Other articles from this issue | Version in English | Version in French

Discussion
Piet Van Boxel

Question:
Is it true that the letter to the Galatians denies the value of the Torah, or is it a discussion on the value of circumcision for Christians of Gentile origin?

Answer:
To make a distinction between circumcision and the Torah seems to me incorrect. As sign and symbol of the covenant, circumcision points intrinsically to the Torah and implies the fulfilment of the commandments. As to the problem dealt with in the letter to the Galatians, this is certainly circumcision, which Paul does not want to be imposed on Christians. It is this main concern which Paul, in the form of an admonition, summarizes with his own hand at the end of the letter (Gal. 6: 12ss). This does not mean however that Paul dealt with circumcision as isolated from its implication of keeping the Torah. Repeatedly the opposition between justification through faith in Jesus Christ and justification through works of the law is emphasized in this letter. This basic aspect of pauline theology, in which faith is the only salvific category, deprives the Torah of its significance with regard to redemption (see e.g. Gal. 2:16). When we now take into consideration the indissoluble link between circumcision and the fulfilment of the commandments we cannot but conclude that the rejection of circumcision for Gentile Christians expresses the same theological point of view as that of the opposition between faith and works. We find this conclusion confirmed in Gal. 5:3-4 where Paul draws the conclusion that one who is circumcised is obliged to keep the whole of the Torah.

Question:
Is it legitimate to speak of the abolition of the Torah in the letter to the Galatians? The point here is whether Gentiles have to adopt the Jewish halabah or whether they may express their obedience to the God of Israel in a different way. Nowhere does Paul say that Jews are not bound by the halabah.

Answer:
With regard to the abolition of the Torah we certainly have to distinguish between Christians of Gentile and of Jewish origin. As a matter of fact the Torah was a value for the Jewish Christians in the primitive community; they kept the commandments. I have given only one example — Matt. 12:11 — a text in which the accepted significance of the oral Torah may be presupposed. Other examples from the gospels could be added. Special attention should be paid to Acts, where the primitive Christian community is described with somewhat Jewish traits, implying obedience to the Torah. Though we should not take this picture simply as a historical description of the primitive community, the actual presentation by the author of Acts was obviously acceptable; thus, from this point of view, the Torah was certainly not abolished. According to Acts, even Paul himself kept the Torah (see e.g. 21: 17- 26). This picture is quite different from that which we find in the pauline letters. Due either to a personal esteem for the Torah or to the claim of the Jewish Christian community with which he did not want to lose contact, Paul was faithful to the Law. So with regard to the Jewish Christians Paul did not abolish the Torah, and he did not even have the authority to do so. This means that his negative presentation of the Torah in his letters may not be taken too generally, and that this presentation was caused by the special limitations of those letters.

One remark however could be made with regard to Paul's estimation of the Law. We must be aware of the fact that his attitude to the Torah, as far as the Gentiles were concerned, was not a necessary consequence of the preaching of the gospel. In the Jewish structure of the messianic age it was expected that the Gentiles also would accept the yoke of the Torah. Paul, seeing himself and his community living in the post-messianic age, did not accept this tradition. This means actually that for Paul the Torah had lost its unique and universal role in salvation history, which in this sense means abolition.

Remark by Rabbi Gottlieb:
As to the relationship between Gentiles and the Torah, I would like to point out the different functions which in Jewish tradition are ascribed to the Torah. The mitzvah is either a goal in itself, being one of the ways through which God wanted to establish his relationship with man, or it is understood as the consequence of Israel's sin and has then the function of preserving Israel from sinning again. In this last interpretation it is Israel alone that is subject to the Law; Gentiles are not bound to the mitzvot since they did not participate in Israel's fault. Now this tradition could be the background of the pauline theology that only Israel is bound by the Law and not the Gentiles.

But there is with regard to this question still another possibility, namely the Torah in the perspective of the Kingdom. Here the Torah's function is to normalize the relation between man and creation and between man and God. When this goal is realized, the way or tool necessary to reach that goal loses its significance. Now with regard to the end of time, the popular conception of the midrash distinguishes between two periods. The first is the messianic time, the second is the world to come. Between these two periods there is a lapse of forty years. In this perspective death and resurrection were Paul's main pre-occupations and one can understand that he eliminated every earthly preoccupation because of the nearness of this resurrection. And even the Jews are told that the Law has come to an end and that even they do not need the Law anymore because the completion of time has come about. On the eve of the resurrection the Law is no longer necessary. This Paul proves in Rom. 4:3 by referring to Gen. 15:5, which text he uses as the solution of the discussion on works and faith according to the 13th middah of R. Ismael: the proof-text of Gen. 15:5 closes the discussion in favour of faith, which means the end of the Law.

Question:
I would like to stress that Paul's preaching the cross of Jesus Christ in the first place means a way of life, a halahah if you like. This way of life is very difficult as Paul shows in Rom. 8:36 pointing to death as the destiny of Christians, which is a quotation of Ps. 44:23.

