Studying Paul in his ancient Mediterranean horizon and the reception and handling of Paul in early Christianity are two of my primary areas of historical research. In view of this—and the Conn-verations blog’s focus on issues of hermeneutics and context(s)—every now and then I will try to post on Paul in Christian Origins.
During a short reading break I decided to type out something that has been swirling around my head since I recently read through Jubilees (a 2nd century BCE Jewish writing) again. The following passage stuck out to me in connection with something Paul does in Galatians 3.1-4.7.
Just to be clear at the outset, I do not think that Paul is necessarily writing with Jubilees in mind or that what Paul is doing is predicated upon some unique development within Jubilees. Rather, I prefer to view the following passage from Jubilees as a possible window in on certain ways things might have been understood by some(many?) Early Jews—thus, something that might have been “in the air” in Paul’s context.
But after this they [Israel] will return to me in all uprightness and with all of their heart and soul. And I shall cut off the foreskin of their heart and the foreskin of the heart of their descendents. And I shall create for them a Holy Spirit, and I shall purify them so that they will not turn away from following me from that day and forever. And their souls will cleave to me and to all my commandments. And they will do my commandments. And I shall be a father to them, and they will be sons to me. And they will all be called “sons of the living God.” And every angel and spirit will know and acknowledge that they are my sons and I am their father in uprightness and righteousness. And I shall love them. (Jubilees 1.22b-25)
The Jubilees passage shows an Early Jewish combination of several things in an eschatological setting: the blessing of the Spirit, Sonship, and faithfulness to the Torah—all with YHWH’s ultimate deliverance. The association of the Spirit/breath with Torah-faithfulness in a picture of YHWH’s ultimate deliverance is seen already, for example, in Ezek 36-37. In Galatians, of course, both the blessing of the Spirit and Sonship are on the opposite side of the apocalyptic and salvation-history divide from Torah-faithfulness. To put this another way, in Galatians the Spirit and Sonship are explicitly dissociated from Torah-faithfulness when it comes to God’s ultimate rescue of his people. In Galatians, Torah and Torah-faithfulness belong to the evil age from which Christ delivered us by his death (c.f. Gal 1.4, and the rest of the letter).
The Jubilees passage in question, along with many other passages in Early Jewish literature, helps us see how Paul’s understanding of Torah and Torah-faithfulness in relation to YHWH’s ultimate salvation would be shocking to a 1st century audience—it is foreign to any strand of Old Testament and/or Early Jewish thought with which I am familiar. This—that Torah faithfulness is part and parcel of any type of salvation YHWH would ever bring for his people—by the way, would be one of the main (Biblical) points of the teachers in Galatia that Paul sets out against in his letter. Paul can only put forth his shape of eschatological hope and deliverance, one dissociated from Torah, in the light of his understanding of Christ’s death (in Galatians) and the experience of the Spirit among the Galatians apart from Torah (c.f. Gal 3.2-5). Paul appeals to the Galatians’ experience of something—the Spirit—that was known to mark the climax (fullness) of time in the history of God’s dealing with Israel according to various forms of Jewish eschatological expectation. He appeals to their experience of it (the Spirit) not “ek/x ergwn nomou” (not out of works of Torah) in order to have credibility to recast completely the relation of the Spirit (and Sonship, as we will see) with Torah—to recast the relationship in a way foreign to any strand of Hebrew Bible and/or Early Jewish thought.
It seems Paul is sort of constrained into having to do something with Abraham in view of the other teachers (his “opponents”) presentation of their Torah-defined form of Christianity. It appears they taught their form of Christianity to the Gentiles of the Galatian churches through casting Abraham and Abrahamic descent in terms of Torah-keeping (various understandings of Abraham as a Torah-keeper colored the thought of many strands of Early Judaism). They would have presented this version of Abraham and Abrahamic descent as a Scriptural argument. Among other things they could appeal to Genesis 17 where circumcision is part of God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendants FOREVER. They also could appeal to Genesis 26.5, for example, where Abraham is a Torah-keeper.
