith to
believe. Paul’s message was the same as Moses’ message, but the
difference in the success of his ministry as contrasted with that
of Moses was the work of the Spirit illuminating the hearts of
His chosen ones, and removing the veil so that they could see
Messiah. Paul understood his ministry to be the dawning of the
“new covenant,” the time when Israel would be restored as a
nation to the genuine worship of God. He therefore uses the term
with exactly the same meaning as Jeremiah intended. Taking the
words of Yeshua, that the “new covenant” would be actualized in
His blood, Paul, in preaching Yeshua, was a servant of the “new
covenant.” It was through this preaching that the nation would
606
Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:19; 2Corinthians 13:1.
607
1Corinthians 11:25.
608
I am taking the position that Paul did not write Hebrews. If he did,
then the references to the “new covenant” in chapter 8 of that epistle
would also be accredited to him.
225
Chapter 4
finally be restored.
But how did the “new covenant” embrace the Gentiles? If
the “new covenant” is only fulfilled in the final restoration of the
nation of Israel as a Torah-obedient nation through faith in the
Messiah, where does this leave the Gentiles? Are the Gentiles
members of the “new covenant” as well?
The answer is “yes,” but the explanation Paul gives us on this
issue may be disconcerting to some. Since the Church has for so
many years seen herself as the summation of the “kingdom of
God,” and as the “new covenant people,” it may be difficult to
hear that one of the purposes for the salvation of the Gentiles is
to evoke jealousy in Israel. Even as Yeshua came as a servant to
bring about the glory of God, so the ingathering of the nations has
the return of Israel to her God as one of its purposes.
In Paul’s explanation of why Israel had rejected Yeshua as
her Messiah, he makes this clear. Romans 9–11 contain his classic
statement on the unbelief of Israel. He accredits it to a number
of things, but in the final analysis Paul recognized that a divine
“hardening” had come upon Israel in order that the promise of
salvation should go forth to the Gentiles. But this ingathering
of the Gentiles was, for Paul, not the end of the story; rather,
it would be through the ingathering of the Gentiles that Israel
herself would be provoked to jealousy and would return to her
God in faith.
I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it
never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the
Gentiles, to make them jealous.609
Note carefully the reason Paul gives in this context for why
salvation has come to the Gentiles: salvation has come to the
Gentiles “to make them (Israel) jealous.” Surely the ingathering
of the Gentiles is a significant fulfillment of the Abrahamic
covenant, and fully necessary to prove God’s faithfulness. In fact,
the ingathering of the nations is considered the final victory of
the Abrahamic promise and is the fulfillment of the “mystery”
contained in the Gospel.610
Yet here, in Paul’s exposé on Israel’s future, the salvation
609
Romans 11:11.
610
Romans 16:25-27.
226
of the Gentiles leads to or brings about the jealousy of Israel,
which moves her, on a national level (verse 26, “all Israel will
be saved”) to faith in Yeshua and therefore restoration to God.
In Paul’s understanding, the salvation of the Gentiles is, in one
sense, a means to an end. The “fullness of the Gentiles” is not the
final movement of the Divine symphony. The Gentile believers
perform a servant role to bring about the consummation of the
“new covenant” in which Israel comes to own her rightful position
within the covenant promises of God.
Thus anti-semitism stands diametrically opposed to this
Divine mission. How can Israel be moved to jealousy through
hatred? Does the Church honestly pretend to duplicate the heart
of the Apostle through her teaching that she has replaced Israel?
Did not the Apostle confess that he would willingly take upon
himself the curse of God if this could somehow procure the
salvation of his Jewish brethren?611 How then can the Church
suggest that she follows the teachings of Paul when she rather
smugly portrays herself as the “be-all” and “end-all” of God’s
salvific plans to the utter exclusion of the Jews?
Yet God will not be thwarted or in some way be called off from
His purposes. Now, in these last times, there is a growing ground-
swell of Christians who are recognizing, many for the first time
and from their own personal study of God’s word, that what has
been told to them through the centuries is wrong—that God never
intended His Torah, His gracious instruction in righteousness, to
be neglected or considered abolished. What is more, this growing
awareness of the greatness of God’s ways is giving rise to a new
recognition of the people and land of Israel, and the vision is once
again alive that sees Israel as God’s eternal people, and as the
nation for which God will stop at nothing to bring her back to
Himself.
It is, of course, recognized that the current state of Israel, and
the manner in which this modern state functions, is nothing akin
to what Jeremiah prophesies. Most understand that Israel’s trust
today is, in fact, “in horses and chariots,”612 and not in her God.
But in the awakening of God’s people to these eternal truths, there
is also an understanding that God’s kingdom is ultimately and
finally to have its locus in Jerusalem, for it is only from Zion that
611
Romans 9:3.
612
Isaiah 31:1; Psalm 20:7.
227
Chapter 4
the Torah will go forth.613 This sets the zenith of God’s redemptive
purposes squarely within the redeemed people of Israel, with
Yeshua, the Son of David, as her Prophet, Priest, and King. It is this
prophetic picture that captivates the minds of Torah-awakened
believers, for it is to this that salvation history is hastening—this,
and nothing else.
I do not mean to imply whatsoever by this description of the
“new covenant” that non-Jewish believers are in any way “second
class” citizens in the kingdom of God, or in some measure less
important or valuable to God than the chosen nation of Israel.
Quite the contrary: Paul speaks in unambiguous terms that Israel
is not complete without the ingathering of the Gentiles,614 for this
is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.615
Nor do I mean to imply that non-Jewish believers are
somehow not also current members of the “new covenant.” For
the “new covenant” was in every way secured by the coming of
Yeshua, and particularly by His death, resurrection, ascension,
and intercession. Therefore all who are “in Messiah” are members
of the “new covenant,” for they have the Torah written on the
613
Isaiah 2:3; Micah 4:2.
614
In the third and fourth chapters of Ephesians, Paul makes it clear that
the body of Messiah is composed of both Jews and Gentiles, and that
each plays a strategic part in the whole. He uses the body metaphor
in which each member has a significant role, and the body is therefore
not complete and not functioning as it ought apart from each member.
This is usually understood from a ‘local assembly’ standpoint,
dealing with each member in the congregation contributing his or
her spiritual gifts to the betterment of the whole. But while this is
surely true, the context is one of the bigger picture, in which Jew
and Gentile are united together in the body of Messiah envisioned
as the whole. The body metaphor, then, is used by Paul more of the
corporate entity than the local assembly. Paul is showing here that
Israel, as God’s chosen people, is not complete in and of herself,
for her mission has always been the ingathering of the nations. It is
when the nations are gathered into Israel and attach themselves to
her God and Messiah that Israel is fulfilled in her God-given role.
Thus, apart from the believing Gentiles, Israel is still unfulfilled. For
further information on this, see my book FellowHeirs (FFOZ, 2003).
615
“In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.” cf. Genesis
12:3; 22:18; 26:4, et al.
228
heart (by faith) and have the Spirit of God indwelling them, by
Whom the word of God comes to them in power. Furthermore,
they have experienced the forgiveness of sins, all of which are
marks of the “new covenant.” And by Paul’s own words, the non-
Jewish believer has been “grafted in,” and is therefore “attached”616
to Israel, so much so that each and every non-Jewish believer may
call Abraham his father.617 All are now part of the “commonwealth
of Israel” because all have been “brought near.”618
But as servants of the “new covenant,” that is, as those who
within God’s unfathomable plan will actually effect the jealousy
and subsequent salvation of Israel, the congregation of believers
today are the “first fruits” of the covenant,619 not the fulfillment
of it. Its final and ultimate fulfillment awaits the future when
“all Israel will be saved.” Only when the house of Judah and the
house of Israel are once again the “Israel of God”620 will the “new
covenant” be completed and whole.
Until then, the “new covenant” is “already-not yet” in the
sense that all who come to faith in Messiah are members of this
covenant which awaits its consummation in the final salvation of
Israel. This, it seems to me, is Paul’s understanding of the “new
covenant.”
But what does Paul mean, then, by his use of the term “old
covenant?” In 2Corinthians 3:14, Paul is referring to his Jewish
brothers who had not yet come to faith in Messiah. He writes:
But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the
reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted,
because it is removed in Christ.
In our times, as I have noted above, “old covenant” is normally

understood to mean “Old Testament,” or the books of the Bible
from Genesis to Zechariah.621 But Paul could not be referring to
616
Note the language of Isaiah 56:3, “Let not the foreigner who has
joined himself to the LORD….”
617
Romans 4:11ff.
618
Ephesians 2:12-13.
619
1Corinthians 15:16.
620
Galatians 6:16.
621
The original order of the books is different of course; the Christian
Bible does not follow the original order of the Hebrew Scriptures.
229
Chapter 4
the “Old Testament” by this phrase because there was nothing else
with which to compare the Tanach in terms of a gathered body of
canonical books. In other words, there was no “New Testament,”
so “Old Testament,” in referring to the Tanach, would have been
senseless.
But was he contrasting the Torah with the “new covenant,”
using “old covenant” to refer to the Mosaic legislation? This can
hardly be the case, as we have seen above, for the simple reason
that the “new covenant” as outlined by Jeremiah involves the
writing of the Torah on the heart of Israel. The “new covenant”
includes the Torah—it does not negate it nor stand against it.
Then what does Paul mean by the term “old covenant?” First,
the context of 2Corinthians 3 is Paul’s contrasting the ministry of
Moses that fell on hardened hearts with his own gospel message
to the Corinthians which was received by faith.622 He makes it
clear that the difference was not in the message, but in the hearts
of those who received the message. The reason that Israel during
the time of Moses did not receive the message is because it was
veiled, so that the glory of Messiah was hidden from their view,
and thus their hearts were hardened.
What Paul sees in his brothers who have rejected Yeshua
is that the same hardness of heart remains when they read the
Torah every Shabbat. Instead of finding in the Torah the Messiah
to whom it points,623 they rather read the Torah as the very reason
to reject Him. Only when they turn to Yeshua in faith is the veil
lifted, and the glory (which they could not see in Moses’ face
because it was veiled) is seen.
Paul’s use of the word “old” (palaiov~, palaios) to modify
“covenant” carries the same meaning as when he speaks of the
“old self.”624 In this case Paul is describing a person before faith,
before the infusion of the Spirit into his life as the child of God. In
the “old self,” pleasing God is impossible because the “old self” is
a slave to sin. Indeed, “old” and “new” in Paul generally contrast
the time before coming to faith in the Messiah with that which
follows true faith, and the corresponding manner of life in each.625
622
I hope to give a more detailed exposition of 2Corinthians 3 and related
passages in a future book dealing with Paul’s view of the Torah.
623
Romans 10:4, “For Yeshua is the goal of the Torah….”
624
Romans 6:6; Ephesians 4:22; Colossians 3:9.
625
Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Eerdmans,
230
Furthermore, just as Paul connects “old” and “new” in Romans 7
to “letter” and “Spirit,” so he makes the same connection here. The
“old” is characterized by the “letter,” the “new” by the “Spirit.”
What Paul is showing us by his use of the term “old covenant”
is that he has, indeed, understood and followed Jeremiah. For
Jeremiah speaks of the covenant made with Israel at the time of
the exodus as a covenant which they broke; whereas, the future,
“new covenant” is characterized by acceptance in faith. Paul
draws the same parallel: the “old covenant” is the Torah which
falls upon hardened hearts, is rejected, and is characterized by
the lifeless “letter;” the “new covenant” is the Torah, written on
hearts of flesh, which is received by faith, and results in life in the
“Spirit.” The difference is not in the Torah or the message given,
but in the ability to receive it by faith. Thus, the “old covenant”
is the reading of the Torah (God’s revelation) without faith, and
therefore without the Spirit, which always results in missing the
Messianic message. The “new covenant” involves reading and
receiving the Torah (God’s revelation) with faith via the Spirit,
which always results in seeing and receiving the revelation of
Messiah.
For Paul, the decisive difference between the two is the
removal of the veil, something only the Spirit can do. But once
the veil has been removed and the glory of God is seen shining
in Messiah’s face, there is total acceptance. This, no doubt, is for
Paul the realization of the “new covenant” in the individual’s life,
something he believed would happen to Israel on a national scale
in the final days.
We see, then, that “old” and “new” when applied to the
covenant, do not speak so much of time or generations (“old”
being “long ago” and “new” being “current”), as it speaks of faith
or the absence of faith. Granted, the “new covenant” will only find
its full realization in the final salvation of the nation of Israel, but
throughout the generations of time, each and every one who has
come to faith in the Messiah and has trusted God for his eternal
salvation has entered into the “new covenant” as first fruits of a
final harvest. As such, each one has the Torah written on the heart
and has confessed a true and abiding loyalty to God as his Lord
and King, having received forgiveness of sins by the sacrifice of
Yeshua. In contrast, all, in every generation, who have rejected
1975), 63.
231
Chapter 4
the call of the gospel and have spurned the message of grace, have
demonstrated their participation in the “old covenant.” They are
acting as Israel did when she rejected the word of God through
Moses and resorted to the worship of the golden calf and the god
it represented. For Paul, “old” and “new” are not time-bound,
they are faith-bound.626
626
Regarding “old covenant” and “new covenant,” I am indebted to my
friend Dr. Robert Rayburn for his dissertation on the subject. He ends
his section on the “old/new covenant” terminology in 2Corinthians
3 with this summation: “In our view then, if the two covenants are
interpreted according to the sense of the entire section (2:14–4:6), it
becomes clear that the distinction between the new covenant and
the old covenant has nothing to do with the distinction between
the situation before Christ came and the situation after or between
the religion and revelation before Christ and that after. It is rather
the distinction between flesh and Spirit, between the old man and
the new man, between death and life, between condemnation and
righteousness, and between guilt and the forgiveness of sin.” Robert
S. Rayburn, The Contrast between the Old and New Covenants in the New
Testament (Doctoral Thesis, Univ. of Aberdeen, 1978), 395-96.
232
Chapter Five
Paul & the Jerusalem Council
Paul and the Jerusalem Council
Chapter 5: Paul and the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)

“Even the Apostles admitted the Torah was a burden no one could
bear!” Such a statement characterizes a common sentiment about
the Torah—one based upon an equally common interpretation of
Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council.
But we need to look again at Acts 15 and the decision of the
Apostolic Council convened in Jerusalem. What was the issue
at hand? What had brought about the need for the Council in
the first place? And how should the decision of the Apostles be
interpreted? What does all of this tell us about the place of the
Torah among the early followers of Yeshua?
5.1 The Core Issue at the Jerusalem Council

The opening verses of Acts 15 give us a clear picture of the core
issue confronting the Jerusalem Council:
And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the
brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom
of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas
had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren
determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them
should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning
this issue.627
The “issue” at hand was whether or not someone who was

not a Jew could be saved. To put it another way, how could a
Gentile become a covenant member with Israel and share in the
blessings of the covenant? The prevailing belief of the Judaisms
in Paul’s day was that only Jews had a place in the world-to-come
since God had made the covenant of blessing with Israel and no
other nation.
All Israel have a place in the world-to-come.628
This central theological axiom shows that from the perspective of

the Rabbis, a Gentile could secure a place in the world-to-come
only by becoming a Jew. This, the Rabbis taught, was possible
627
Acts 15:1-2.
628
m.Sanhedrin 10:1.
235
Chapter 5
through becoming a proselyte, a ritual based entirely upon their
rules but without any foundation in the Torah itself. In fact, the
added phrase “according to the custom of Moses”629 in the opening
verse of Acts 15 may point to the fact that the disagreement taking
place between Paul and Barnabas and the others was not over
what the written Torah prescribed for Gentiles but whether or not
the additional teachings of the Sages were binding upon them.
Thus when men from Judea taught that “unless you are
circumcised (undergo the ritual of a proselyte) according to the
custom of Moses you cannot be saved,” they were simply applying
the standard theology of their day. This is what the Council was
dealing with: Did all Israel have a place in the world-to-come?
Did Gentiles therefore need to submit to the man-made ritual of
the proselyte so that, in accordance with the prevailing theology,
they too could secure eternal life, that is, be saved?
Nowhere in God’s word is there a ceremony outlined for a
Gentile to become a proselyte. In fact, the Torah is quite specific
that the resident non-Jew was to be received as just that—a non-
Jewish person who had attached himself to Israel and to her God.
If God expected the believing Gentile to become a Jew through
some ritual of conversion there would be no reason for a verse
like Numbers 15:16:
There is to be one Torah and one ordinance for you and for the
alien who sojourns with you.630
The fact that God does not prescribe a method for becoming a
proselyte in the sacred text of the Scriptures shows us that the
rabbinic matter of proselytization was entirely man-made.
629
tw`/ e[qei tw`/ Mwu>sevw~ (to ethei to Mouseos), “according to the custom of
Moses” is found only here in the Apostolic Writings but is paralleled
by similar phrases in Acts 6:14 (“customs which Moses handed
down to us”) and Acts 21:21 (“to forsake Moses, telling them not to
circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs”). The
phrase “customs…among the Jews” is found in Acts 26:3 and “the
customs of our forefathers” in Acts 28:3. Elsewhere in Acts the word
“custom” (e[qo~, ethos) is used to denote culturally-bound customs
(Roman customs, Acts 16:21; 25:16) as well as personal customs (of
Paul, Acts 17:2).
630
cf. also Exodus 12:49 and Numbers 15:29.
236
Yet the Torah does command that males be circumcised as a sign
of the covenant made between God and Abraham’s descendants.
But here is where the waters become muddied. Circumcision
had become the central element in the rabbinic ceremony for the
proselyte and Gentiles were undergoing circumcision not to fulfill
the requirements of the Torah but to comply with the rabbinic
insistence upon proselytization. As Gentiles were taught that
they could only enter the covenant by “becoming Jews” through
the man-made ritual, they were likewise vulnerable to believing
that their status as Jews was the grounds of their salvation rather
than faith in God and His Messiah.
The issue was one of status. What status qualified a person
to be assured of a place in the world-to-come—ethnicity or faith?
What was essential for salvation: the status of Jewishness or the
status of being “in Messiah?” Paul and the other apostles at the
Jerusalem Council unanimously agreed that one’s ethnic status
had no bearing whatsoever on one’s salvation. The crux was faith
not ethnicity.
5.2 Is the Torah a Burden No One Can Bear?