Answer:
I would not like to give the impression that we do not find any directives for Christian behaviour in pauline literature. The opposite is true: the paranesis is an integral part of pauline theology, which possibly includes even Jewish material. Rom. 8:36 is, though perhaps not so much a concrete halahah, certainly the consequence of the radical choice of those who believe in Jesus Christ. But my question is whether Paul used concrete and established Jewish halahah as binding authority for Christians. Now this seems not to be the case, which appears to me to be due to the fact that Paul devalued the significance of the Torah as such with regard to salvation history. This position creates a situation that can lead to disorder in the Christian community as we see in Gal. 5: 13ss, since such an attitude towards the Torah implies that the halahic tradition has lost its authority, which leaves a gap as far as the Christian way of life is concerned. To fill this gap is legitimate and even necessary as time goes on. Since the messianic perspective of the Christian community no longer coincides with the view of Paul, the significance of the Torah and the halahic tradition can therefore be re-examined. This however is a difficult task, because Christian theology in general is very much dependent on pauline theology. Nevertheless the influence (Wirkungsgeschichte') of pauline theology on the Christian tradition should be questioned.

Question:
Distinguishing between halahic and messianic perspectives, I would like to make this remark: Christianity in its origin is the history of "messianic failure". In the garden of Gethsemane Jesus did not — as one could have expected — reveal himself as the Messiah. Neither was the messianic expectation fulfilled in the history of the primitive church. Paul saw the messianic vision of the unity of Jews and Gentiles as foretold in Is. 2 — when all the Gentiles will re-assemble on Mount Zion — and according to Zachariah 14 where it is said that on that day the Lord will be one and his Name will be one. Paul saw this vision, but it was not realized; the Church became a Gentile enterprise and the unity between Jews and Gentiles failed to come. So God has not allowed his Church to enter into the messianic age, but he delivered her to this world. It seems to me therefore very important to study the patristic literature of the second century in order to see how Christianity was able to survive and continue. Does patristic literature in one way or another rely on Jewish halal-ph?

Answer:
I did not deal in detail with this basic part of Christian tradition. The use of 1 Cor. 9:9s in patristic literature in any case does not point that way.

Remark:
I would like to comment on Gen. 1:26ss. The verb `radah' is modified in various ways within Genesis. In Gen. 1:26ss it is first said: let him rule'. But when the command comes in v 28 it says: 'conquer the earth'. We should not forget that in the Bible we are talking about a world which is a difficult and dangerous place, which is always threatening to return into chaos, so we have to conquer it, and license is given to man in these verses to survive. The verb `radah' means here a real battle for survival in a dangerous world. Furthermore the verb `radah' is modified in the passages of the flood. There we are told two new things. One, that the relationship of the animals to man is one of fear, and secondly, that these animals are put into our hands. Now, following the flood where man was responsible for the survival of the animals, we have a different expression of the relationship between the two. It is no longer a straightforward 'go out and conquer'; it is a very realistic awareness that man's presence in the world produces its own potential disasters and that the security and continuation of the world is now in man's hands. This is already a modification within the same strand of material, whether you read it either exegetically or traditionally. To this Gen. 2 could be added, where we see that the world is completed only when man is there to serve it and until man is thereto serve it it is not fulfilling its full purpose. So here `redu' and `abood' are two complementary parts. It puzzles me why contemporary exegesis with regard to the ecological problems only ever focuses on `radah' and does not take a wider view, for it seems to me that we have already within those verses of the Bible the pre-supposition upon which the rabbinic interpretation is based.
A second remark concerns the siddur, which should be taken into account when we are looking for Jewish interpretations. Here I am thinking of a passage of the mornig prayer: "Whatever man is more than animals is nothing, because everything is nothing". This passage is balanced by saying: "But we are your people and the children of your covenant". This means that all that makes man more than the animal is his relationship with God. This prayer shows not so much opinions as the way Jews every day pray and live with certain values.

Answer:
As to your first remark: that I quoted from Gen. 1:26ss was precisely due to the fact that this text alone was taken by the second Vatican Council as the basis for its reflexions with regard to the relationship between man and the world. Your remark on the modifications of the verb `radah' shows once more that it can be dangerous to base theological reflexions on one isolated Bible text. It seems more fruitful to start with a biblical way of thinking as a critical inspiration for Christian behaviour. Only then has one the framework in which a specific text can function rightly. As to your second remark: Christian prayers also show Christian convictions and values. As far as the relationship between man and nature is concerned, this can be illustrated by the prayer in the Roman missal in which a positive attitude of the Christian towards the world is completely lacking: `despicere terrena et amare coelestia'. In the renewal of the liturgy undertaken by the second Vatican Council this phrase has been changed into `moderare terrena et amare coelestia'. This change certainly shows a re-evaluation of earthly things. So we see in the Christian prayer book also a positive development with regard to our question.