In view of this, in 3.6-14 Paul presents his own “Scriptural”—reread in the light of Christ and the reality of experiencing God’s salvation apart from Torah—argument dissociating Abrahamic descent (Sonship) from Torah. Instead he associates Abrahamic descent with being “ek pistews” (literally: out of faithfulness). In 3.10-12 Paul dissociates “ek pistews” from Torah. In 3.13-14 we catch a glimpse of how “ek pistews” is a short-hand reference to Christ’s rescuing faithfulness (in the Cross) for Paul. Thus, for people such as myself (and the Paul scholars in whose footsteps I tread), Paul has all along been associating true Abrahamic descent with Christ when he talks about it being “ek pistews,” which, again, for Paul is something completely dissociated from Torah.
Paul’s “Scriptural” argument for his version of Abrahamic descent—“ek pistews” and not “ek/x ergwn nomou”—eventually turns on his playing with “seed” in 3.15-29. True Abrahamic Sonship is “ek pistews”—again, a short hand reference to Christ’s rescuing faithfulness—because Christ is the “seed” of the Abrahamic promise (3.15-16). Thus, “in Christ you are all sons of God, through [Christ’s] faithfulness” (3.26)…”and if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise” (3.28). True (Abrahamic) Sonship is “ek pistews”/in Christ and thus (for Paul) not in any way associated with Torah keeping. Paul thus counters the Scriptural arguments of his opponents in Galatia with his (re-read) “Scriptural” presentation. They urge a Torah-observant form of being Christ’s people through their Scriptural presentation of a Torah-defined Abrahamic promise.
Ok, I hope I have not bored or lost anyone with this whirl-wind tour through Paul’s thought in Galatians…
Getting back to Jubilees and Galatians, the Jubilees passage connects the eschatological expectation of the Spirit with Sonship. In the light of this association, it seems to me, parts of what Paul does in Galatians 3.1-4.7 make greater sense. In Gal 3.1-4.7 Paul speaks of the promise of the Spirit, the “blessing of Abraham,” Sonship, and even “Justification” in almost overlapping ways. More to the point, Paul somehow connects “the blessing of Abraham”—that all the nations of the earth would be blessed in him; Abrahamic descent for the Galatians—with the promise of the Spirit, which (3.2-5) the Galatians have begun to experience. For this connection, see 3.14, “so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through (Christ’s?) faithfulness.”
Here I submit Jubilees 1.22b-25 helps us with a question that has troubled some in the history of interpretation. How is the “blessing of Abraham” connected with the Spirit? We usually just gloss over this. But, how did the “blessing of Abraham” and Abrahamic descent (Sonship) become associated with the Spirit in Paul’s mind in such a way that he could relate them in his argument? How could this make sense to and help in persuading a group of people in the 1st century—a group with some exposure to Abrahamic traditions and an eschatological hope linked with Abrahamic identity? Though we might be able to answer this question without it, I think Jubilees 1.22b-25 gives us something more concrete with which to work.
The Jubilees passage presents us with a form of Early Jewish eschatological expectation in which the Spirit is associated with Sonship. Thus Paul can discuss the blessing of being Abraham’s seed in association with the blessing of receiving the Spirit. Indeed, for Paul the Spirit is a Spirit of Sonship that God has sent “because you are sons” (4.6). The Spirit, at least, marks out the Galatians as God’s Sons—Abraham’s true seed in Christ Jesus (3.27-29). Like Jubilees, Paul understands the presence of the Spirit as identifying its recipients as God’s true people, his Sons (Children).
Thus, Jubilees 1.22b-25 with its connection of Sonship and the Spirit helps us see how Paul can do what he does. Paul’s opponents in Galatia muster a powerful Scriptural argument: being the God of Israel’s true people now through (the) Christ means you need to keep Torah. After all, as they might argue, true Abrahamic descent (Sonship) as defined by the eternal Abrahamic covenant means circumcision and Torah keeping like Abraham (c.f. Gen 17 and 26.5, for example).
Paul counters by pointing out that the Galatians received the Spirit apart from Torah. Since the blessing of the Spirit defines, or is at least connected with, true Sonship—a way of thinking reflected in, for example, Jubilees 1.22b-25—Paul can persuasively move from their experience of the Spirit to the nature of their (Abrahamic) Sonship. Paul can persuasively move from their experience of the Spirit apart from Torah to discussing the nature of their Abrahamic Sonship as apart from Torah, despite the powerful Scriptural arguments his “opponents” presented. Paul does this through his own “Scriptural” (re-read in the light of Christ and the experience of the Spirit) arguments—through his “ek pistews”/Christ-rereading of those scriptures. Paul’s re-reading of those scriptures as supporting true Abrahamic Sonship apart from Torah carries weight only because of the Galatians’ experience of the Spirit apart from Torah.