The predominant interpretations of Acts 15, however, center not
on this main issue of how Gentiles would be received into the body
of Messiah, but on whether or not the Torah had any relevance to
their life of faith. Such an emphasis not only misses the opening
words of the chapter but also telegraphs the anti-Torah theology
latent in the historic Christian church. What is given to us by
Luke as an historical description of how the Apostles dealt with
the rabbinic theology of their day has been turned into one of the
primary texts used to disparage the Torah.
Yet not only do the opening words of the chapter tell us what
the real issue was, but the language of the Apostles themselves
also indicates that they were dealing with the dominant theology
of their day. In particular, they were confronting the manner
in which the man-made rules of the Oral Torah had been so
interwoven with the interpretation and application of the Written
Torah that in many cases the two had become indistinguishable.
Even the early rabbinic tradition expressed in Pirkei Avot
indicates that interpretations of the Torah contrary to the received
halachah were considered a grave transgression:
237
Chapter 5
R. Eleazar the Modiite said: He who profanes holy things and
despises the festivals, and shames his associate in public, and
makes void the covenant of Abraham our father, and gives
interpretations of Torah which are not according to halachah [‫ׁשֶֹלא‬
‫]כ ַהֲלָכ ָה‬, even though he possess Torah and good deeds he has no
portion in the world-to-come.631
Daily life was more and more governed by the woven fabric of
rabbinic theology as the written text was layered by the established
halachah of the leading authorities. It was into this socio-religious
milieu that the Apostles found themselves pressed to give a
ruling on the status of Gentiles. And when they did, they spoke in
language that identified their efforts to distinguish between God’s
eternal, inspired word and the long-standing traditions that had
overlaid it.
Peter, in the first of the speeches recorded in our chapter,
uses language that signals an important key to its interpretation.
Having reminded his audience that he had been the Apostle first
sent to the Gentiles and that he had witnessed the evidence of the
Spirit upon them while they were still Gentiles, he says:
Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon
the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor
we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved
through the grace of the Lord Yeshua, in the same way as they
also are.632
631
m.Avot 3:11 (it is numbered 3:15 in R. Travers Herford, Pirke Aboth:
The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers [Schocken, 1962] and
Shlomo P. Toperoff m.Avot: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Ethics
of the Fathers [Aronson, 1997], while in Charles Taylor, Sayings of the
Fathers [KTAV, 1969] it is numbered 3:17). The phrase “not according
to halachah” is missing in some manuscripts but seems necessary to
complete the phrase since giving interpretations of Torah, something
every Sage did, could not have been considered wrong. What this
phrase would imply is that there came a time when a growing faction
within Judaism was expressing halachah contrary to the rulings of
the Sanhedrin and these were considered such a threat that they
were marked as heretical. Parallel texts to this Saying are: Sifre on
Numbers 15:31 (2:169-70 in Neusner’s translation), b.Sanhedrin 99a-
b, Avot according to Rabbi Nathan, ch. 26.
632
Acts 15:10-11.
238
Here Peter makes several important assertions that are central to
the understanding of his words. First, note that he puts at odds
the “yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to
bear” with salvation through faith. The Gentiles had been saved
and graced by God’s presence (evidenced by the Spirit) as a
matter of their faith, not because they had changed status from
Gentile to Jew. The “yoke” that the Pharisaic teachers desired to
place upon them was, in Peter’s mind, contrary to salvation based
upon God’s grace.
But here is a central issue directly related to the proper
interpretation of the passage. Would Peter have referred to the
written Torah as a yoke that “neither our fathers nor we have
been able to bear?” The common answer of Christian interpreters
is a resounding “yes!” Taking the position that the Jews of his day
believed their salvation was gained through perfect obedience to
the Torah, Peter’s statement is interpreted as a ringing declaration
against the impossibility of salvation by works.
But the Council was not debating whether or not salvation
was gained by works. No one, including the “men from Judea”
who were insisting that the Gentiles become proselytes, believed
that anyone gained a place in the world-to-come by a complete
adherence to Torah. As I have already noted, the prevailing view
was that a place in the world-to-come was the gracious gift of
God to every Israelite as a member of the covenant nation.
Furthermore, if Peter is describing the written Torah by calling
it a “yoke neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear,” then
he is putting the Scriptures and the true gospel message at odds.
But we know Peter did not do this. His message of the gospel
given at that historic Shavuot (Acts 2) is the pure gospel. In his
message there, after proving Yeshua to be the promised Messiah,
Peter concludes:
Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Yeshua

HaMashiach for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and
your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord
our God shall call to Himself.”633
However, notice that Peter’s complete message is based upon the
633
Acts 2:38-39.
239
Chapter 5
Tanach. He shows from the Scriptures (Psalms) that the Messiah
would suffer and be raised from the dead, and that it was by this
work of Messiah that the promise of salvation to Israel, as well as
to the nations (given in the Abrahamic covenant found in Genesis),
would be realized. Far from pitting the Torah against the message
of salvation by faith, Peter bases his gospel upon Torah.
Peter is not alone in affirming that the Torah teaches salvation
by faith. Paul instructs us that when the Torah is read via the
illuminating work of the Spirit, Yeshua is inevitably seen,634 and
according to Galatians 3:8 he considers the Abrahamic promise to
be the gospel.635 Moreover, the Apostolic message of the gospel is
everywhere grounded in the Tanach, for the Tanach was the only
divinely inspired Scriptures they had in which this message of
salvation was given.636
So if Peter cannot be referring to the written Torah by the
descriptive phrase “a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have
been able to bear,” to what was he referring?
Interestingly, James uses similar language:
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you
no greater burden than these essentials…637
We must therefore ask the same question of James. Would he

have characterized the Torah as a burden? In his epistle, written
before the Jerusalem Council convened, James refers to the Torah
as “the perfect Torah,”638 “the Torah of liberty,”639 and the “royal
634
Romans 10:4 where “end” (tevlo~, telos) should be understood as
“goal.” cf. 2Corinthians 3:1-4:6.
635
cf. the parallel texts to Genesis 12:3 as well: 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 27:29;
28:14.
636
cf. Romans 10:6-8 where Deuteronomy 30:12ff is quoted, and where
Paul considers this Torah passage to be “the word of faith which
we are preaching.” In fact, for Paul Genesis 15:6, “And Abraham
believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness” showed
beyond doubt that the message of salvation by grace through faith
was the message Abraham believed (cf. Romans 4:3). Paul considers
the Abrahamic promise to be the Gospel (Galatians 3:8), the same
Gospel he preached.
637
Acts 15:28.
638
James 1:25.
639
James 1:25; 2:12.
240
Torah.”640 Far from describing the Torah as a “burden,” James
himself tells us that the Torah is an extreme blessing.
The only logical conclusion we can come to is that both James
and Peter had something other than God’s Torah in mind when
they used this terminology. Can we trace this idea of a “burden”
and “yoke” to the teachings of Yeshua?
5.3 “Yoke” and “Burden” in the Sayings of Yeshua

The teachings of Yeshua had no doubt remained part of the
ongoing dialog among the Apostles. Like talmidim of any
prominent teacher, the students of Yeshua surely rehearsed His
teachings orally before they were written down. It seems certain
the oral tradition of His teachings formed the basis for what later
become the synoptic Gospels.
Yeshua refers to the man-made laws of the Sages via the
metaphor of a “burden:”
And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men’s shoulders;
but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much
as a finger. Matthew 23:4
Furthermore, He characterizes His own teachings with the

same term “yoke” as Peter uses at the Council:
Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and
humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My
yoke is easy, and My load is light. Matthew 11:29-30
The use of the term “yoke” in the Rabbinic literature is well

attested. The Midrashim speak of the “yoke of Torah,”641 as well
as the “yoke of God”642 and “yoke of the kingdom of heaven;”643
while Sifra and the Mishnah include “yoke of the command-
ments.”644 For the Sages, the metaphor of the “yoke” was one of
640
James 2:8.
641
Mid. Rab. Genesis lxvii.7; xcviii.12; xcix.10; Mid. Rab. Exodus xv.11, 13;
Mid. Rab. Numbers xiii.15, 16; xviii.21; xix.26; Mid. Rab. Lamentations
iii.9; v.5.
642
Mid. Rab. Exodus xxx.5.
643
Mid. Rab. Numbers x.4; Mid. Rab. Lamentations l.43
644
Sifra 57b; 99d; m.B’rachot 2:2.
241
Chapter 5
willful submission to the Torah and thus ultimately to the rule of
God.
But when the rulings of men became so intertwined with the
written Torah that for all practical purposes the two were one,
to neglect the traditions of the Sages was viewed as a neglect of
Torah. Remember, one of the Sayings of the Fathers warns that
interpretations of the Torah that differed from received halachah
render a person unfit for the world-to-come.645 The implication is
obvious: to throw off the traditions was to cast away the “yoke of
the commandments” and to mark oneself as a heretic.
Our understanding of the metaphor of a “yoke” is deepened
when we understand that it was used to describe received
traditions. For instance, in the ordering of the prayers in the
synagogue liturgy, the Shema of Deuteronomy 6 is recited
before the section beginning “and it shall be if you hearken” of
Deuteronomy 11:13ff. But why?
In order that one should first receive upon himself the yoke of
the Kingdom of Heaven and then receive upon himself the yoke
of the commandments.646
As far as the rabbis were concerned, a person was not keeping the
commandments unless, in doing so, they were adhering to that
prescribed by the ruling authorities, i.e., according to the accepted
halachah. The “yoke of the commandments” was something
additional to the “yoke of the kingdom of Heaven.” Indeed, the
“yoke of the commandments” had effectively become the “yoke
of the rabbis’ interpretations of the commandments,” and it was
this yoke that had become a burden.
Another use of “yoke” is found in the Talmudic reference
describing sins that are atoned for on Yom Kippur:
For all transgressions of the Torah, whether he repented or not,

the Day of Atonement brings atonement, except in the case
of one who throws off the yoke, perverts the teachings of the
Torah, and rejects the covenant in the flesh.647
In this case, “throwing off the yoke” most likely refers to a

645
m.Avot 3:11; see footnote 631 above.
646
m.B’rachot 2:2.
647
b.Shevuot 13a.
242
denial of God’s existence, but it is also linked to perverting the
teachings of Torah and failure to be circumcised. Note carefully
how these three are joined in this Talmudic passage: throwing off
the yoke, teaching Torah contrary to the prevailing interpretation,
and not being circumcised. It is not hard to envision that Paul’s
opponents could have thought this described his teaching. For
in not requiring Gentiles to become Jews, it appeared as though
he disregarded both the ruling of the Sages as well as the Torah
commandment of circumcision.
In fact, in Acts 21 we read there were believing Jews who were
upset at Paul because a rumor had circulated that he was teaching
the people to forsake Moses and the customs. So sure were they
that he had forsaken God’s way, they were willing to attempt a
mob lynching.
Yet Paul was unwilling to require the Gentiles to submit to
the many man-made laws of the rabbis in order to be received
into the community of believers. And his decision to move in
this direction was considered by some to be worthy of death.
The “yoke” of tradition had sat across the neck of Israel for so
long that it was impossible for many to ever envision a genuine
faith in God without it. And when it came to the Gentiles it was
impossible to consider receiving them apart from their willing
submission to the man-made ceremony of the proselyte.
Yeshua made a most significant point when He asked His
disciples to take upon themselves His yoke, not the yoke of His
contemporaries. In contrast to the yoke of the rabbis, Yeshua
identifies His yoke as “easy” (crhsto;~, chrestos), that is, “kind” and
His burden as “light” (ejlafrov~, elaphros), that is, “not a burden.”
His yoke was “kind” in that it gave “mercy” and “love” equal
significance with “righteousness” and “justice.” His burden was
“light” because He had liberated the teaching of God, the Torah,
from all of the man-made embellishments and it therefore was
able to penetrate the heart with ‫חֶס ֶד וְאֶמ ֶת‬, chesed v’emet, “loving-
kindness and truth.” Yoked together with Him, the Torah was
sweet as honey and the joy of one’s heart. It was under this kind
and gentle yoke that Yeshua intended even the smallest stroke of the
Torah and Prophets to be fulfilled in the lives of His followers.648
This yoke of the Torah as Yeshua taught cannot be the
648
Matthew 5:17-21.
243
Chapter 5
“burden” and “yoke” referred to by Peter and James. The yoke
they describe is unbearable, and even the minimal aspects of it
(the four things required of the Gentiles) are in some measure
a burden. Rather, the yoke they are unwilling to place upon the
backs of the Gentile believers is the yoke of man-made rules and
laws that required a ceremony to “get in” and submission to
untold number of intricate halachot. Indeed, the layer upon layer
of rabbinic additions to the Torah had made the whole matter a
burden and had even at times clouded the very purpose of the
Torah. It was this burden the Apostles were unwilling to place
upon the Gentiles, a burden every proselyte would have been
expected to bear.
5.4 The Four Requirements

Yet there was no way around the fact that the Gentiles would
need to conform to some of the man-made laws that for so long
had been attached to the Torah. For the Gentiles to be received
within the Torah community of the Jews would require their
willingness to conform to some of the essential community
standards—standards defined by rabbinic traditions. This the
Apostles could not deny.
They therefore decreed that an essential group of traditions
should be received by the Gentile believers in order to give
them a genuine, working membership within the synagogue
community.649
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon

you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain
from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things
strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from
such things, you will do well. Farewell.” (Acts 15:28-29)
Why these four? Is there some commonality that binds them

649
The idea that the four things required of the Gentile believers is
the sum total of “Torah” for them cannot be sustained. Ample
evidence exists that matters of morality prescribed by the Torah
were considered the norm for all believers. That Paul expects the
Corinthians to “celebrate the feast” (i.e., Pesach; 1Corinthians 5:8)
would indicate that they were expected to keep even ceremonial
aspects of the Torah as well.
244
together?
Were the Four Requirements Really the Noachide Laws?
It is not uncommon for scholars to reference the Noachide Laws

when discussing the edict drawn up by the Jerusalem Council in
Acts 15.650 Various authors have indicated their belief that the four
things required of the Gentiles were a “short list” of the Noachide
Laws.
Yet it is not until the era of the Tosefta and Babylonian Talmud
that the Noachide Laws were categorized under the name of
Noah and prescribed as a requirement for righteous Gentiles.651
Post-Yavneh rabbinic legislation considered these laws to be the
foundational commandments given to the generation before the
flood and exemplified in the life of Noah. Following Rambam, the
accepted halachah was that these commandments were necessary
for a non-proselyte Gentile to follow in order to be considered
righteous and have a place in the world-to-come. The emphasis
of rabbinic Judaism was that the Torah was given exclusively to
Israel and the Noachide Laws to the Gentiles.
The Tosefta lists the Noachide Laws as seven:652 1) prohibition
650
Brad H. Young, Paul the Jewish Theologian (Hendrickson, 1997), 38ff.;
Marvin Wilson, Our Father Abraham (Eerdmans, 1989), 49; W. D.
Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 3rd edition (SPCK, 1970), 118;
Mark Nanos, The Mystery of Romans (Fortress, 1996), 169-70; Alan
Segal, Paul the Convert (Yale, 1990), 194ff. For further study of the
history of the Noachide Laws in the rabbinic literature, see my paper
“‘Do the Seven, Go to Heaven?’: An Investigation into the History
of the Noachide Laws,” delivered at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the
Evangelical Theological Society and available at www.torahresource.
com.
651
Appeal is made to Jubilees 7:20ff as indicating an early date for
the Noachide Laws. But a reading of the wider context shows
conclusively that in this text the laws given to Noah are for Israel
not for the nations. Indeed, for the author of Jubilees the laws given
to Noah are foundational for all of the yearly Mo’adim (Festivals).
652
t.Avodah Zerah 8.4; cf. b.Sanhedrin 56a-60a; b.Avodah Zarah 64b.
The reference in Rambam, the first to specifically indicate that the
Noachide Laws offer Gentiles a righteous standing and therefore a
place in the world to come is: Mishnah Torah, Hilchot Melachim 8.11.
245
Chapter 5
of idolatry, 2) prohibition of blasphemy, 3) prohibition of
bloodshed, 4) prohibition of sexual sins, 5) prohibition of theft, 6)
prohibition of eating flesh from a live animal, and 7) requirement
to establish a legal system. But to derive these seven from Genesis
1-11 requires a lot of reading between the lines.
It should be noted that nothing even remotely akin to such a
formulation is found in the earlier Mishnah. Never does the Mishnah
mention a body of laws that would render a Gentile righteous
and therefore fit for the world-to-come. In the Mishnah a place in
the world-to-come is reserved only for Israel, meaning that the
only hope for Gentiles was to become proselytes.653 Indeed, this
was the accepted status quo at the time of Acts 15.
Furthermore, it seems apparent that the Noachide Laws were
formulated in an era when the synagogue was taking a rather anti-
Gentile position. The tide had changed. Rather than attempting
to bring Gentiles into the faith of Israel as the Pharisees were
apparently doing in Yeshua’s time,654 the Noachide Laws were
formulated at a time when Gentiles were considered more of a
threat than a mission field. The formulation of the Noachide Laws
thus made a second way for the Gentiles—a way that gave them
a place in the world-to-come without becoming members of the
Jewish community.
This in itself makes the Noachide Law interpretation
unworkable. The interpretation of these laws as a means by which
Gentiles could be accepted in the world-to-come had not yet been
formulated. At the time of the Jerusalem Council’s meeting, the
commonly held view of the Pharisees (if in fact this is reflected in
the Mishnah) was that the world-to-come was reserved for Israel.
Thus the only means by which a Gentile would gain entry would
be as a proselyte.
If the Jerusalem Council’s decision caused controversy, it was
not because it’s members were promoting a different, anti-Torah
path of salvation for the Gentiles; rather it was in the Council’s
position that the believing Gentiles were to be received as members
of the covenant in exactly the same way as Jews were received—by
their faith. Accordingly, even Jews were not received on the basis
See ad loc, Rabbi Eliyahu Touger, trans., Maimonides Mishneh Torah
(Moznaim, 2001), p. 582.
653
m. Sanhedrin 10:1.
654
cf. Matthew 23:15.
246
of their ethnic status, nor their outward observance of halachah.
For the Apostles, faith was the issue.
But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord
Yeshua, in the same way as they also are.655
To have given the Gentiles a different set of laws by which they