Again, all of this turns on Paul’s ability to treat the Galatians’ experience of the Spirit as something bound up with Sonship—an association seen in Jub. 1.22b-25. Since they have experienced the Spirit apart from Torah, they can be Abraham’s true descendents apart from Torah. Perhaps Jubilees helps us see how Paul’s discussion of the blessing of the Spirit can also be a discussion of Sonship. Discussion of the Spirit can connect to arguments about true Sonship in view of such an established connection in Jewish thought as reflected in Jubilees 1.22b-25. Whether or not I even buy the argument I have made, Jub 1.22b-25’s association of the Spirit and Sonship should catch the attention of the careful reader of Galatians.
So, Jubilees 1.22b-25 helps us better see how what Paul does with the Torah in Galatians is shocking. It also (1) provides us with a relevant parallel of a connection between eschatological Sonship and the eschatological Spirit and (2) aids our understanding of how Paul’s arguments could actually be persuasive to his 1st century audience.
In view of certain controversies concerning Paul in our ecclesiastical world, I should mention that there is really nothing distinctively New Perspective in what I have said in this post.
July 2, 2008 at 8:45 am
As to comments 13 & 14,
I am not sure what you are getting at. I think I have an idea, but can you clarify? Thanks.
July 2, 2008 at 8:44 am
CB,
The start of the Parables of Enoch (quoted in comment 11) is simply a variation on a standard introduction to an apocalyptic vision. The visionary tells the revelation he received from God (frequently through an angel). In this case the language of “wisdom” is used. This reflects a move seen throughout Early Jewish conceptions of wisdom: wisdom is now more something revealed directly by God than perceived by the ‘wise man’ from nature. I do not see how Parables of Enoch 37 reflects an identification between the visionary and wisdom.
July 2, 2008 at 8:28 am
I also remember a Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph, Antithesis of the Ages or something like that. It’s harder to come clean these days with regard to books that have provided me with the grist for thought now that I’ve sold my library.
July 2, 2008 at 8:16 am
I seem to remember Pate allowing more in his Reverse of the Law.
July 2, 2008 at 8:10 am
Boccaccini says that there is a definite “tension” here but not an yet “incarnation” to the effect Enoch/Messiah=Divine Wisdom
July 2, 2008 at 7:29 am
Wisdom=Messiah:
Chap 37
1 The second vision which he saw, the vision of wisdom -which Enoch the son of Jared, the son 2 of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, saw. And this is the beginning of the words of wisdom which I lifted up my voice to speak and say to those which dwell on earth: Hear, ye men of old time, and see, ye that come after, the words of the Holy 3 One which I will speak before the Lord of Spirits. It were better to declare (them only) to the men of old time, but even from those that come after we will not withhold the beginning of wisdom. 4 Till the present day such wisdom has never been given by the Lord of Spirits as I have received according to my insight, according to the good pleasure of the Lord of Spirits by whom the lot of 5 eternal life has been given to me. Now three Parables were imparted to me, and I lifted up my voice and recounted them to those that dwell on the earth.
July 2, 2008 at 6:55 am
Several thoughts and questions…
I am not sure emphasizing the “Enoch” aspect helps here. Where are you getting this “Enoch=Messiah” type thought? Is this from Parables of Enoch 71′s identification of “that Son of Man” with Enoch? This is the only place, to my knowledge, where Enoch is “identified” (what is going on in ch71 is a major dispute) with a Messianic figure. In 3Enoch, a late (7th cent CE?) hekhalot Jewish work, Enoch is identified with the powerful angel (2nd God?) Metatron. The relationship between this tradition and earlier sources more relevant to our discussion are the storm center of ongoing debate and discussion in Jewish scholarship.
As you are probably aware, there is not one unified concept of the Messiah across Early Judaism. Also, many of the figures usually labeled as “Messiahs” in Early Jewish thought are not so-called in the sources. I prefer the term “Decisive-Representative Figure(s)” While such a designation is not used in the sources, perhaps it avoids some of the pitfalls of labeling figures as Messiahs when they are not so-termed but while that name is used of other figures in other sources.