would be received into the fellowship of the Messianic community
was to have undermined the very message of the Apostolic
Gospel. And what we know of Paul’s Gospel from his epistles,
it is certain he would have never acquiesced to a message that
prescribed one way for the Jew and another way for the Gentile.
Finally, had the Council actually prescribed the Noachide
Laws for the Gentile believers they would have been disobeying
Torah. For the Torah itself plainly states that there is one Torah for
Israel and the Gentile who dwells with her.
Therefore the notion that the four stipulations given to
the Gentiles in Acts 15 are actually an early formulation of the
Noachide Laws simply does not work. Such an approach is
anachronistic. It presumes that a theology formulated some two
or three hundred years later was the norm in the 1st Century and
it ascribes to the Apostles a theological decision that is contrary
to Torah and diametrically opposed to their clear statement of
salvation by faith. We must seek a better explanation for the four
requirements given to the Gentile believers.
The Four Requirements as Fences Against Idol Worship
One thing is clear: the four requirements given to the Gentile

believers were viewed by the Apostles as essential. But grouped
as they are, they comprise a specific message to the Gentiles about
a specific issue. Obviously the Apostles were not suggesting
to the Gentile believers that all morality and ethical guidelines
were summed up in these four. Not at all! These requirements
embraced a major and fundamental issue: the prohibition of idol
worship in the pagan temples. In the minds of the Apostles, it
was a matter of “make-or-break.”
From a Jewish perspective nothing characterized the Gentiles
more than idolatry. And nothing was more abhorrent. The issue
655
Acts 15:11.
247
Chapter 5
was taken care of with the proselyte, for in submitting to the
rabbinic ritual of circumcision the Gentile left his family and social
relations and became a member of the Jewish community. As a
consequence he distanced himself from the pagan community
and the idolatry it promoted. What is more, in taking on the full
burden of the rabbinic laws the proselyte was forever separated
from his own culture by the many fences of the rabbis. Indeed,
there was no “short list” for the proselyte.
But if Gentiles were to be allowed into the congregation and
community without the requirement of becoming a proselyte,
how was the community to be assured that these newcomers had
made a final break with idolatry? Without the extensive regulations
governing the rabbinic definition of “clean” and “unclean,” how
could one be certain the Gentiles, living within the pagan culture,
were not participating in the idolatry of their upbringing?
Here is where the Jerusalem Council saw the need for Gentiles
to submit to some of the man-made laws. The Jewish community
needed to be satisfied that the Gentiles were no longer idolators
and that they had forever turned their backs on this capital
offense. In order to make such assurances, the Apostles required
the Gentile believers to take on the “yoke” and “burden” of man-
made laws in the area of idolatry.
The Oral Torah contained “fences” to protect against idolatry;
fences not found in Scripture. Yet in the realm of idol worship
these fences were considered essential to maintain a clear
separation from the idolatry that was the warp and woof of Greek
and Roman culture.
The four stipulations are listed twice in Acts 15, one that
seems to be a kind of preliminary “rough draft,” and a second
that is the “final edition,” committed to writing for distribution to
the congregations.
Acts 15:20 Acts 15:29

1. abstain from the things 1. abstain from things sacrificed
contaminated by idols and to idols and
2. from the fornication and 2. from blood and
3. from the strangled things and 3. from things strangled and
4. from the blood. 4. from fornication
248
There are some apparent differences: fornication and blood
are switched in the order of the lists, and the matter of idolatry
is identified first as things “contaminated” (tw`n ajlisghmavtwn
tw`n eijdwvlwn, ton alisghmaton ton eidolon) but secondly as food
“sacrificed” to idols (eijdwloquvtwn, eidolothuton). But there is also a
difference not seen in the English translation. In the first list, each
of the four prohibitions contains the article “the”— “the things
contaminated by idols, the fornication, the (things) strangled, and
the blood.” In the second list the article (“the”) before each item
is missing. Since the second list leaves out the articles (“the”) it
consists of only four words connected by the word “and.” As we
would expect, the reiteration of the Council’s decision in Acts 21:25
conforms word for word to the written edition of the edict.656
What might we glean from these comparisons? First, it seems
quite possible that the first list given in Acts 15 is more spontaneous
and less formal—a kind of “rough draft” or communication in
progress. Having the opportunity to “hear” how the final edict was
arrived at gives us additional insight into the interpretation of the
Apostolic decree. In fact, the change from “things contaminated
by idols” to “food offered to idols” helps us see that the setting
the Apostles had in mind was the pagan temple.
Furthermore, the final list describes elements found in a single
656
The textual variants in each of these texts (Acts 15:20, 29: 21:25) are
quite involved. The majority of scholars receive the readings that
yield 1) things sacrificed to idols, 2) blood, 3) things strangled, and 4)
fornication. One text (∏45) has only two: 1) things sacrificed to idols,
and 2) things strangled. Still other texts (D and various Western texts)
have four, but leave out “things strangled” and add the Negative
Golden Rule, “Do not do unto others…,” which is first attributed
to Hillel (b.Shabbat 31a; cf. Avot de R. Natan ii.26; cp. Didache i.2).
The positive form is also found in Jewish literature, Mishneh Torah
ii:Hilchot Abel xiv.I. It seems apparent that the reason D and the
Western texts have the list they do is to remove any sense of ritual
requirements. By removing “things strangled” the abstaining from
“blood” can be interpreted as “murder.” Thus “idolatry, murder,
and fornication” are all moral, not ritual issues. On the other hand,
the short list of ∏45 is not easily explained, unless idolatry is the
main issue and the additional “things strangled” is more or less
epexegetical. This would yield the meaning, “things sacrificed to
idols”, that is, “things strangled.”
249
Chapter 5
setting by the fact that the article (“the”) is not placed before each
item. Rather than viewing them as four individual prohibitions
the final draft gathers the four prohibitions together as a unity,
four elements of a single realm.
In the phrase “things contaminated by idols,” the Greek
word used for “contaminated” refers to “pollutions resulting
from contact with idol worship.”657 Thus, the subsequent “things
sacrificed to idols” in the final draft shows us that participation
within the pagan temples is the issue at hand.
Participation by Gentiles in feasts connected to the pagan
temples was often more cultural than religious though from a
Jewish standpoint it was surely still idolatry. That Paul had to
admonish the Corinthians not to partake of both the “table (altar)
of demons” and the “table (altar) of the Lord”658 shows that some
believing Gentiles were obviously doing so.
Secondly, the use of the articles (“the”) before each item in the
initial listing suggests that they represented well-known entities.
Each of the four must have been things that both the Jewish
community as well as the Gentiles were aware of and that could
be identified by single terms.
Thirdly, the fact that the final list consists of just four words
(joined by “and”) shows that in the end the Apostles formulated
the edict to be succinct and therefore easily remembered and
implemented. That they were successful in this may be seen by
the fact that the reiteration of the edict in a subsequent setting
(Acts 21) matches the final draft word-for-word.
But what can be said about switching the order of fornication
and blood in the lists? The best explanation is that originally the
Apostles listed the two most obvious aspects of idolatry: “things
contaminated by idols” and “fornication.” (This is exactly how
John characterizes idolatry).659 Then to these were added the more
657
F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (Eerdmans, 1952), 299f; Ben
Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles (Eerdmans, 1998), 462.
Especially important in identifying this word (which occurs only
here in the Apostolic Writings) as referring to food eaten in idolatrous
worship is the Lxx of Malachi 1:7 where the same Greek word is
used to identify polluted food offered on altars.
658
1Corinthians 10:21. See footnote 661 below.
659
Revelation 2:14, 20. Note that Revelation 2:13 most likely refers to the
pagan temple built in Pergamum in 29 BCE to Augustus.
250
specific categories, “blood” and “things strangled.” In the final
draft, however, the two items that primarily identified the idol
worship of the pagan temples (eating in honor of the god and
acts of fornication) became the “bookends” to envelop the entire
list with the sub-categories (blood and things strangled) in the
middle.
If this is the case, then the four items given to the Gentiles
are a unified whole identifying idol worship in pagan temples
and as such reveal the Apostle’s demand that believing Gentiles
separate themselves from any contact with the temples that
could be construed by the Jewish community as participation
in idolatry. In asking the Gentiles to divorce themselves from
even the cultural aspects of the pagan temples the Apostles were
requiring the Gentiles to see idolatry from the Jewish perspective
and even to conform to some of the additional laws formulated
by the Sanhedrin against it. As Witherington writes:
They must not give Jews in the Diaspora the opportunity to

complain that Gentile Christians were still practicing idolatry
and immorality by going to pagan feasts even after beginning
to follow Christ.660
Thus rather than listing four separate categories of prohibited

practices for the Gentiles, the four requirements describe a single
category—the pagan temples and their rituals. And though
idolatry would naturally be considered outside the scope of a
believer’s life, what the Apostles are calling for was conformity
to the additional rabbinic halachah that pertained to idolatry—the
“fences” not found in Scripture but necessary in this realm for
inclusion into the Jewish community.
If the Mishnah gives us a picture of the 1st Century rabbinic
viewpoint then we can see that fences had been built to guarantee
a clear separation between the synagogual community and the
idolatry of the Hellenistic culture in which it existed.661 The
660
Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, 463.
661
This is not to negate the obvious fact that sycretism was, to one
extent or another, a reality in many Jewish communities of the 1st
Century, including synagogues and what went on in them. But the
Sages ruled against sycretism of idolatrous practices, and thus the
halachah is established theoretically even if it was not always followed
251
Chapter 5
Apostles were willing to lay this “burden” upon the believing
Gentiles in order to preserve them from any accusations of
idolatry, something that could have never been tolerated in the
wider Jewish community.
But when we speak of pagan temples and their rituals we must
remember that in great measure these were seen as cultural and
social institutions and not merely as religious ones. For instance,
the local pagan temple often served as the bank for individuals
as well as the state and were the locations for all manner of
political issues.662 For Gentiles who had been born and raised in
the idolatrous culture of Greece and Rome, a great many aspects
of family and community life centered around the local temples.
Could the believing Gentile continue to participate at these
temples and even join in political, family, and community events
without actually participating in idolatry? Could they eat there
without giving their allegiance to the god or goddess to whom
the meal was dedicated?
From a cultural standpoint there were doubtlessly believing
Gentiles who thought they could,663 especially since meals were
eaten in the courtyard and not in the temple itself. Since the idol
was housed in the temple, participation in the courtyard events
could have been viewed as separated from idol worship and
therefore permissible. But how “close” could one get in one’s
participation without actually being involved in idolatry? This
was a question that must have concerned the Jewish community
as they welcomed more and more Gentiles in.
And it was this very issue that Paul addresses when he
makes it clear that one cannot eat at the “table of demons” and
the “table of the Lord.”664 In making this comment Paul is simply
implementing the Jerusalem Council’s edict. It was not as though
practically. It seems clear that the closer one gets to Jerusalem, the
more strict are the halachic practices of the Jewish communities.
662
J. R. C. Cousland, “Temples, Greco-Roman” in Evans and Porter, eds.,
Dictionary of New Testament Background (IVP, 2000), 1186.
663
1Corinthians 8:10. Paul is not concerned with the actual eating of
food as though the food itself is somehow contaminated by a pagan
incantation. But he is concerned with any participation in idol ritual,
and this is the issue he emphasizes.
664
1Corinthians 10:21 where “table” is used to refer to the “altar,” cf.
Ezekiel 41:22; 44:16; Malachi 1:7, 12.
252
Gentiles could escape contact with idol worshipers and even
with pagan temples. But how could they continue to live in the
Gentile society while at the same time demonstrating to the
Jewish community that they were not participating in the idol
worship of their culture?
That much of the general day-to-day activities within the
Roman and Greek society involved the local temple meant that
the Gentile believers needed to commit themselves to extra
precautions to assure their Jewish brothers that they had forsaken
all aspects of idolatry. The four prohibitions listed by the Council
were given to do just that.
The Four Prohibitions as Aspects of the Pagan Temple

(1) abstain from meat offered to idols
The words “meat offered to idols” translates only one word in the
Greek. This word, eijdwlovquto~ (eidolothutos) is used nine times in
the Apostolic Scriptures665 and always is in the context of eating
food at a pagan temple. This fact is strengthened by the phrase
used in the initial listing in Acts 15:20. There “things contaminated
by idols” clearly refers to the pollution of food used in rituals
of the pagan temple. The same word is used in 4Maccabees 5:2
to describe participation in idol worship. By using this word the
Apostles were not prohibiting food from the common market
but specifically food at a meal in connection with an idolatrous
ceremony.
Indeed, the Mishnah tractate Avodah Zarah does not prohibit
the use of things belonging to idolators nor even entering a temple
building or precinct that contained an idol. In general the Sages
strictly forbade three things: 1) aiding idolators in their idolatry,
2) deriving any benefit from idols or idolatrous practices, and 3)
participating in any manner in the worship of idols. Although
these three prohibitions were governed by many rulings for each,
there is nothing in the Mishnah that directly prohibits entering
a pagan temple or eating in the courtyard. But the purposes for
entering and the manner in which activities were done within
the temple complex made all the difference. The Gentile believers
665
Acts 15:29; 21:25; 1Corinthians 8:1, 4, 7, 10; 10:19; Revelation 2:14,
20.
253
Chapter 5
would need to be fully cognizant of what they could and could
not do in connection with all matters pertaining to the pagan
temple. And since the Jewish community generally suspected
Gentiles of continuing in their former idolatry,666 it was necessary
for the Apostles to make clear rulings on the matter and thereby
negate all suspicions.
Thus Gentile believers could not eat a meal in connection with
the pagan temples if in any way the food prepared was dedicated
to the god or goddess. Of course there were meals and activities
in the temple precinct that had nothing to do with the idol housed
inside. Even these, it would appear, were off limits for the Gentile
believer, because to participate in such eating would have raised
questions in the Jewish community as to whether they had
actually forsaken their former idolatrous ways.
(2) (abstain from) blood
This does not refer to eating meat with blood (which is taken
up in the next prohibition), but rather to the ingestion of blood
itself, something not uncommon in idol rituals. Whether or not
the common person drank the blood of the sacrificial victim is not
certain, but there is evidence that the priests did.667 From a Jewish
perspective, to participate in a ritual in which the representative
priest drinks the blood of the sacrifice is to participate in the same
abominable act. Of course, the Torah itself prohibits eating blood668
but the Apostles required the Gentiles to distance themselves
from any ritual in which blood was ingested and/or improperly
used. Such a thing was simply too abhorrent for the Jewish
community.
666
Note the perspective of the Jewish writer in 2Maccabees 6:4-5, “For
the temple was filled with debauchery and reveling by the Gentiles,
who dallied with prostitutes and had intercourse with women within
the sacred precincts, and besides brought in things for sacrifice that
were unfit. The altar was covered with abominable offerings that
were forbidden by the laws.” This description no doubt was what
Jews most likely thought went on in most pagan temples.
667
R. M. Ogilvie, The Romans and Their Gods in the Age of Augustus (New
York, 1969), 49ff.
668
Leviticus 3:17; 17:12.
254
(3) (abstain from) things strangled
That the sacrifices in pagan temples were usually killed by cutting

the throat is well attested. But strangulation is also known to have
been used.669 This inhumane killing of animals was contrary to
the spirit of Torah. But while the Torah prohibited eating blood,
there is nothing in the written Scriptures describing exactly
how an animal was to be slaughtered. The Sages therefore felt
the necessity to make such rulings in order to fully comply with
the Torah commandments against ingesting blood. Meat from
animals that had been strangled was therefore prohibited because
of the high probability that the meat was saturated with blood.
Gentile believers were to have no participation whatsoever in
the cruel strangulation of animals nor in the rituals that included
such practices. Nor were they to eat meat of animals that were
strangled. As such, meat for sale at the local pagan temple was
out of bounds for the Gentile believer. The chances that the meat
had been strangled were too high. The Apostles therefore required
the Gentiles to submit to the more stringent rulings of the Sages
when it came to meat and the kosher slaughter rules they had
developed.670 This was no doubt a burden since meat from local
temples could be more accessible and perhaps less expensive.
But even beyond the issue of ingesting blood, this meat was not
allowed because it was the product of pagan idol rituals.
Some might argue that the subsequent teaching of Paul in
1Corinthians 8–10 seems to overturn the Council’s decision on
meat offered to idols. There Paul argues that an “idol is nothing”671
669
See the magical papyri PGM XII.14-95, “Take also on the first day
seven living creatures and strangle them; one cock, a partridge, a
wren…. Do not make a burnt offering of any of these; instead, taking
them in your hand strangle them, while holding them up to your
Eros, until each of the creatures is suffocated and their breath enters
him. After that place the strangled creatures on the altar together
with aromatic plants of every variety.” Quoted from Witherington,
Acts, 464, n.423. Interestingly, even Philo mentions that pagans were
sacrificing animals by means of strangulation: Philo, The Special
Laws, iv:xiii.122.
670
The fully developed rabbinic halachah was eventually compiled in
Tractate Chullin of the Mishnah.
671
1Corinthians 8:1ff.
255
Chapter 5
and his subsequent words have been taken to mean that meat
offered to idols is allowed as long as no one is offended by it. But
in the larger context it is clear that Paul maintains the Council’s
decision by emphasizing the need for believers not to participate
in the meals served at pagan temples.
…but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they
sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to
become sharers in demons.672
His admonition to “flee idolatry”673 is surely to be understood as

a warning not to participate in the pagan temple rituals. But his
willingness to allow meat to be eaten without questioning where
it might have been slaughtered674 must be seen as an attempt to
stop the uncontrolled piling up of halachah. For the meat he is
specifically talking about is that purchased in the market, not
the pagan temple.675 Perhaps people argued that some meat in
the market was actually from the pagan temples. But Paul is not
willing to make additional halachah over and above that sanctioned
by the Jerusalem Council. Where would it end? How could one
be sure whether the meat was from the pagan temple or not? To
make a ruling on this would lead in only one direction: separation
from the Gentiles much like that which the Jewish community
had prescribed.
He therefore instructs his readers that they may eat the meat
without questioning from where it had come, so long as their
conscience allowed it. In the end we can only conclude that Paul
prohibits meat known to have been from the pagan temple, but
allows meat from the market place even if its origins are not
known. He clearly continues the Council’s prohibition against
any participation in idolatrous rituals.
(4) (abstain from) fornication
The word translated “fornication” is porneiva (porneia), the root

of our English word “pornography.” While some have suggested
672
1Corinthians 10:20.
673
1Corinthians 10:14.
674
675
1Corinthians 10:25.
256
that porneia here describes prohibited marriages (i.e., too close to
the bloodline),676 the fact is that in Leviticus 18 where prohibited
unions are discussed, the Lxx never uses the word porneia.
Granted, porneia is used in 1Corinthians 5:1 to describe incest, but
that is hardly what the Apostles are talking about here.
The word porneia, however, is associated with the pagan
temples where temple prostitutes were common.677 So notorious
was temple prostitution in Corinth that the coined phrase “play
the Corinthian” meant to engage in sexual promiscuity.678
Surely the Apostles wanted to make it clear that participation
with temple prostitutes was outside of the realm of the holy
life expected of believers. Joining oneself to a prostitute was to
negate God’s ownership of each and every child called by His
name.679 But this prohibition goes further. The Apostles wisely
prohibited any connection with the temple rituals that utilized
temple prostitutes, including any kind of support or participation
in any service that included temple prostitutes, seen or unseen.
Such distancing would telegraph the reality that Gentile believers
were no longer participants in their former life of idolatry.
In the end, the four prohibitions each attach to an aspect of
the pagan temple, and require the believing Gentile to conform
to the current halachah of the Jewish community with respect to
all matters of idolatry. While it was both impractical and even
impossible to prohibit the Gentile believer from any contact at
all with the local temple (since it was the bank and the place
where certain legal transactions took place), the prohibitions
given to the Gentile believers required them to submit to Jewish
halachah as a way of demonstrating a complete break with their
former idolatrous life. While they might have occasion to be in
the temple precincts, they were to demonstrate by their exclusion
from all idolatrous worship and ceremonies that they were “new
creations.” There was to be no doubt that they had forsaken the
676
cf. W. K. Lowther Clarke, New Testament Problems (Macmillan, 1929),
59-60; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (Eerdmans, 1951), 300.
677
Hauch/Schultz, “porneiva” in TDNT, 6:581ff, though with regard to
porneiva (porneia) in Acts 15 the authors come to the conclusion that
it refers to prohibited marriages.
678
C. S. Keener, “Adultery, Divorce” in Evans and Porter, eds., Dictionary
of New Testament Background (IVP, 2000), 12.
679
257
Chapter 5
gods of their fathers and turned to the One God of Israel.
Their entire separation from the actual idolatry of the pagan
temple is emphasized in the final sentence of the edict:
if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well.680
The term translated “keep free” is diathrevw (diatereo), found only

here and in Luke 2:51 (describing how Mary treasured i.e., kept
the message in her heart). But in Ben Sira 1:26 the word is used
to denote “keeping the commandments.” The word itself may
have an emphatic sense681 and may signal the intention of the
Apostles that the halachah given to the Gentiles was to be kept
in detail. Indeed, the rabbinic sanctions regarding idolatry went
much further than simple prohibitions against bowing to idols.
Great pains were taken to distance oneself from every aspect
of idolatrous pollution while at the same time living within the
Hellenistic culture.
The Apostles knew that the acceptance of Gentiles within the
Torah community would be much greater if these new believers
were willing to conform to the prescribed halachah governing
contact with idols and, in particular, the pagan temple. Though
this halachah could be a “burden” as it placed at least a part of
the “yoke” of the Oral Torah upon them, it was essential for their
inclusion into the Torah community where they could learn the
Scriptures and grow in faith. Their willingness to submit to these
additional rulings gave the Jewish community the necessary
confidence to receive them as those who had completely forsaken
idolatry and turned to the One God of Israel.
5.5 Summary
The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was dealing with a specific
issue: was it necessary for Gentiles to become proselytes and
thus take on the full weight of the man-made laws of the Sages in
order to be accepted within the Jewish community? The Council
voiced a unified “no” to this question. Using “circumcision” as a
short-hand designation for “the ritual of becoming a proselyte,”
680
Acts 15:29.
681
The compound with the preposition diva may have a perfective force,
thus “fully keep.”
258
Paul's Obedience to Torah
the Council determined that the Gentiles would not need to be
circumcised (i.e., become proselytes) in order to be received into
the Torah community.
There was, however, the need to assure the Jewish community
that those Gentiles who had confessed Yeshua as Messiah had
genuinely forsaken any form of idolatry. Since the Greek and
Roman cultures were centered around idol worship with local
pagan temples, it was important that the Jewish community be
able to receive the Gentile believers without any suspicion of
remaining idolatry.
The Apostles therefore required the Gentiles to accept the
extra-biblical, man-made laws regarding idolatry. These were: 1)
they should not participate in any meal that was even remotely
connected to idol worship; 2) they should not participate in any
gathering or ceremony that involved the misuse of blood as a
sacrificial element; 3) they should not involve themselves in any
ritual or ceremony that involved the strangulation of animals, and
they should be careful not to eat meat from animals killed though
strangulation (something not uncommon in the pagan sacrificial
rituals); and 4) they should distance themselves from any contact
with or support of the temple prostitutes and the fornication they
represented in the pagan temple precincts.
While the written Torah surely prohibited any worship of idols,
the Sages had put a good number of “fences” in place to distance the
people from any contact with idolatry. These “fences” were extra-
biblical, yet the Apostles considered them essential in showing
the clear break the Gentile believers had made with idolatry. But
since they were man-made and not directly from Scripture, they
were part of the “yoke” of Oral Torah, the “burden” that the Sages
had laid upon the written Scriptures. While the Apostles were not
willing to put the Gentiles under the full weight of the traditions
(something not even the Jewish people had been able to bear),
they did see the need to require the Gentiles to keep this rabbinic
halachah. Only such a requirement could have fully satisfied the
Jewish community that the Gentile believers had made a radical
break from their former idol worship.
259
Chapter Six
Acts 21 & Paul’s Obedience to Torah
Chapter 6: Acts 21 & Paul’s Obedience to Torah

Following his description of the Jerusalem Council in Acts
15, Luke’s subsequent narrative strives to show the manner in
which Paul carried out the Council’s edict. What we see is Paul’s
consistent Torah-obedient life. While there was no need to require
the Gentiles to submit to the Rabbinic ritual of proselytizing, and
thus no need to help them master the minutiae of the Oral Torah,
obedience to the Word of God (the Written Torah) remained a
priority.
The very next story Luke relates is how Paul had Timothy
circumcised. This should tell us something about how Paul
(and thus the rest of the Apostles) understood the Council’s
conclusions. Timothy would have most likely been considered
a Gentile by those “zealous for the Torah,”682 yet Paul had him
circumcised. It would seem that Paul felt free to have Timothy
circumcised because it was a matter of Torah-obedience. He
did not do it to fulfill the Rabbinic requirements of a proselyte.
Though from a Rabbinic standpoint Timothy would have been
received as a proselyte on the basis of his circumcision, to Paul he
was a Torah-obedient Gentile.683
This helps us understand what Paul means in Galatians 2
when he writes “But not even Titus who was with me, though he
was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.”684 Here the word
“compelled” (ajnagkavzw, anagkazw) has the idea of “forced” even
as Paul uses the same word in Acts 26:11.
And as I punished them often in all the synagogues, I tried to

force them to blaspheme; and being furiously enraged at them,
I kept pursuing them even to foreign cities.
Apparently there were those who would have forced Titus to

undergo the ritual of a proselyte in order to be received within
the Messianic community, but Paul along with the Jerusalem
Apostles thought differently. A Gentile could be attached to Israel
682
On the matter of Timothy’s status, see discussion above, p. 107ff.
683
The original commandment of circumcision, given to Abraham, was
specifically for the descendants of Abraham as well as the foreigners
in his household, Genesis 17:12-13.
684
Galatians 2:3.
263
Chapter 6
as a Gentile and did not need to submit to the man-made ritual of
proselytizing. There was no need therefore for Titus to fulfill the
ritual of a proselyte in order to be fully received as a believer in
Yeshua.
The continuing narrative in Acts focuses on that which
characterized the Gentile world. Luke highlights the presence
of idolatry, a characteristic of the Gentile culture, and thus keeps
before the reader the issue of how Gentiles were to be accepted
into the community of Israel. The story of the girl of Philippi
who is freed from demons and consequently brings the idol-
industry against Paul and Silas is given in full detail. Likewise,
Paul’s experience on the Areopagus (Acts 17) centered around the
issue of Gentile idolatry, as do his experiences with Demitrius the
silversmith in Ephesus.685
Furthermore, Luke includes things in the story to alert us to
the tension that existed as a result of the Council’s decision. For
Paul is accused of persuading “men to worship God contrary to
the Torah,”686 even though we know that is not the case. Luke lets
us see the story from the perspective of the Jerusalem Council. If
we read carefully, we understand that the controversy was not
between those who maintained Torah and those who did not, but
between those who required non-biblical traditions and those
who did not. Since Paul, in line with the Council’s decision, was
receiving the Gentiles without requiring them to undergo the
ceremony of a proselyte, it appeared to the traditionalists that
Paul had turned against the Torah. But Paul was only receiving
them as the Torah prescribed.
That Paul’s obedience to the Council’s decision was viewed
by some as a breach of Torah is likewise borne out by the events
recorded in Acts 21. When Paul had returned to Jerusalem, James
and the other Apostles were concerned that the Jewish believers
would become agitated at Paul’s presence in the city. They had
heard reports that Paul was “teaching all the Jews who are among
the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their
children nor to walk according to the customs.”687
Yet all along the way, Luke has been careful to include notices
685
Acts 19:23ff.
686
Acts 18:13.
687
Acts 21:21.
264
of Paul’s Torah-obedient life. Paul observes the Sabbath,688 as well
as the appointed Festivals.689 What is more, Luke alerts us to the
fact that Paul had undertaken a Nazirite vow, something that
required an even higher degree of Torah application.690 That he
cut his hair before returning to Jerusalem would indicate that the
prescribed length of the vow had been completed, or that he had
become unintentionally defiled.691
Indeed, Paul’s obedience to Torah, accounted for by Luke in
these chapters, coincided with the two most significant issues in
1st Century Judaisms: Sabbath and purities.
Thus, as a result of Luke’s testimony of Paul’s Torah
credentials, by the time we come to read of the tense situation in
Acts 21, we know Paul is innocent of the charges leveled against
him. We are also told that James and the elders were well aware
that Paul “walk[ed] orderly, keeping the Torah.692
688
Acts 16:13; 18:4.
689
Acts 20:16.
690
Acts 18:18. The fact that Paul was maintaining a Nazirite vow while
in the diaspora, and that he cuts his hair at Cenchrea, should not be
considered a breach of the Torah requirement to offer the sacrifice
at the Temple at the conclusion of the vow. It was understood that
when a Nazirite vow was taken outside of the Land, he would cut
his hair at the end of the vowed period, and upon returning to the
Land would complete the ceremony with the prescribed sacrifice.
There were, however, debates between Hillel and Shammai as to
whether or not the vow had to be repeated in the Land. Shammai
stated that only 30 days need be observed, while Hillel ruled that the
entire length of time had to be repeated in the Land, cf. m.Nazir 3.6.
Since Paul was able to accomplish the Nazirite vow in the Diaspora,
it is clear that the traditional interpretation of 1Corinthians 9:20
(that when he was with the Gentiles he lived as though the Torah
was abolished) cannot be sustained. For the Nazirite is even more
restricted as to what he can and cannot eat, as well as having to
guard against any corpse defilement.
691
m.Nazir 6:5; 7:2. Luke does not say that he was completing the vow,
only that he cut his hair because he was keeping a vow. This would
indicate that Paul had become defiled by corpse or had partaken of
the produce of the vine. Such an eventuality would have left him no
choice but to abandon his observance of the vow until such time as
he had become clean, which would require a visit to the Temple.
692
Acts 21:24. Some are not convinced the other Apostles were sure of
265
Chapter 6
But how is it that they were so confident that the rumors were
false? Clearly, if the rumors had any substance, it would have
been as much a problem for James and his colleagues as it was for
those described as “zealous for the Torah.”
They know the truth because they know Paul to be a man of
integrity and they know the Gospel he is preaching. In fact, Paul
even states in Galatians693 that he conferred with the Jerusalem
Apostles, submitting his gospel to them before ever presuming
to preach it to the Gentiles. Thus they knew that he was teaching
the value and importance of God’s inspired Torah. Yet he was
receiving the Gentiles without requiring them to undergo the
ritual of a proselyte and thus was in opposition to the established
halachah of the Rabbinic authorities.
What if James with Paul and the rest had come to the conclusion
that the Torah was actually finished—that it had run its course
and was to be set aside for something better?
If James, Peter, and the others had been of the opinion that
the Torah was finished, and that a new era, initiated by Messiah,
had now made the Torah obsolete for His followers, here was the
perfect time to make this absolutely clear. What better way to
declare this than by confirming that Paul was telling the people to
forsake the Torah of Moses, and that he had their full approval?
Here was the perfect opportunity to repudiate the need for Torah
once and for all—to proclaim in no uncertain terms that the Torah
was null and void, and that followers of Yeshua were forever free
from any necessary connection to the Torah.
But instead of sending that message they proclaim just the
opposite. The same Apostles who had penned the statement of
the Council exempting the Gentile believers from the Rabbinic
ceremony of proselytizing now go to the greatest lengths to
demonstrate the ongoing value and relevance of the Written
Torah. They inform Paul of four men who desire to conclude their
Nazirite vows but do not have the funds necessary to purchase the
required sacrificial animals.694 It is determined that Paul should
Paul’s innocence, cf. Stanley E. Porter, Paul in Acts (Hendrickson,

2001), 175.
693
Galatians 2:2.
694
It was common for those with greater means to help the poor fulfill
the Nazirite vow by purchasing the required sacrificial animal. This
is specifically mentioned in the Mishnah, m.Nazir 2.5, 6.
266
not only aid them in this mitzvah, but also go with them and be
purified himself. By doing so, Paul sends the clearest statement
possible that the Torah is not only alive and well, but that he, as
a genuine follower of Yeshua and His appointed Apostle to the
Gentiles, joyfully lived by its ordinances.695
However, the strong statement that they wanted Paul to send
about the importance of Torah-obedience was not to be construed
as a negation of what the Jerusalem Council had enacted vis-à-
vis the Gentiles. Far from it. The fact that Luke emphasizes the
validity of the Jerusalem Council’s decision for the Gentiles
(that they did not need to take upon themselves the burden of a
proselyte) by reiterating the Council’s edict in Acts 21:25, in no
way impugned the relevance and importance of obeying God’s
word.
The Written Torah was clearly being separated from the Oral
Torah of the Sages. Paul had re-read the Torah with new eyes after
his face-to-face confrontation with Yeshua, and the other Apostles
were also agreed that there was no divinely given instruction for
Gentiles to become Jews. Though sanctioned by the Sages, it was
not God’s way.
God never intended Gentiles to become Jews. What He had
revealed was that the Gentiles would attach themselves to Israel
by faith in God, and that in their attachment to Israel they would
be blessed in the covenant, bearing both the responsibilities as
well as the privileges and blessings of the Torah. Indeed, it is
clearly stated in the Torah that there would be one and the same
Torah for both the native born and the resident alien.696
But long-standing traditions do not go away easily. That the
rulings of the Sages were being received as equal with God’s Torah
can be seen by the fact that when Paul refused to require them, he
was accused of breaking God’s word. In light of this confusion,
nothing could have been more effective than for Paul to publicly
live out the Torah by obeying its prescriptions for the Nazirite.
There, in the Temple itself, all would see that Paul respected and
obeyed the Torah and that the rumors about him were false.
Thus in his submission to James and the elders, we can see
695
By Paul’s actions here we can also see that, like all people of faith
before him, he saw no competing values between the death of Yeshua
and the offering of sacrifices in the Temple.
696
Exodus 12:49; Leviticus 24:22; Numbers 15:19, 29.
267
Chapter 6
Paul the Apostle for the Torah-obedient servant he actually was.
Carefully distinguishing between man-made religion and genuine
faith, Paul repeatedly leads us back to the divinely inspired Torah
as the foundation for knowing and serving God.
268
Chapter Seven
Paul’s Chronology
Paul's Chronology
Chapter 7: Chronology of Paul’s Life697