Furthermore, off the top of my head, I am not aware of any Early Jewish sources making the identification between the Decisive-Representative Figure and Wisdom/Torah. In some cases the advent of the decisive-representative figure is part of an eschatological scenario in which the righteous experience the blessing of wisdom, torah-keeping, the Spirit, etc. Thus Wisdom, Torah, etc., are eschatologically associated with the Decisive Representative Figure(s), but not identified.
I hope I am not sounding too picky here.
It is certainly possible that some Early Jews began so binding up the decisive representative figure with eschatological Wisdom and Torah-keeping (and the Spirit) that they could be spoken of as almost identified. It also makes sense that Paul so-saw Christ as the climax of the God of Israel’s ultimate rescue that he (Paul) understood the various aspects of that rescue to be completely bound up with (identified with?) the Christ event. Or, a mixture of both possibilities is possible (probable). Also, what Paul does is certainly understood better in view of the traditional Jewish identification of Torah with Wisdom. One of the things Paul has certainly done that would be shocking to most strands of Early Jewish thought is his ascribing to Christ (and the Spirit) the roles and functions usually ascribed to Torah. Furthermore, for Paul, Christ is ultimate, not Torah. Christ is the telos of the Torah for Paul. This certainly helps understand how Christ and Wisdom are somehow identified in Paul.
Whatever the case, Paul’s setting typical aspects of varied Jewish apocalyptic-eschatological expectations (Spirit, Decisive Representative Figure, Sonship, etc.) over and against Torah-keeping and Israel as defined by Torah is certainly cutting against the grain. Even if this happens through a supposed Pauline “hyperbolic” use of such a combined tradition as you propose, it remains the case that Paul is “cutting against the grain” in placing Torah and Torah-keeping on the rescued-from side of the apocalyptic (salvation-historical?) divide.
I do not know if this addresses your questions.
July 2, 2008 at 6:35 am
Carlos,
Again, sorry for taking so long getting back to you. Your thoughts are certainly creative and plausible, especially as you are attempting to understand what Paul is doing in the matrix of Early Jewish thought—certainly one of the dominant horizons within which one should understand Paul.
If I understand you correctly, you are wondering if there is some precedent for what Paul did in possible Early Jewish traditions in which Torah, Wisdom, and the Messiah, have been bound up and identified in the figure of the Messiah? Paul then, working within such a traditional-complex, takes it even further than most Jews and subsumes the Torah so much into the identity of the Messiah that the Torah is relativized? Romans 10:4 would certainly spring to mind, with Messiah being the “telos” of the Torah. Again, this certainly shows an attempt to understand creatively why Paul does what he does and how he could have made the associations he made.
July 1, 2008 at 12:10 am
Sorry Carlos, my wife and I just got back from unloading our moving truck up in Providence. I have not had much internet access or time for much of the last week. I will get back to you asap. For now, sleep…
June 27, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Any of this sound plausible to you?
June 23, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Paul may very well have been tapping into a palpable expectation that the ultimate eschatological figure, Enoch=Messiah=Wisdom, was going to pour out God’s Spirit on the people.
The idea is expressed well in The Testament of Judah:
“Until the Lord visit you, when with perfect heart ye repent and walk in all His commandments, and He bring you up from captivity among the Gentiles. And after these things shall a star arise to you from Jacob in peace, And a man shall arise from my seed, like the sun of righteousness,
Walking with the sons of men in meekness and righteousness; And no sin shall be found in him. And the heavens shall be opened unto him, to pour out the spirit, even the blessing of the Holy Father; and He shall pour out the spirit of grace upon you; And ye shall be unto Him sons in truth, and ye shall walk in His commandments first and last.”
This picture sets the stage for the events recorded in Acts 2.
As before, this will depend upon whether something like the material contained in Test. of Judah could have been written at a time during which it might have had some cultural staying power in Galatia around the time of Paul.
June 23, 2008 at 7:03 pm
foolish tar heel,
(I think I know who you are…)
Anyhow…Have you read Hayes text “The conversion of the imagination?” He sees a connection to Deutero-Isaiah in this section of galations.