The chronology of Paul’s life has always been a matter of debate
and discussion among Pauline scholars for the simple reason
that the data is scarce and admits to multiple interpretations. But
other than loving to dwell on minutiae, what motivation is there
for scholars to spend so much time discussing the chronological
ins and outs of the Apostle’s life?
While there are numerous answers to this question, our
primary incentive in establishing the chronology of Paul’s life is
to be able to reliably place his epistles in sequential order, which
in turn would assist us in their interpretation.
For instance, some significant questions arise when reading
Galatians as to whether Paul had already attended the Jerusalem
Council of Acts 15. Were the Galatian difficulties something that
arose after the Council, or before it? Coming to an answer to this
question may significantly impact on how his statements to the
Galatians are interpreted.
The same may be said about the relationship of Paul’s letters.
Was Galatians written before Romans? Where do the epistles
to the Corinthians fit? If we have a better comprehension of the
chronology, we will be able to see a development of themes in
Paul’s letters.
697
The intricacies of the study of Pauline chronology are voluminous,
and far too expansive for the present work. I refer the reader to the
following sources if the finer details of the chronology are desired:
Jerome Murphy-O’Conner, Paul A Critical Life (Oxford, 1996), 1-31;
L. C. A. Alexander, “Chronology of Paul” in Hawthorne and Martin,
eds., Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (IVP Press, 1993), 115-123; Rainer
Riesner, Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology
(Eerdmans, 1998); Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul
Between Damascus and Antioch: the Unknown Years (Westminster/
John Knox, 1997); Hans Dieter Betz, “Paul” in Freedman, ed., The
Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols (Doubleday, 1992), 5.190-192; R.
Jewett, The Chronology of Paul’s Life (Philadelphia, 1979); C. J. Hemer,
“Observations on Pauline Chronology” in D. A. Hagner and M. J.
Harris, Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F. F. Bruce (Grand
Rapids, 1980), 3-18; Bo Reicke, Re-examining Paul’s Letters: The History
of the Pauline Correspondence (Trinity Press, 2001).
271
Chapter 7
7.1 Starting Points
There are really no undisputed dates in the chronology of Paul’s life.
There are, however, a few interesting hints. In his letter to Philemon,
Paul identifies himself as presbuvth~ (presbutes), “aged.”698 If this
denotes a man approaching the end of the life cycle, we can put
this at 60 years, and probably not more than 70. The Sayings of
the Fathers characterize 70 years by “grey hair,” and 60 years as
being a ‫זֵָקן‬, zaken, “an elder,” regularly translated in the Lxx by
presbutes, the same Greek root Paul uses in Philemon. If “aged”
does mean 60 years or so, then Paul was born very close to the
same time as Yeshua.699
Another hint is that Luke describes Paul as a “young man”700
(neaniva~, neanias) at the stoning of Stephen, a term which describes
someone from about 24 to 40 years.701 Thus, if Paul’s birth is placed
somewhere near 1 BCE or shortly thereafter, his age at the stoning
of Stephen would have been within the parameters of a “young
man.”
In 2Corinthians 11, Paul mentions that the “ethnarch of King
Aretas” was guarding Damascus at the time of his escape over
the wall in a basket.702 The Nabatean king Aretas IV died between
38 and 40 CE. Furthermore, Nabatean control of Damascus is
unlikely before 37 CE when the reign of Caligula marked a new
Roman policy toward vassal kings. On the basis of these data,
many scholars place the escape from Damascus between 37 and
40 CE.
The Epistle of Galatians also contains some detailed
chronological data. After his Damascus Road experience, Paul
states that he spent three years in Arabia and Damascus703 before
going to Jerusalem for 15 days. We next are informed that a 14-year
interval occurred in which Paul traveled to Syria and Cilicia before
his second visit to Jerusalem that included a private consultation
698
Philemon 1:9.
699
For a more detailed study of “aged” being 60 years old, see Murphy-
O’Conner, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford, 1996), 1-4.
700
Acts 7:58.
701
BDAG, “neaniva~,” p. 667.
702
cf. Acts 9:25.
703
Galatians 1:17.
272
Paul's Chronology
regarding his Gentile mission.704 It is not certain whether the 14
years includes the 3 years in Arabia and Damascus, or whether
these should be added for a total of 17 years.
7.2 Bigger Questions

While it seems quite probable that Paul’s birth coincided in time
with that of Yeshua’s, it is clear that his public ministry did not
begin until after Yeshua’s death. But it is not exactly clear how
soon after Yeshua’s death the stoning of Stephen took place. Some,
backed by substantial data, have even suggested that Stephen was
put to death a year or two following the crucifixion. If the death
of Yeshua occurred in the framework of 30–33 CE, then Stephen’s
death could have taken place sometime between 31 and 34 CE,
making Paul between the ages of 30 and 35.
In the running narrative of Acts, Luke puts the Damascus
Road experience of Paul very close to the death of Stephen, and
we might therefore be able to place this event between 32 and
35 CE. What is more, if the earlier date for the death of Yeshua is
held, then the blinding of Paul might have been as early as 32 or
33 CE.
The date of the Jerusalem Council is important because this
would answer the question of whether Galatians was written
before or after the edict regarding the Gentiles. If we seek an
answer from the epistle of Galatians itself, it seems most likely
that Paul wrote it before the Jerusalem Council, and that in fact,
the theology evidenced in Galatians may have been the impetus
for convening the Council in the first place.
Several factors lend weight to the understanding that the
Galatian Epistle preceded the Jerusalem Council. First, Paul
explicitly states that after 14 years he went up to Jerusalem with
Barnabas and Titus, and that he met privately with the Apostles
there to be certain that his teaching regarding the Gentiles was
correct. The Jerusalem Council as described in Acts 15, however,
is a public venue. Acts 15:12 identifies a “multitude” who were
listening to the proceedings.
Secondly, the entire teaching of Galatians (which centers
on how the Gentiles could be received without undergoing the
ritual of a proselyte) would have been greatly strengthened by an
704
Galatians 2:1ff.
273
Chapter 7
appeal to the unanimous voice of the Jerusalem Council on this
very issue. That the Council is not referred to in Galatians seems
a decisive factor in placing the writing of the epistle before the
Council had convened.
If we therefore place the writing of Galatians during the first
journey of Paul, and before the Jerusalem Council, it becomes
Paul’s first epistle. Having submitted his theology and message
to the sanction of James and Peter (and others) in Jerusalem, we
should expect Paul’s first epistle to be in harmony with that of
James. To read the two epistles as contradicting each other should
alert us to the fact that we have misinterpreted one or both of
them. In fact, it seems highly possible that Paul had access to the
Epistle of James, or was at least aware of its teachings during his
formative years as a young believer in Yeshua. Though Paul’s
calling would lead him to the Gentiles, the theology of James
could not have been considered by Paul to be errant. Indeed, he
must have felt the need to conform to the theology of James for
the simple reason that Paul considered him one of the “pillars.”
If Galatians is Paul’s first epistle, then 2Timothy was most
likely his last. Here we read “For I am already being poured out
as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come.”705
Acquainted with Roman prisons and the death threats levied
against him, Paul is ready to die for his faith. In round figures,
then, Paul’s public ministry encompassed 30 to 35 years
7.3 A General Chronology

The chronological details of Paul’s life cannot be precisely
determined, even though some scholars appear to give exact dates.
A close reading of the material reveals that many assumptions are
made, and that inevitably the final chronologies are built upon
these assumptions. However, if we are willing to speak in more
rounded terms, the following may well represent the general
chronology of Paul’s life and ministry.
Stephen’s death......................................................31/32
Paul on Damascus Road.......................................32/33
Paul’s silent years...................................................34-42
Paul’s trip to Antioch............................................42/43
705
2Timothy 4:6.
274
Paul's Chronology
Paul’s 1st journey (Acts 13-14).............................47/48
Galatians written...................................................48/49
Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)....................................... 49
Paul’s 2nd journey (Acts 15:36-18:22)..................49-51
1&2Thessalonians..................................................50/51
Paul’s 3rd journey (Acts 18:23-21:16)...................52-56
1&2Corinthians.......................................................54-55
Romans...................................................................55/56
Paul’s arrest (Acts 21:26-33)....................................... 56
Paul’s appearance before Felix.................................. 57
Paul’s trial before Festus......................................58/59
Paul’s trial before Agrippa......................................... 59
Voyage to Rome......................................................59-60
Paul’s 1st Roman imprisonment..........................60-62
Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians.............................. 60
Philippians.................................................................... 61
Paul’s release................................................................ 62
Trip to Spain (?)............................................................ 62
Paul in Macedonia....................................................... 62
1Timothy....................................................................... 62
Paul to Crete................................................................. 62
Titus............................................................................... 62
Paul taken to Rome...............................................63/64
2Timothy.................................................................63/64
Paul’s 2nd Roman imprisonment............................. 64
Paul’s death.................................................................. 64
275
Chapter Eight
A Final Appeal
Final Appeal
Chapter 8: A Final Appeal

Having walked with me through the pages of this book you have
been confronted with a picture of Paul that may have been new
and at times, even disturbing. I hope that we have not missed
the forest for the trees. Unwrapping the long-standing traditions
about Paul is not easy and we have forced ourselves to ask new
questions and seek valid answers.
I plan, if God is willing, to write a second book addressing
in greater depth those sections of Paul’s epistles that are most
often brought forward by those who are convinced he abandoned
Torah. I hope to show through studies of these specific texts that
Paul’s Torah theology is well intact.
However, if you have at least agreed with the over-arching
thesis of the current study then the obvious question confronting
us is how this should impact our lives. What difference does it
make that Paul, contrary to the general perspective entrenched
in the Church, was Torah-obedient himself and expected those he
taught to follow Torah as well?
8.1 Rethinking the Shape of the Church

The popular bracelets we see in our day inscribed with the
acronym “W.W.J.D” actually ask a serious question. “What would
Jesus Do?” Unfortunately the Jesus that comes into most people’s
minds when quoting this catch-phrase is not the Yeshua of the
Gospels. It might be frightening to some to honestly hear the
answer to the question of “what Jesus would do.”
As far as the Gospels describe His life and ministry, He lived
and walked a Torah life and called the people of His day to
embrace the Torah as it had been originally given. He continually
and consistently spoke about the need to unshackle God’s
instructions where man’s religion and impeded them.
And if we look closely, we see Him adhering to the smallest
detail of God’s Torah and living out its precepts in love and humble
service both to God and to neighbor. If people today who confess
to be followers of Yeshua would actually “do what Jesus did,” the
face of the contemporary Church would change radically—more
radically than most could imagine.
However, the reality is that most are not that concerned to
279
Chapter 8
find out what Yeshua actually did. Removed from the pages of
Scripture, Yeshua has become an icon of religion, a character
on the “silver screen” shaped and reshaped in the image of the
screenwriter and producer. So divorced is the image of Jesus from
the historical Yeshua that many are shocked to discover that He
is Jewish. A popular Christmas carol portrays children “seeing”
Jesus as they are, some with almond eyes, and some with black
skin. But the carol never comes to the historical truth that Yeshua
is Jewish.
I do not intend to be mean. I understand that in one sense
Yeshua, as Savior and Lord, is able to understand each individual’s
needs and desires and is thus as close as a member of the family
or community. But what I want to stress is that we have replaced
the historical Yeshua with a Jesus that fits our expectations. We
have molded Him in our image and cast Him in the role we wish
Him to act out. As such we no longer listen to His words as we
should and we find ourselves content in our religious makeup,
presuming that somehow God will accept our drama.
8.2 Paul and the Modern Church

What does this have to do with Paul? The fact of the matter is
that the popular bracelets should more accurately intone “What
Would Paul Do?” because the Jesus of religion has been cast on
a mold supposedly shaped by Paul. In misinterpreting Paul as
anti-Torah, the Church was able to re-read the Gospels through
these same lenses. Somehow Paul, read inconsistently, gave to the
Church the necessary gumption to first relegate the Torah to a by-
gone era and then the Jews along with it.
Why else would Paul be known by outsiders as the one who
created Christianity? From their vantage point this is obvious.
Why is it not obvious to us? The answer is that for centuries we
have been willing to misread Paul and to define the message of
Yeshua through this misfocused lens.
The thought of accepting both Yeshua and His Apostle as
they have honestly presented themselves in Scripture and not as
Luther interpreted them is frightening. To do so would require
either a conscious dismissal of the Scriptures we have or changes
as groundbreaking as those in Copernicus’s day.
Could we honestly envision what the Church would look like
280
Final Appeal
if suddenly the Torah were to be accepted as God’s standard for
living and worship? Could we imagine what impact this might
have on the Jewish community worldwide? Is it possible that
the jealousy spoken of by Paul could become a reality? Presently,
however, the Church is viewed by the Jewish community as a
different religion, a religion that has departed from God’s ancient
truths and established her own standards.
If as believers we deny this charge, how can we continue to
read Paul as though he agrees with it? How can we say that we
accept the Scriptures while at the same time teach that the first
canon of Scripture, the Torah, is no longer relevant for our lives?
These are sobering thoughts. If Paul must be read as one who
lived by Torah and taught us to do the same, then we must begin
to seek God’s help in returning to His way of life and worship. We
can no longer be content to go with the flow. We must be willing
to ask the difficult questions and seek biblical answers.
But seeking biblical answers is the catch. We have become
used to only listening to teachers and not studying for ourselves.
Teachers are God’s gift to His people and should not be dismissed.
But teachers who humbly serve God will constantly direct their
listeners to the word of God, encouraging them to drink for
themselves from the rich fountain of divine revelation. We simply
cannot exist on Gerber theology, eating only infant food prepared
for us by someone else. This message will only take root when
God’s people make it their own.
And what would this look like? I am not suggesting some new
kind of hybrid Judaism or a return to 1st Century culture. That,
of course, would not only be impossible but also wrong-headed.
But what I do see are congregations who are serious about holy
living as defined by God, building communities that receive
the God-given safeguards taught in Torah and who implement
them. I envision communities that find their self-definition first
and foremost in Yeshua and experience the joy of Torah life
exemplified in Sabbath and Festivals, a joy that constantly turns
us back to Him.
My final appeal to you is that you go seeking. Seek to know
from God’s word, for yourself, if Yeshua and Paul uphold the
Torah. And if by your study you agree with me that they do, then
commit yourself to make the necessary changes to implement
Torah into your life and those you lead.
281
Chapter 8
Now all has been heard;

here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep His commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.
Ecclesiastes 12:13 (NIV)
282
Bibliography
Bibliography of Works Cited
Books
Akenson, Donald Harman. Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical

Jesus. Oxford, 2000.
Bader, Gershom. The Encyclopedia of Talmudic Sages. Aronson, 1988.
Barrera, Juilo Trebolle. The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible. Brill/
Eerdmans, 1998.
Baslez, M. F. Saint Paul. Fayard, 1991.
Bock, Darrell. Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism. Baker, 1998.
Bruce, F. F. New Testament History. Doubleday, 1972.
Bultmann, Rudolph. Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting.
Thames and Hudson, 1956.
Clarke, W. K. Lowther. New Testament Problems. Macmillan, 1929.
Cranfield, C. E. B. Romans. 2 vols. in International Critical Commentary. T
& T Clark, 1979.
Crenshaw, James L. Education in Ancient Israel. Doubleday, 1998.
Dahood, Mitchell. The Psalms. 3 vols. in The Anchor Bible. Doubleday,
1970.
Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. 3rd edition. SPCK, 1970.
Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Eerdmans, 1998.
Eisenman, Robert H. and Wise, Michael. The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered.
Element, 1992.
Elbogen, Ismar. Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History. JPS, 1993.
Ellis, E. E. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Baker, 1957
Feldman, Louis. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Princeton, 1993.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins. Eerdmans,
2000.
Frydland, Rachmiel. What the Rabbis Know About the Messiah. Messianic
Pub. Co., 1993.
Gager, John G. Reinventing Paul. Oxford, 2000.
Girdlestone, Robert B. Synonyms of the Old Testament. Eerdmans, 1973.
Golb, Norman. Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? Scribner, 1995.
Gray, George Buchanan. Sacrifice in the Old Testament. Oxford, 1925.
Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles. Westminster, 1971.
Harnack, Adolph. What is Christianity? New York, 1901
Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity.
Abingdon, 1973.
Hengel, Martin and Schwemer, Anna Maria. Paul Between Damascus and
Antioch: the Unknown Years. Westminster/John Knox, 1997.
Herford, R. Travers. Pirke Aboth: The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the
Fathers. Schocken, 1962.
283
Bibliography
Hertz, Joseph H. The Authorized Daily Prayer Book. Bloch, 1975.
Hoffman, Lawrence, A., ed. My People’s Prayer Book. vol. 2. Jewish Lights
Pub., 1998.
Jewett, R. The Chronology of Paul’s Life. Philadphia, 1979.
Kaiser, Walter. Toward an Old Testament Theology. Zondervan, 1978.
Klausner, Joseph. From Jesus to Paul. Boston Press, 1943.
Knohl, Israel. The Messiah Before Jesus. Univ of California Press, 2000.
Lauterbach, Z. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael. 3 vols. JPS, 1933.
Leiman, Sid. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and
Midrashic Evidence. Conn. Academy of Arts and Sciences,
1979.
Levine, Lee. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. Yale. 2000.
Lightfoot, J. B. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. Zondervan, 1953.
Lightfoot, John. A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and
Hebraica. 4 vols. Baker, 1979.
Lindsey, Robert. A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark. Dugith Pub.,
1973.
______________ A New Approach to the Synoptics. Dugith Pub., 1984.
Maccoby, Hyam. The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity.
Barnes & Noble Books, 1998
Martinez, Florenino Garcia. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. Eerdmans,
1996.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.
UBS, 1971.
Montefiore, C. G. and Loewe, H. A Rabbinic Anthology. Schocken, 1974.
Moore, James F. Judaism. 3 vols. Hendrickson, 1997
Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Eerdmans, 1955.
Moseley, Ron. Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church.
Messianic Jewish Pub., 1996
Moulton, Howard, Turner. A Grammar of the New Testament. 4 vols. T &
T Clark, 1963.
Muller, Jac. J. The Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon in New
International Commentary on the New Testament. Eerdmans,
1955.
Murphy-O’Conner, Jerome. Paul: A Critical Life. Oxford, 1996.
Nanos, Mark. The Mystery of Romans. Fortress, 1996.
Neusner, Jacob. Messiah in Context. Fortress, 1984.
_____________. Scriptures of the Oral Torah. Harper & Row, 1987.
_____________. The Rabbinic Traditions Concerning the Pharisees Before 70.
III. Brill, 1971.
Ogilvie, R. M. The Romans and Their Gods in the Age of Augustus. New
York, 1969.
Patai, Raphael. The Messiah Texts. Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979.
Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. J.C.B. Mohr, 1983.
284
Bibliography
Ramsay, W. M. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. Hodder and
Stoughton, 1905.
_____________. The Church in the Roman Empire. Hodder and Stoughton,
1907.
Rayburn, Robert S. The Contrast Between the Old and New Covenants in the
New Testament. Doctoral Thesis, Univ. of Aberdeen, 1978.
Reicke, Bo. Re-examining Paul’s Letters: The History of the Pauline
Correspondence. Trinity Press, 2001.
Ridderbos, Herman. Paul, An Outline of His Theology. Eerdmans, 1975.
Riesner, Rainer. Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology.
Eerdmans, 1998.
Ryken, Wilhoit, Longman, eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. IVP, 1998.
Sailhamer, John. Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical
Approach. Zondervan, 1995.
Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE – 66 CE. Trinity, 1992.
____________ Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Fortress, 1977.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls. JPS, 1994.
Schurer, Emil. The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. 5 vols. and
index. T & T Clark, 1885
Segal, Alan. Paul the Convert. Yale, 1990.
Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament.
Oxford, 1963.
Stegemann, Hartman. The Library of Qumran. Brill/Eerdmans, 1998.
Steinsaltz, Adin. The Talmud: A Reference Volume. Random House, 1989.
Stemberger, Günter. Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees,
Essenes. Fortress, 1995.
Stern, David. The Jewish New Testament. JNTP, 1991.
Swete, H. B. The Old Testament in Greek.KTAV, 1968.
Taylor, Charles. Sayings of the Fathers. KTAV, 1969.
Tomson, Peter J. Paul and the Jewish Law. Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1990.
Toperoff, Shlomo P. m.Avot: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Ethics of
the Fathers. Aronson, 1997.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Fortress, 1992.
Trobisch, David. Paul’s Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins. Fortress,
1994.
Turner, Nigel. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. T & T Clark,
1965.
Urbach, Ephraim. E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Harvard,
1975.
Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Eerdmans, 1972.
Wenham, John. Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? IVP,
1998.
Westcott, Brooke. F. The Gospel According to St. John. Baker, 1980.
285
Bibliography
White, Newport J. D. “The First and Second Epistles of Timothy” in Th e
Expositor’s Greek Testament. vol. 4. Eerdmans, 1970.
Wilson, Marvin. Our Father Abraham. Eerdmans, 1989.
Witherington III, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles. Eerdman, 1998.
Wolff, Hans Walter. Anthropology of the Old Testament. SCM, 1976.
Young, Brad. Paul the Jewish Theologian. Hendriksen, 1997.
Articles
Alexander, L. C. A. “Chronology of Paul.” 115-123 in Hawthorne and

Martin. eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. IVP, 1993.
Arzt, Max. “The Teacher in Talmud and Midrash” in Mordecai M. Kaplan:
Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Jewish
Theo. Sem. of America, 1953.
Beckwith, Roger T. “Formation of the Hebrew Bible.” in Mulder, Martin
Jan, ed. Mikra of Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum
Testamentum. Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1988.
Betz, Hans Dieter. “Paul” in Freedman, ed. The Anchor Bible. vol. 6.
Doubleday, 1992.
Blomberg, C. L. “Gospels (Historical Reliability).” in Green, Joel and
McKnight, Scot, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. IVP,
1992.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. “Was Timothy Jewish? (Acts 16:1-3).” JBL 105/2
(1986).
Collins, John J. “Essenes” in Freedman, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary.
vol. 2. Doubleday, 1992.
____________. “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism.” NTS
38(1992).
Cousland, J. R. C. “Temples, Greco-Roman.” in Evans, Craig and Porter,
Stanley, eds. Dictionary of New Testament Background. IVP,
2000.
Demsky, A. “Education” in Encyclopedia Judaica. vol. 6. Keter Pub.
House, 1972.
Dickson, William. “New Testament” in Patrick Fairbairn, ed. The Imperial
Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Blackie & Son, n.d.
Dunn, James. D. G. “Messianic Ideas and Their Influence on the Jesus
of History.” 365-381 in Charlesworth, James H., ed. The
Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity.
Fortress, 1992.
____________. “Jesus, Table-Fellowship, and Qumran.” 254-272 in
Charlesworth, James, ed. Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Doubleday, 1992.
Evans, Craig A. “Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521)”in Evans, Craig and
286
Bibliography
Porter, Stanley, eds. Dictionary of New Testament Background.
IVP, 2000.
_____________. “Messianism”in Evans, Craig and Porter, Stanley, eds.
Dictionary of New Testament Background. IVP, 2000.
Gasque, W. Ward. “Tarsus” in Freedman, ed. The Anchor Bible. vol. 6.
Doubleday, 1992.
Glessmer, Uwe. “Calendars in the Qumran Scrolls.” 213-278 in Flint,
Peter and Vanderkam, James C., eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls
After Fifty Years. Brill, 1999.
Goetze. “Hittite sek-/sak ‘(Legally) Recognized’ in the Treaties.” JCS
22(1968-69).
Hauch and Schultz, “porneiva” in TDNT (see reference works).
Hawthorn, G. F. “Cross” in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the
Bible. vol. 1. Zondervan, 1976.
Hemer, C. J. “Observations on Pauline Chronology” in Hagner, D. A.
and Harris, M. J. eds. Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to
Professor F. F. Bruce. Eerdmans, 1980.
Herman, J. “iJlavskomai” in Kittel, Gerhard. ed. Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament. 10 vols. Eerdmans, 1974.
_________. “‫ ”כפר‬in Kittel, Gerhard. ed. Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament. 10 vols. Eerdmans, 1974.
Huffman, H. B. “The Treaty Background of Hebrew È„Ú.” BASOR
181(1966).
Huffman, H. B. and Parker, S. B. “A Further Note on the Treaty
Background of Hebrew ‫ידע‬.” BASOR 184(1966).
Kaiser, Walter. “The Eschatological Hermeneutics of ‘Epangelicalism’:
Promise Theology.” JETS 14(1972).
Kee, Howard Clark. “The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 CE:
Its Import for Early Christianity.” NTS 36(1990).
Keener, C. S. “Adultery, Divorce.” in Evans, Craig and Porter, Stanley,
eds. Dictionary of New Testament Background. IVP, 2000.
Kreitzer, L. J. “Eschatology” in Hawthorne and Martin. eds. Dictionary
of Paul and His Letters. IVP, 1993.
Leary, T. J. “Paul’s Improper Name.” NTS (1992): 467-69.
Leiman, Sid. “Inspiration and Canonicity: Reflections on the Formation
of the Biblical Canon.” in vol. 2 of Sanders, E. P., ed. Jewish
and Christian Self-Definition. 3 vols. Fortress, 1981.
Lewis, Jack P. “‫ ”קהל‬in Harris, R. Laird. ed. Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament. 2 vols. Moody Press, 1980
Mason, S. “Pharisees.” 782-787 in Evans, Craig and Porter, Stanley, eds.
Dictionary of New Testament Background. IVP, 2000.
Moule, C. F. D. “The Son of Man: Some of the Facts.” NTS 41(1995).
Mounce, R. H. “Pauline Eschatology and the Apocalypse.” EvQ
287
Bibliography
46(1974).
Paige, T. “Holy Spirit.” in Hawthorne and Martin. eds. Dictionary of Paul
and His Letters. IVP, 1993.
Patzia, A. G. “Canon” in Hawthorne and Martin. eds. Dictionary of Paul
and His Letters. IVP, 1993.
Pizner, Bargil. “Jerusalem’s Essene Gateway.” BAR (May-June, 1997).
Riesner, Rainer. “Jesus, the Primitive Community and the Essene
Quarter of Jerusalem.” 198-234 in Charlesworth, James, ed.
Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Doubleday, 1992.
Roth, Cecil. “Gamaliel” in Encyclopedia Judaica. vol. 7. Keter Pub. House,
1972.
Safrai, S. “Jewish Self-Government.” 377ff in The Jewish People in the
First Century 1.2 of Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum
Testamentum. Van Gorcum/Fortress, 1987.
__________. “The Synagogue” in The Jewish People in the First Century 1.2
of Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Van
Gorcum/Fortress, 1987.
Sailhamer, John. “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible.” JETS 44(2001).
Saldarini, Anthony J. “Pharisees.” 289-303 in Freedman, ed. The Anchor
Bible Dictionary. vol. 5. Doubleday, 1992.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Sadducean Origins of the Dead Sea Scroll
Sect.” 35-49 in Shanks, Hershel, ed. Understanding the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Random House, 1992.
__________. “Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls.” 116-
129 in Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Messiah: Developments
in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Fortress, 1992.
Slater, Thomas B. “One Like the Son of Man in First-Century Judaism.”
NTS 41(1995).
Trever, J. C. “Pomegranate” in Buttrick, ed. The Interpreters Dictionary of
the Bible. 6 vols. Abingdon, 1962.
Vanderkam, James C. “The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Essenes or
Sadducees?” 50-62 in Shanks, Hershel, ed. Understanding
the Dead Sea Scrolls. Random House, 1992.
Walker, William O. “The Origin of the Son of Man Concept as Applied
to Jesus.” in Maier, John and Trollers, Vincent. eds. The Bible
in its Literary Milieu. Eerdmans, 1979.
288
Bibliography
Reference Works
Lexicons and Word Studies
Arndt, Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other

Early Christian Literature. Univ. of Chicago, 1957.
Botterweck, G. Johannes and Ringgren, Helmer. Theological Dictionary of
the Old Testament. 11 vols. Eerdmans, 1974-2001.
Brown, Colin. ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament
Theology. 4 vols. Zondervan, 1975.
Brown, Driver, Briggs. A Hebrew and Engish Lexicon of the Old Testment.
Oxford, 1972.
Harris, R. Laird. ed. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols.
Moody Press, 1980.
Holladay, William L. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament. Eerdmans, 1971.
Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and
Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. 1903 ,‫חורב‬.
Kittel, Gerhard. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols.
Eerdmans, 1974.
Koehler, Baumgartner. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Brill, 1985.
___________. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 4 vols.
Revised by Baumgartner and Stamm. Brill, 1994-2000.
Liddell, Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Harper & Bros., 1872.
Smith R. Payne. A Compendious Syriac Dictonary. Smith, J. Payne, ed.
Eisenbrauns, 1998.
VanGemeren, Willem A. ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament
Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Zondervan, 1997.
Texts
Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger, and Wikgren, eds. The Greek New
Testament. 3rd edition. UBS, 1983.
Charlesworth, James H. ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols.
Doubleday, 1983.
Clarke, E. G. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and
Concordance. Ktav, 1984.
Elliger, Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1983.
Kilgour, R. ed. Syriac New Testament and Psalms. UBS, 1994.
Rahlfs, Alfred. Septuaginta. 2 vols. Württebergische Bibelansalt, 1935.
Swete, Henry Barclay. The Old Testament in Greek according to the
Septuagint. 3 vols. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1934.
. . . . . . . . . Syriac Peshitta. UPS, 1979.
289
Bibliography
Rabbinic Literature
Blackman, Philip. Mishnayoth. 7 vols. Judaica Press, 1983.

Braude, Kapstein, trans. Pesikta de-Rab Kahana. Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1975.
Buber, Salomon. ‫פסיקתא דרב כהנא‬. Lyck, 1868.
Freedman, H. and Simon, Maurice. eds. Midrash Rabbah. 10 vols. Soncino
Press, 1983.
Lauterbach, Jacob Z. Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael. 3 vols. JPS, 1961.
Levine, Moshe, ed. The Soncino Talmud. 30 vols. Judaica Press, 1965-
1990.
Neusner, Jacob. Sifre to Deuteronomy. 2 vols. Scholars Press, 1987.
_____________. Sifre to Numbers. 3 vols. Scholars Press, 1986.
. . . . . . . . . . . ‫ אׁשכֹול מדרׁש תנחּומא‬.‫תובב”א‬
. . . . . . . . . . . ‫מקראות גדולות‬. ‫ אברהם יצחק פריעדמאן‬,‫תשל”א‬.
Steinsaltz, Adin. The Talmud. 22 vols. to date. Random House, 1989-
2000.
290
Index
Index of Scripture 29:40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177
Tanach 30:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180, 183
33:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161
Genesis 39:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
1:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
3:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158 Leviticus
4:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222 1:1-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179
1:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178
4:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176
1:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176
12:1-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 3:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178
12:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228, 240 3:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178
14:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192 3:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254
15:6 . . . . . . . . . . 100, 142, 240 4:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178
17:12-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .263 4:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177
8:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177
18:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240
9:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177
20:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 11:45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221
22:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228, 240 13:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169
25:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 16:4-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186
26:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228, 240 16:16-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
26:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 16:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
27:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240 17:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254
19:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221
28:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240
20:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221
40:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 20:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221
49:10-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154 22:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221
49:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201 23:9-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
49:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201 23:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
24:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267
Exodus
3:1-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204 Numbers
4:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218 10:35-36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .135
4:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xx 15:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177
12:38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120 15:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236
12:49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236, 267 15:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .267
15:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221 15:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236
19:5-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 15:37-41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
19:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 16:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
20:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222 28:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189
21:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180, 183 35:31-32 . . . . . . . . . . . . .180, 183
23:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165
24:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161 Deuteronomy
28:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185 4:32-37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
29:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176 4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221
29:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176 5:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222
29:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176 5:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138
291
Index
6:4-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Psalms
6:4-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .219 4:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
7:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222 20:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .227
7:11-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
9:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xx 25:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201
11:1, 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222 27:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xx
11:13-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .219 33:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
11:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221 33:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 49:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180, 183
14:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168 50:10-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
18:20–22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125 78:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
19:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225 80:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179
26:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168 82:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134
29:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221 99:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179
29:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138 106:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
30:12-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
30:12ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240 110:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191
30:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222 116:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xx
32:39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196 141:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193
Joshua Proverbs
22:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222 3:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201
4:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
Judges 4:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204 4:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .219
6:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204 5:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
14:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
1Samuel 15:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
2:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196 21:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
4:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179
1Kings Ecclesiastes
19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 12:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
7:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
1Chronicles
28:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 Isaiah
1:10ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
Nehemiah 1:17-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
1:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222 2:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228
6:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166
6:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168
Job
9:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
15:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xx
9:6-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163
19:25-27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196
25:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196
33:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
26:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151, 196
292
Index
28:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137 34:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224
29:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172 36:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200
31:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .227 37:1-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196
33:16-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 37:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200
35:5-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151 37:23, 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224
37:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179 37:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134
41:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 41:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252
42:1ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200 44:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252
42:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
43:3-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180, 183 Daniel
43:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 9:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222
43:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168 9:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
48:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138 12:2-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196
49:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94
49:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 Hosea
53:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151 5:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
53:10-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186 6:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
56:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 13:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223
56:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229
56:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 Joel
60:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 2:28ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200
61:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151
63:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165
Amos
3:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93, 223
Jeremiah 3:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201
6:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184 5:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
7:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184 5:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
23: 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164
23:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166
Micah
24:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224
1:2-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
31:31-34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .217
4:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228
31:31ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121
5:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198
31:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222
6:6-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184
31:35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223
6:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
32:38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224
46:27-28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202
Habakkuk
2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . .xx, 98, 99, 142
Lamentations
4:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
Haggai
2:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203
Ezekiel
2:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204
Zechariah
3:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166, 204
6:12-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155
8:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
6:12f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155
11:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224
8:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224
18:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171
293
Index
9:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201 Mark
12:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155 2:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxii
5:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
Malachi 7:6f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
1:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138 7:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172
1:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250, 252 7:8-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
7:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172
Apostolic Scriptures 7:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172
11:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
Mathew 11:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171 11:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
5:17-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198 12:38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
7:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220 14:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
7:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii 14:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177, 224
7:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223 14:58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
7:24f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 15:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
8:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
8:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi Luke
8:11-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 1:79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
9:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxii 4:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
10:5-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 4:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134
11:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151 4:26ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
12:1-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 6:46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii
12:18ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200 7:1-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
12:5-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 7:2-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
15:1-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 7:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
15:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172 7:47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
15:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42, 172 10:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
15:6f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 11:51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134
16:13ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxii, xxiii 19:45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
16:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 2:51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258
18:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225 21:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
19:3-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 22:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
21:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 22:20 . . . . . . . . . . . .177, 213, 224
21:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 24:25-27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182
22:24f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190 24:44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134, 215
22:35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
23:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .246 John
23:35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134 1:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177
26:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 1:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
26:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177, 224 1:45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134
26:61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 2:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
27:40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 7:39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203
28:19-20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 8:56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
10:34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134
14:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii, 222
294
Index
15:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222 18:1-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
20:30-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 18:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
18:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71, 265
Acts 1:6-8 203 18:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199
2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 18:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265
2:29-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181 18:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
2:38-39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239 18:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
5:38-39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 19:1ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203
6:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 19:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
7:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 19:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
7:55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190 20:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
7:58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30, 272 20:13-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84 20:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
9:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199 20:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64, 265
9:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .272 20:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116, 161
10:1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 21:2-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
11:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 21:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
13:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 21:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
13:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134 21:15-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
13:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134 21:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236
13:32-33 . . . . . . . . . . . . .156, 158 21:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43, 265
13:32f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 21:25 . . . . . . . . . . .249, 253, 267
13:43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71, 102 21:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
14:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
14:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199 22:3 . . . . . . . . . . . .34, 35, 36, 43
14:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 22:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
15:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 22:7ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
15:1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .235 22:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
15:10-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .238 23:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
15:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199, 273 23:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49, 65
15:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .249 24:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
15:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 25:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236
15:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240 26:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236
15:28-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244 26:6-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158
15:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .253, 258 26:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84, 85, 263
16:1-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 26:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199
16:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199 26:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
16:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . .70, 109, 265 28:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236
16:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 28:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200
17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 28:17-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
17:1-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 28:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134
17:1-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
17:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 Romans
17:16-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 1:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160
17:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 1:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
17:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 1:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188, 197
295
Index
1:16–17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95, 98 8:29ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
1:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xx, 100 8:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
1:17-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100 8:34 . . . . . . . . .160, 173, 189, 191
1:18-3:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
2:6-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 9:1-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
2:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172 9:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .227
2:23-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 9:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168
2:28-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206 9:10ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
2:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205 9:17ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
3:1-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 9:30-10:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
3:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 9:31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207
3:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 10:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
3:10ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 10:4 . . . . . . .42, 94, 207, 230, 240
3:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 10:5ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
3:21–22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 10:6-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207, 240
3:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix 11:2-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
3:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174, 176 11:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
3:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix 11:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226
3:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 11:25–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120
4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 11:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . .95, 197, 222
4:1ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182 11:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92, 120
4:1-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 11:28-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .198
4:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240 11:35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145
4:9-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 12:1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
4:11-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105 12:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4:11ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 14:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196
4:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix 15:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
4:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187 15:9-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
5:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 15:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197
5:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197 15:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199, 203
6:5ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188 15:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188
6:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 16:1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
6:17-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188 16:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
6:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207 16:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196
7:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205 16:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172
7:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206 16:25-27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .226
7:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35, 206 16:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197
7:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206
8:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101 1Corinthians
8:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188 1:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194
8:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176 1:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
8:1-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100, 188 1:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
8:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199, 201, 202 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .203
8:9ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204 2:6, 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
8:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188, 202 3:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194
8:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 3:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201, 202
296
Index
3:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195 2:14–4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207
3:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207
5:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .257 3:1-4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240
5:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194, 196 3:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205
5:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176 3:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213, 225
5:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .244 3:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207
5:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 3:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213, 229
6:16ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .257 3:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202, 207
6:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 4:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196
7:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196 4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173
7:18-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
8:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .253 5:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196
8:1ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 5:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202
8:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252 5:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196
8–10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .255 5:14-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
9:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265 5:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159
10:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .256 5:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96, 177
10:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 6:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . .134, 202, 224
10:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .253 8:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145
10:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .256 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
10:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250, 252 11:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196
10:25ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .256 11:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72
11:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 12:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196
11:13ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160 12:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199
11:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 13:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .225
11:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213, 225
12:12-27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Galatians
12:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204 1:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
14:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200 1:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168
14:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137 1:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .272
15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 1:17-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
15:3ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160 1:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
15:3-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173 2:1ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .273
15:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185 2:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .266
15:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 2:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .263
15:20, 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188 2:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
15:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195 2:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
15:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173 3:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81, 94, 240
15:33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 3:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
15:45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178 3:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
15:54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196 3:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
3:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119, 121
2Corinthians 4:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160
1:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194 5:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202
1:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 6:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202
2:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196 6:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120
297
Index
6:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74, 229 2:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194
2:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Ephesians 3:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
1:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 3:7-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
1:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 3:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
1:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 3:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188
1:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
1:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160 Colossians
1:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196 1:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
1:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 1:15-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162
1:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 1:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
2:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196 1:19-20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165
2:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 2:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
2:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90, 158 2:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .165
2:12-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229 2:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
2:14ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 3:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160
2:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 3:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230
2:15ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188 3:9ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188
2:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 3:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188
2:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120 3:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
3:4ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194 3:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
3:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 1Thessalonians
4:2ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204 1:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197
4:3ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204 2:18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196
4:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 2:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
4:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii 3:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
4:11ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 4:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
4:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 4:16-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160, 173
4:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 5:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194
4:16–17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 5:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197
4:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230 5:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
5:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176
5:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 2Thessalonians
5:23–25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 2:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
5:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 2:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197
2:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197
Philippians 2:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix, 91
1:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194, 202 2:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
1:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194 3:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
1:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
1:22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 1Timothy
2:9ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196 1:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200, 206
2:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204 1:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
2:1-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160 1:17 161
2:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160 3:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
298
Index
3:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160 James
4:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140 1:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240
5:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 2:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
2:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241
2Timothy 2:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240
1:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 2:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220
1:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 3:15-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
1:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 5:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
1:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194
1:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix 1Peter
1:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201 1:1ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .218
2:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160, 172 1:10-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181
2:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91, 95 1:15-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221
2:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173 1:18-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178
2:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202
2:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145 2Peter
3:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix, 142 3:15-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
3:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201 3:16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
3:16-17 . . . . . . . . . . .35, 123, 140
4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44, 274
4:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .194
1John
2:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222
5:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .222
Titus
1:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 Jude
2:11-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188 1:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi, xxii
2:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100
2:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
Revelation
2:13-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiv
1:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
3:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201, 204
14:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix, xxii
3:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
2:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250
2:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250, 253
Philemon 5:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193
1:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .272
Apocrypha
Hebrews
8:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214
8:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .224 Ben Sira
8:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214 1:6-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166
9:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191 1:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .258
9:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214 12:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
11:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix 39:1–3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
11:24-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182 50:28–30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
12:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .214
1Maccabees
2:42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
299
Index
3:46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 Wisdom of Solomon
7:12–13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 1.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166
2Maccabees Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls)