Just Curious…
Oh and if you are who I think you are, when are partaking of the lutheran sacrament together…
Pax Christi…Nick
June 23, 2008 at 5:03 pm
My impression is that Wisdom=Christ was a major theme in 1st C Christianity. I also understand Wisdom=Torah=Christ to have been rather widespread as well. Perhaps these were competing interpretations, perhaps not, but one option is to interpret Paul as not only prefering the former over the latter but setting Christ AGAINST Torah in Gal, an innovative thematic step.
I was thinking, though, along the lines that perhaps Paul was not so much cutting against the grain, as it were, but rather making a full hyberbolic use of the second tradition by going even further than it by way of his apparent collapse of Torah into Christ and invocation of the Spirit. Perhaps Christ was being presented as the spirit-filled Enoch=Messiah, after whose appearance Torah (as it was then adhered to) would duly lose its relevance/meaning/soteriological-eschatological role being subsumed into Christ, the ULTIMATE eschatological figure. This sort of reading has for some time intrigued me.
June 23, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Carlos,
Sorry, I had to do something before I could finish commenting…
You are certainly correct about Wisdom and Torah being identified. This seems to have happened across many strands of Early Judaism. The best known examples are from Sirach 24 and Baruch 3-4.
The quote you provide from the Parables of Enoch (ch37-71 of 1 Enoch) is usually studied as taking part in a shared world of discourse with Sirach 24 and Baruch 3-4. Strikingly, it reverses the thrust of Sirach and Baruch. Whereas in Sirach and Baruch Wisdom found a dwelling place (as Torah with Israel), in the Parables of Enoch, Wisdom went to dwell, did not find a place, and returned to the angels. Interestingly, part of the varied eschatology of the Parables of Enoch is the righteous (Israel) being transformed into and exalted to fellowship with the angels.
John 1 (especially 1.1-5) certainly does appear to be functioning somehow within the matrix of Jewish Wisdom-Torah traditions. On a related note, as with John 1.14 where the Word comes from God to dwell, so in Sirach 24 and Baruch 3-4 Wisdom comes to dwell with Israel.
I certainly agree with you about the “influence” (popularity) of the writings of 1 Enoch in the various horizons of the different NT writings and the Early Church. The Book of the Watchers (1 En. 1-36) was certainly considered authoritative-Scripture by many(most?) Early Jews, along with other of the writings of 1 Enoch. As is well known, Jude 14-15 cites the Book of the Watchers as Scripture.
The Parables of Enoch, from which you quote, are a particularly interesting case for relation to the NT. Most now regard the Parables as being from the end of the 1st century BCE or the beginning of the 1st century CE. The best known question/issue of their “influence” on the NT has to do with the so-called messianic figure in the Parables. He has 4 names: that Son of Man, the Chosen One, the Righteous One, and the Anointed (the first two names are the most frequent in the Parables). Daniel 7, Psalm 2, Isaiah 11, the Servant of the latter parts of Isaiah, etc., all factor into his presentation in the Parables of Enoch. Many scholars currently see parts of Matthew’s specific conceptions of the Son of Man as at least reflecting some of the developments of Son-of-Man tradition-history seen in the Parables of Enoch.
I do not know how relevant all of this is, but I thought I would throw it out there. I am interested to see what direction you are pondering bringing Wisdom traditions into the discussion of the Spirit and Torah in Paul. Again, many things come to mind, I just do not know how you meant what you wrote.
June 23, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Carlos,
Thanks for your comment.
Could you give me a little more direction in what you mean by connecting wisdom traditions to the notion of “spirit ‘minus’ torah in Paul”? Multiple different things come to mind, but I am not sure exactly what you meant.
June 23, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Very interesting. Have you thought of connecting wisdom traditions to the notion of spirit “minus” torah in Paul? I have found that in some contexts wisdom and torah are synonymous. The messiah can also be conjoined with these themes.
Although it is disputed, wisdom traditions seem operative in John 1, for example. Compare the following from 1 Enoch:
“Wisdom found not a place on earth where she could inhabit; her dwelling therefore is in heaven. Wisdom went forth to dwell among the sons of men, but she obtained not an habitation. Wisdom returned to her place, and seated herself in the midst of the angels. But iniquity went forth after her return, who unwillingly found an habitation, and resided among them, as rain in the desert, and as a dew in a thirsty land.” (Ch. 42)
I am persuaded 1 Enoch was very influential during the first century CE and may fundamentally bear upon some of the NT writings in ways that are only now beginning to come to light (assuming the pertinent section was written in time to be influential).