6:4-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254
14:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 1QS 9.10-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151
4Q246 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160
4Maccabees 4Q252 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154
5:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .253 4Q285 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152
4Q521 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83, 151
OT Pseudepigrapha 4QLxxLeva . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
4QTgJob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154
1Enoch 4QTgLev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154
45:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190 CD 12.22-23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151
48:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153 CD 13:20-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151
49:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166 CD 14.18-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151
51:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190 CD 19.9-11[7.20-21] . . . . . . .151
52:1-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190 CD 19:34-20.1 . . . . . . . . . . . .151
52:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153
55:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190 Josephus
61:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190
69:27-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190 Against Apion
1.8 (38-42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
4Ezra
7:28-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153 Antiquities
12:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153 14.10.13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
14.10.1-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Epistle of Aristeas 18.20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166
Jewish Wars
Jubilees 1.157–8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
7:20ff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .245 1.180 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
2.8.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
Psalms of Solomon 2.8.13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
7:30, 32, 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153 2.8.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
17:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154 2.11.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
17:27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153 2.20.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
17:28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .154 2.68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
17:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153 3.2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
18:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .153
Tacitus
Testament of Benjamin
6.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166 Annals 15.44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Testament of Zebulun
8:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166
300
Index
Philo Yoma 8:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170
Hypothetica Tosefta
11.14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Avodah Zerah 8.4 . . . . . . . . .245
Kiddushin 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
De Confusione Linguarum
Sanhedrin 2:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
136 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166
Yadayim 2:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
De Gigantibus
47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166
De Vita Mosis Bavli (Babylonian Talmud)
Avodah Zarah 2b . . . . . . . . . .91
2.40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144
Avodah Zarah 20b . . . . . . . .201
2.238 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166
Avodah Zarah 29a . . . . . . . .141
Legum Allegoriae
Avodah Zarah 64b . . . . . . . .245
3.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166
B’rachot 4b . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201
Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit B’rachot 5a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 B’rachot 28a . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
B’rachot 33a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Rabbinic Literature B’rachot 58a . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163
Bava Batra 13a . . . . . . . . . . .137
Mishnah Bava Batra 14b . . . . . . . . . . .215
Avot 1:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35, 36 Bava Batra 14b-15a . . . . . . . .135
Avot 3:11 . . . . . . . . . . . .238, 242 Bava Batra 75a . . . . . . . . . . .164
Avot 3.16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202 Bava Batra 78a . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Avot 5:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Bava Batra 146a . . . . . . . . . .131
B’rachot 1.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 Bava Kama 2b . . . . . . . . . . . .138
B’rachot 2:2 . . . . . . . . . .241, 242 Bava Kama 38a . . . . . . . . . . .101
B’rachot 4:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 Bava Metzia 48a . . . . . . . . . .202
Bikkurim 1.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 Bava Metzia 114a . . . . . . . . .127
Eduyot 5.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 Beitzah 16a . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Horayot 3:8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 Chagigah 3a . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
Kelim 15.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125 Chagigah 10b . . . . . . . . . . . .138
Kiddushin 3:12f . . . . . . . . . .107 Chagigah 11b . . . . . . . . . . . .163
Makkot 3:1-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 Chagigah 13a . . . . . . . . . . . .131
Nazir 2.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .266 Chullin 95a . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
Nazir 3.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265 Eruvin 13a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123
Nazir 6:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265 Gittin 46b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
Nazir 7:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265 Horayot 13a . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Sanhedrin 10.1 . . . . . 29, 77, 82, Ketubot 10b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
91, 135, 235, 246 Ketubot 110b . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
Shekalim 3.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Ketubot 13b-15a . . . . . . . . . .102
Sotah 9:15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Ketubot 49a . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
Sukkah 5.2-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 Kiddushin 66a . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Yadayim 3.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 Megilah 7a . . . . . . . . . . .126, 201
Yadayim 4.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 Megilah 9a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .144
Yadayim 4.6 . . . . . . . . . .125, 126 Makkot 24a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
Yevamot 16:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Megilah 17b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
301
Index
Menachot 70a . . . . . . . . . . . .127 Yoma 75b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Menachot 85b . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Yoma 85b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170
Nidah 13b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 Yoma 86a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170
Nidda 16b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
Pesachim 43a . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud)
Rosh HaShanah 11a . . . . . . .163 B’rachot 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Rosh HaShanah 23b . . . . . . . .38 Chagigah 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169
Sanhedrin. 11b . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Gittin 5:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
Sanhedrin 38b . . . . . . . . . . . .190 Megilah 73d-74a . . . . . . . . . .137
Sanhedrin 43a . . . . . . . . . .84, 85 Sanhedrin 1:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Sanhedrin 56a-60a . . . . . . . .245
Sanhedrin 59a . . . . . . . . . . . .101
Midrash Rabbah
Sanhedrin 90a . . . . . . 29, 51, 82,
Genesis lxiii.11 . . . . . . . . . . .201
91,123, 124, 132
Genesis lxvii:7 . . . . . . . . . . . .241
Sanhedrin 97a . . . . . . . . . . . .169
Genesis lxxv.6 . . . . . . . . . . . .201
Sanhedrin 98a . . . . . . . . . . . .201
Genesis lxxxv.2 . . . . . . . . . . .201
Sanhedrin 98b . . . . . . . . . . . .155
Genesis xci.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
Sanhedrin 99a . . . . . . . . . . . .201
Genesis xciv.8 . . . . . . . . . . . .201
Sanhedrin 99a-b . . . . . . . . . .238
Genesis xcix:10 . . . . . . . . . . .241
Sanhedrin 100a . . . . . . .126, 135
Genesis xcvii.9 . . . . . . . . . . .201
Sanhedrin 100b . . . . . . . . . . .132
Genesis xcviii:12 . . . . . . . . . .241
Sanhedrin 101a . . . . . . . . . . . .90
Exodus xxix.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
Shabbat 14a . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125
Exodus lii.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201
Shabbat 17b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
Exodus xli.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201
Shabbat 30a . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136
Exodus xlvii.6 . . . . . . . . . . . .141
Shabbat 31a . . . . . . . . . . .86, 249
Exodus xv:11 . . . . . . . . . . . . .241
Shabbat 33a . . . . . . . . . .128, 202
Exodus xxx.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . .241
Shabbat 55a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96
Exodus xxxvi.3 . . . . . . . . . . .201
Shevuot 13a . . . . . . . . . . . . . .242
Leviticus xxxiii.1 . . . . . . . . . 131
Sotah 22b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
Numbers x.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . .241
Sotah 40a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163
Numbers xiii:15 . . . . . . . . . .241
Sotah 46a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201
Numbers xix:26 . . . . . . . . . .241
Sotah 47b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128
Numbers xviii:21 . . . . . . . . .241
Sotah 49a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Deuteronomy vi.14 . . . . . . .200
Sotah 49b . . . . . . . . . . . . .40, 201
Lamentations 1:51 . . . . . . . .164
Sotah 49a-b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Lamentations iii:9 . . . . . . . . .241
Sukkah 49b . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
Lamentations l.43 . . . . . . . . .241
Sukkah 52a . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156
Lamentations v.5 . . . . . . . . .241
Sukkah 52a-b . . . . . . . . . . . .151
Lamentations xxiv . . . . . . . .141
Temurah 14a-b . . . . . . . . . . .127
Ecclesiastes i.1 . . . . . . . . . . . .141
Yevamot 46a–b . . . . . . . . . . . .87
Ecclesiastes i.28 . . . . . . . . . . .201
Yevamot 47a . . . . . . . . . . .87, 98
Ecclesiastes vii.19 . . . . . . . . .131
Yevamot 47a–b . . . . . . . . . . . .97
Ecclesiastes xii.11 . . . . .132, 135
Yevamot 48b . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
Ruth on 2.14 . . . . . . . . . . . . .155
Yevamot 63b . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
Yoma 73b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201
302
Index
Midrashim Hebrew Words
Sifra 57b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241
Sifra 86a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101 ‫ אָמַן‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xix, xx, 100
Sifra 99d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241 ‫ א ֶמּונ ָה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xx, xxi
Sifre on Numbers 15:31 . . . .238
‫ אָׁשָם‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Sifre on Deuteronomy . . . . . .37
Midrash Ps. 172b, §1 . . . . . .137
‫ ּב ְִרית‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Tanchuma, Re’eh, 10a . . . . . .137 ‫ּב ְִרית חֲדָׁשָה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . 216, 217
Tanchuma, Yitro, 11. . . . . . . .138 ‫ּב ֵית הַּכ ַנֶס ֶת‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Tanchuma, VaY’chi, 14 . . . . .201 ‫ּבַטְל ָנ ִים‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Tanchuma, B’reshit.1 . . . . . .123 ‫ גִֵרי הַצ ֶֶדק‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Tanchuma, Tissa 34 . . . . . . .127 ‫ּגַמְל ִיא ֵל‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Tanchuma, Va-Yera 5 . . . . . .127 ‫הַּמִׂשְָרה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Mekilta Bahodesh 7 . . . . . . .170 ‫ זֵָקן‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117, 272
Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael,
‫חַּטָאת‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176, 183
Exodus 20:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
‫ ח ָז ָן‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Other Rabbinic Works ‫ח ֹֻקת‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Avot de R. Nathan, xxvi . . .238 ‫יום ל ְיהוה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Avot de R. Natan ii.26 . . . . .249 ‫יֹום יהוה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Yalqut ii.571 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155 ‫ יַָרה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Yalqut ii.620 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155 ‫ כ ָנ ַס‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
‫ׁשת ָה‬ ְ ‫ּכ ְנ ִי‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Rambam ‫ ּכ ַּפֹוֶרת‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Hilchot Melachim 8.11 . . . . .245 ‫ּכָפ ַר‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Mishneh Torah ii:Hilchot Abel ‫ ּכֹה ֵן‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
xiv.I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .249
‫מלכי־סדך‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
‫מֹוֵרה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Early Christian Works
‫מִצְֹות‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Epistle of Barnabas 4:6-8 . . .214 ‫ׁשמ ֶֶרת‬ ְ ִ ‫מ‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Didache i.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .249 ‫מַעֲׂשֶה ב ְֵראׁשִית‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Eusebius, Ecc Hist 9.10 . . . . 110 ‫מַעֲׂשֶה ּב ְֵראׁשִית‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Jerome, De viris illustribus . . . .5 ‫ נָשִׂיא‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
33 ‫ סֹופ ֶר‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
‫סְפ ִַרים הָח ִיצּונ ִים‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
‫ּפ ָנ ִים‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
‫ּפ ַָרׁש‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
‫צדק‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
‫ צ ִַדיק‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
‫קדׁש‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
ִ ‫ִקיל ְקי‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
‫רּוח ַ ה ַּקֹוֶדׁש‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
ַ ‫רּוח‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141, 199
‫ רּוח ַ א ֱֹלה ִים‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
303
Index
‫רּוח ַ יהוה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 latreuvw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
ַ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
‫ׁשּמָׁש‬ math;r sunavgwgo~ . . . . . . . . . 117
‫ׂשבע‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 menbravna~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
‫ ּתֹוָרה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv nomikov~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
‫ּתֹורֹות‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 nomov~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
‫ּת ְׁשּוב ָה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 crhstov~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Crivsto~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95, 173
Greek Words
path;r sunavgwgo~ . . . . . . . . . 117
a[nomo~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 palaiov~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
a[rcwn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 pistevuw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xix
ajlhvqeia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxi pistov~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxi
aJmartiva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 pivsti~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix, xxi
ajnagkavzw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 pivsti~ jIhsou` Cristou` . . . . .xix
ajnatrevfw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 plhvrwma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
ajpokavluyi~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 pneuvma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
ajrchv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 poievw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
ajrcisunavgwgo~ . . . . . . . . . . 116 porneiva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
biblivon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 presbuvtero~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
grafh; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140, 145 presbuvth~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
grammateuv~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 proseuchv . . . . . . . . . . . . 70, 109
diaqhvkh . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156, 214 sau`lo~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
diathrevw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 sebovmenoi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
diavkono~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 skhnopoiov~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
diermeinuvw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 sunagwghv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
dikaiosuvnh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 tevlo~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 240
e[qo~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 trevfw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
eijdwlovquto~ . . . . . . . . . 249, 253 uJphrevth~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
ejkklhsiva . . . . . .70, 109, 111, 114 failavnh~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
ejlafrov~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 fobouvmenoi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
ejpifavneia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Modern Authors
qeosebei`~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
qeothvto~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
A
qeovpneusto~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Akenson, Donald H. . . . . . . .146
qevo~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Aland, Kurt & Barbara . . . . .61
i{sthmi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxi Alexander, A. . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
iJereuv~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Alexander, L. C. A. . . . . . . . .271
iJlasthvrion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Arzt, Max . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
iJlavskomai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
ku`riakov~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 B
Bader, Gershom . . . . . . . . . .128
kuvrio~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
304
Index
Barrera, Juilo Trebolle . . . . .144 Girdlestone, Robert B. . . . . . 111
Baslez, M. F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Glessmer, Uwe . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Beckwith, Roger T. . . . . . . . .126 Golb, Norman . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
Betz, Hans Dieter . . . . . . . . .271 Gray, George Buchanan . . .183
Blackman, Philip . . . . . . . . .104 Green, Joel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146
Blomberg, C. L. . . . . . . . . . . .146 H
Bock, Darrell L. . . . . . . . . . . . .84 Haenchen, Ernst . . . . . . . . . . .40
Bruce, F. F. . . . . .31, 34, 250, 257 Harnack, Adolph . . . . . . . . . .73
Bultmann, Rudolph . . . . . . . .75 Hawthorne, G. F. . . . . . . . . . .45
Hay, David M. . . . . . . . . . . .189
C Hemer, C. J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .271
Charlesworth, James . . . 54, 57, Hengel, Martin . . . . . . . . . . .271
151 Herford, R. Travers . . . . . . .238
Clarke, W. K. Lowther . . . . .257 Herman, J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
Cohen, Shaye J. D. . . . . . . . .107 Hoffman, Lawrence A. . . . . .37
Collins, John J. 57, . . . . . . . .160 Huffman, H. B. . . . . . . . . . . .222
Cousland, J. R. C. . . . . . . . . .252
Cranfield, C. E. B. . . . . . . . . .168 J
Crenshaw, James L. . . . . . . . .37 Janneus, Alexander . . . . . . . .52
Jastrow, Marcus . . . . . . . .33, 34
D Jewett, R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .271
Dahood, Mitchell . . . . . . . . .196
Davies, W. D. . . . . . . . . . . . .245 K
Demsky, A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 Kaiser, Walter . . . .159, 180, 183
Dickson, William . . . . . . . . .214 Kee, Howard Clark . . . . 70, 111
Diporse, Ronald E. . . . . . . . .120 Keener, C. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . .257
Dunn, James D. G. . . . . 54, 151, Klausner, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . .34
166, 173 Kreitzer, L. J. . . . . . . . . . . . . .194
E L
Eisenman, Robert H. . . . . . .152 Lauterbach, Jacob Z. . . . . . . .34
Elbogen, Ismar . . . . . . . . . . . .83 Leary, T. J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Ellis, E. E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 Leiman, Sid . . . . . .123, 124, 128
Evans, Craig A. . . . . . . . 51, 151, Leon, Harry J. . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
152, 154
Levine, Lee I. . . . . . 70, 109, 111,
F 116
Feldman, Louis . . . . . . . . . . .103 Lewis, Jack P. . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. . . . . . . .152 Lightfoot, J. B. . . . . . . . . .27, 123
Flint, Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 Lindsey, Robert . . . . . . . . . . .146
Frydland, Rachmiel . . . . . . .155 Loewe, H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
G M
Gager, John G. . . . .73, 74, 79, 80 Martinez, Florentino G. . . . . .83
Gasque, W. Ward . . . . . . . . . .41 Mason, S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
305
Index
McKnight, Scot . . . . . . . . . . .146 59, 151
Metzger, Bruce M. . . . . . . . .161 Schurer, Emil . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
Montefiore, C. G. . . . . . . . . .102 Schwemer, Anna Maria . . . .271
Moore, G. Foote . . . 52, 92, 102, Segal, Alan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .245
103 Shanks, Hershel . . . . . . . . . . .50
Morris, Leon . . . . . . . . .180, 183 Sherwin-White, A. N. . . . . . 30,
Moule, C. F. D. . . . . . . . . . . .160 31, 32, 34, 45
Mounce, R. H. . . . . . . . . . . . .197 Slater, Thomas B. . . . . . . . . .160
Muller, Jac. J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 Stegemann, Hartman . . . . . .152
Murphy-O’Conner, J. . . . 28, 33, Steinsaltz, Adin . . . . . . . . . . .38
45, 49, 84, 89, 271, 272 Stemberger, Günter . . . . . . . .53
Stern, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
N Swete, H. B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
Nanos, Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . .245
Neusner, Jacob . . . . .53, 61, 152 T
Taylor, Charles . . . . . . . . . . .238
O Tenney, Merrill C. . . . . . . . . . .45
Ogilvie, R. M. . . . . . . . . . . . .254 Tomson, Peter J. . . . . . . . . . . .74
Toperoff, Shlomo P. . . . . . . .238
Tov, Emanuel . . . . . . . . . . . .131
P
Trever, J. C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
Paige, T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199
Trobisch, David . . . . . . . . . .216
Parker, S. B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .223
Turner, Nigel . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
Patai, Raphael . . . . . . . . . . . .155
Patzia, A. G. . . . . . . . . . . . . .147
Pizner, Bargil . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 U
Porter, Stanley . . . . . . . . .51, 266 Urbach, Ephraim E. . . . . . . . .83
Porton, Gary G. . . . . . . . . . . .55
V
R Vanderkam, James . . . . . .50, 59
Räisänen, Heikki . . . . . . .79, 81 Vos, Geerhardus . . . . . . . . . .195
Ramsay, William . . . . . . . .64, 84
Rayburn, Robert . . . . . . . . . .232 W
Reicke, Bo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .271 Walker, William O. . . . . . . . .160
Ridderbos, Herman . . . .76, 231 Wallace, Daniel . . . . . . . . . . .195
Riesner, Rainer . . . . . 57, 84, 89, Weinfeld, M. . . . . . . . . . . . . .157
271 Westcott, Brooke F. . . . . . . . .146
Roth, Cecil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 Whiston, William . . . . . . . . .130
White, Newport J. D. . . . . . . .45
Wilson, Marvin . . . . . . .161, 245
S
Wise, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . .152
Safrai, S. . . . . . . . . . . . .70, 83, 84
Witherington, Ben . . . 250, 251,
Sailhamer, John . . . . . . .159, 215
255
Saldarini, Anthony J. . . . .52, 60
Wolff, Hans Walter . . . . . . . . 114
Sanders, E. P. . . . . . . . 29, 53, 54,
56, 58, 76, 77, 78, 83, 171
Schiffman, Lawrence . . . 51, 56,
306
Index
Y Church councils . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Young, Brad H. . . . . . . . .49, 245 circumcision . . . . . . . 104, 106, 263
cognomen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 32
Subjects commandments . . . . . . . . . . 613 98
conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
A Corinth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Cornelius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Abrahamic covenant . . . . . 94, 106 covenant . . . . . . . 90, 156, 157, 158
age to come. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 covenantal nomism . . . . . . . . . . 76
Akiva. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41 D
am ha’aretz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 52
Amidah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Damascus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
angels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Damascus Road . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
Angel of the Lord. . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Day of the Lord . . . . . . . . . 194, 197
anti-Semitism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Dead Sea Scrolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Apocrypha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 deportations of Jews . . . . . . . . . 34
Apollos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 diptychs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Aquila . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 divine providence . . . . . . . . 53, 63
Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 divorce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Aratus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Aretas, King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 E
Athens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Eighteen Benedictions (Shemonei
atonement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179, 180 Esrei) . . . . . . . 37, 83, 96, 104, 150
ekklesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
B elect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91, 92
bar mitzvah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Elijah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
believe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix Emmaus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Ben Sira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129, 131 Ephesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Berea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Epimenides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
birkat hamazon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Esau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Essenes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
C Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Cairo Geniza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 ethnic status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 59, 64 expiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
canon . . . . . . . . . 130, 132, 145, 148
Capernaum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 F
Chag HaMatzot . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 faith/faithfulness. . . . . . . . xix, xxi,
Chair of Elijah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 xxii, 93
chakam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Feast of Unleavened Bread . . . . 55
chazzan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117 fullness of the Gentiles . . . . . . 193
Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Christian church . . . . . . . . . 69, 109 G
Christmas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
church, (the word itself) . . . . . .110 Gamaliel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 36, 38
307
Index
gemara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Lxx (Septuagint) . . . . 111, 129–134,
get (bill of divorcement) . . . . . . 60 139, 144
Gentiles . . . . . . . 85–87, 94–96, 101ff
Gischala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 M
God, Spirit of . . . . . . . . . . . 199, 203
God-breathed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Maccabean revolt . . . . . . . 127, 128
God-fearer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 II Maccabees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Gospel . . . . . . 94, 95, 101, 105, 173 Marcion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Granville Sharp’s rule . . . . . . . 195 marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Greek philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Meander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Gush Halab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Melchizedek . . . . . . . . . . . 190, 191
mercy seat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
H Messiah
Goal of the Torah. . . . . .207, 224
Habakkuk Pesher . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Suffering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171
halachah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42, 60 Messiah son of David . . . . .150
hasid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Messiah son of Joseph . . . . .150
Hasmoneans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 mikvah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Hebrew of Hebrews . . . . . . . 27–30 mixed multitude. . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Hillel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 86 Mosaic covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Hyrcanus, Eliezer ben . . . . . . . . 90
Hyrcanus, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 N
I nasi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38, 117

Nero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
idolatry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 new covenant . . . . . . . . . . 217, 218
immortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
in Messiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Noachide Laws . . . . . . . . . 245–247
Isaac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Isaac, R. Nahman b. . . . . . . . . . . 99 O
Ishmael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
obedience of faith . . . . . . . . . . . 197
J old covenant . . . . . . . 213, 229, 231
Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Jacob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 omer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
John the Baptizer . . . . 171, 177, 185 Oral Torah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37, 55
justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
P
K
kadosh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 parousia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
kosher meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Paul
attitude toward women . . . . .42
L circumcised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
epistles, collection of. . . . . . .147
Lamb of God. . . . 168, 172, 177, 185 Hebrew of Hebrews. . . . . . . . .27
Lord's table . . . . . . . . . . . . 250, 252 leather worker . . . . . . . . . . . .34
love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxiii name Saul. . . . . . . . . . . . . .30–32
Nazirite vow . . . . . . . . . . . . .265
308
Index
Pharisee. . . . . . .43, 49, 60, 62–65 Inspiration of . . . . . . . . . . . .201
Roman citizen. . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Septuagint (Lxx) . . . . 111, 129–134,
tentmaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 139, 144
thirty-nine lashes . . . . . . . . . .72 Sha’ul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 31
Pentecost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Shammai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Pesach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Shavuot . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64, 87, 189
Pharisees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 52 Shema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 37, 219
Philo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166, 255 Shemonei Esrei (Eighteen
professio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Benedictions) . . . . . . . . 37, 83, 96,
Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 104, 150
propitiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Shimon b. Gamaliel . . . . . . . . . . 43
proselyte . . . . . . . . 27, 29, 102, 103, Simeon b. Shetah . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
104, 236 Simon the Righteous. . . . . . . . . 128
proseuche (house of prayer) . . . . 70 sinful nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
providence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 sin offering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
purities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 soferim (scribes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Soteriology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81, 89
Q Spirit of God . . . . . . . . . . . 199, 203
Spirit vs. Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Qumran . . . . . . . . 50, 54, 56, 58–59,
Strabo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
112, 118, 133–134, 139, 143, 145, 151 supersessionism. . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Suzerain-Vassal treaty . . . 156, 157
R
synagogue . . . . . . . . .69, 70, 71, 112
remnant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93, 94 synagogue leadership . . . . . . . .116
repentance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78, 171
replacement theology . . . . . . . 120 T
resurrection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 62 table-fellowship . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
righteous/righteousness . . . . . . 78, Tarsus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 34
96, 98 Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112
righteousness of God . . 95, 98, 100 Thessalonica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
ritual purity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 The Way . . . . . . . . . . . 84, 85, 87–88
Roman Catholicism . . . . . . . . . . 96 Timothy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 107
Rome, great fire of. . . . . . . . . . . . 44 tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Royal Grant treaty . . . . . . 156, 157 trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
Rufus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Two-House movement . . . . . . 217
tzitzit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
S
Sabbath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 U
sacrifices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Unleavened Bread . . . . . . . . 59, 64
Sadducees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
unrighteous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
salvation by works . . . . . . . . . . . 78
sanctification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 W
Sanhedrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72, 84
Saul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Way, The . . . . . . . . . . . 84. 85, 87–88
Scribes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 wrath of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61, 127
309
Index
Y
Yeshua
Creator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .162
Death of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176
Descendant of David. . 150–154,
156, 160, 162, 165, 167, 175
Deity of . . . . . . . . .161, 165, 168
Goal of the Torah. . . . . .207, 224
His humanity. . . . . . . . 160–161,
165, 167, 174
Intercession of . . . . . . . .189, 192
Last Adam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178
Names of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174
Resurrection of . . . . . . . . . . .186
Session of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189
Son of God. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Yoke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238–244
Yom Kippur . . . . . . . . . . . . 170, 176,
180, 182–184, 192
Z
Zadok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
zugot (pairs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 60
310
Notes
311
Notes
312
Notes
313
Notes
314

Book - Letter-Writer Paul by Tim Hegg PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Book - Letter-Writer Paul by Tim Hegg PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Letter Writer

Paul’s Background and Torah Perspective

New American Standard Bible Update

©2002, 2008 TorahResource

Printed in the United States of America

First Edition published by First Fruits of Zion: 2002

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Manuscript leaf on cover is ∏46 of the

References and Abbreviations

Abbreviations and Special Terms

Apostolic Writings The New Testament

Now when Yeshua heard this, He marveled, and said to those

And behold, they were bringing to Him a paralytic, lying on a

The very fact that Yeshua is described as “seeing their faith” is

… looking for the blessed hope

Chapter 1: Paul’s Background

Paul was a Jew, that much is clear.20 He refers to himself as a

circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of

J. B. Lightfoot insightfully noted that the list is in ascending

1.2 His Name

And the commander answered, “I acquired this citizenship with

How could Paul claim to be both a “Hebrew of Hebrews” as well

Roman citizens of the equestrian order, were illegally scourged and

1.3 His Family

In another of Jerome’s writings he suggests that Paul was born

1.4 His Education

Yose b. Yoezer says, “Let your house be a gathering place for

But is Greek philosophy forbidden? Behold Rab Judah declared

If the “household of Rabban Gamaliel” refers to the household of

… the people of Tarsus in the 1st Century CE were keen students

Should we presume that Paul, at some point in his life, returned

Paul speaks openly of his readiness to die. To the Philippians he

… according to my earnest expectation and hope, that I shall not

But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the

And in Paul’s final Epistle to Timothy, he once again uses the

For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the

It is recorded that in Nero’s reign Paul was beheaded in Rome

If Paul was beheaded it would imply that he was condemned by

Paul’s encounter with the Messiah Yeshua had forever changed

Chapter 2: Paul and His World

The presence of the Pharisees is traced back in the Rabbinic sources

Neusner who draws the same conclusions. For a commendable

By 150 BCE the Sadducees were a recognizable group.106 They

70, 3 vols (Leiden, Brill: 1971), 3.305;

Probus Liber Sit, 75).

Often in the Gospels and Acts we find the combined phrase

2.2 Paul Within 1st Century Judaisms

The Use of Scripture

As a Pharisee, Paul would have held the Tanach as the definitive

The Use of Tradition

But does Paul also give value to tradition as was characteristic

Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and

And again in 2Thessalonians 2:15:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which

Note as well 2Thessalonians 3:6:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord

Here we see Paul using Pharisaic language and perspective,

Belief in the Resurrection

Paul the Pharisee likewise fully affirms the doctrine of the

Belief in Divine Providence

Paul is no stranger to the belief in divine providence, a doctrine

Unfortunately the history of the Apostle Paul found in the book of

Paul, as we know him through the book of Acts as well as by his