Paul and the Mosaic Law: The Third Durham-Tubingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism (Durham, September, 1994)

Paul and the Mosaic Law: The Third Durham-Tubingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism (Durham, September, 1994). Edited by James D. G. Dunn. WUNT 89. Tibingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1996, xi + 368 pp., DM 248.

Perhaps the most contentious issue in contemporary Pauline research is Paul's understanding of the law. This work contains a series of essays presented and discussed in Durham, England on September 19-23, 1994. The lineup of scholars who participated is truly impressive and a wide variety of subjects is tackled. The work commences with an introduction by Dunn. Hermann Lichtenberger briefly describes the Jewish view of the Torah during Paul's day, and Martin Hengel explores Paul's understanding of the law from his conversion until his arrival in Antioch. Jan Lambrecht and Bruce Longenecker suggest alternate interpretations of Gal 2:15-21, while Graham Stanton tackles the law of Moses and Christ in Gal 3:1-6:2. The letter and spirit in 2 Corinthians 3 is examined by Karl Kertelge. N. T. Wright presents Paul's view of the law in Romans 2, and Richard Hays studies Romans 3-4. The contrast between Adam and Christ is carefully interpreted by Otfried Hofius, and the hermeneutical contribution of Romans 7 is sketched in by Hans Hubner. Stephen Westerholm sets forth Paul's view of the law in Romans 9-11. Heikki Raisanen responds to Westerholm, and Westerholm in turn reacts to Raisanen's critique. Peter Tomson helps us think about Paul's Jewish background in 1 Corinthians 7, and Stephen Barton ponders the sociological impact of 1 Cor 9:19-23. John Barclay reflects on the contribution of Rom 14:1-15:6 for understanding Paul's view of the law, and Dunn concludes the work with an essay titled "In Search of Common Ground." A useful bibliography of works composed on the law between 1980-1994 is also included.

The essays are of high quality throughout. In a short review I can only mention a few that piqued my interest. Graham Stanton in his essay on Galatians 3-6 reminds us that the letter was experienced primarily at the oral level. This methodological observation prevents us from "over-reading" the letter, for the main theme-the opposition between faith and the law-is clear when one reads the letter as a whole. Stanton also provocatively contrasts and compares Galatians with Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. This comparison provides an entree into the exegesis of Galatians 3-6 as a whole, an exegesis that is level-headed and stimulating.

One of the most interesting and creative writes on the scene today is N. T. Wright, and his essay on Romans 2 does not disappoint. He rightly argues that the chapter must be interpreted in light of the OT witness. Thus, the Jewish failure to keep the law testifies that Israel is still in exile because of its sin and that the covenantal promises given to Israel were not yet fulfilled in the nation. Conversely, the doing of the law by the Gentiles indicates that the covenantal promises given to the Gentiles are becoming a reality. I find Wright's contention that the keeping of the law by Gentile Christians relates to "status" less convincing. The Ezekiel 36 text, which informs Romans 2, teaches that those who have the Spirit will keep God's low (Ezek 36:26-27). Wright's exegesis also introduces a strange disjunction into the chapter, for on his reading the Jews are indicted for transgressing God's law, whereas the Gentiles are praised not because they keep God's law or because their lives are transformed but because they have a new status. It must be asked what evidence exists for the new status of Gentiles. After all, Jews also claimed to have a righteous relationship with God, but Paul argues that their behavior falsifies the claim. Conversely, he maintains that the changed behavior of the Gentiles testifies to their new status before God. Wright's view, on its own terms (if I understand him correctly), comes dangerously close to the very charge which Paul levels against the Jews in Romans 2. Wright claims that the Jewish nation as a whole is culpable if any Jews are guilty of adultery, stealing or temple robbery. But would the same standard apply to the Church? Would a single adulterer in the new community show that the covenant is unfulfilled? Wright seems to escape by postulating a new community that is marked by status rather than by doing. This solution seems to lift Paul's theology out of the realm of the real world into an abstract world in which his view could never be falsified.

Westerholm with his usual elegant and witty style explains Paul's view of the law in Romans 9-11 and relates it to Paul's understanding of divine election. He emphasizes the priority of God's grace, but maintains (rightly in my view) that God's grace does not rule out the importance of human response, even though human faith is invariably due to God's gracious work. Westerholm also takes issue with the view that Paul's critique of the law can be confined to salvation history or Jewish nationalism. A fundamental dichotomy between faith and works is also apparent. Barclay's essay on Romans 14-15 is also instructive. He rightly argues that the issue under discussion relates to food laws in Judaism and the observance of the sabbath. Attitudes toward these Jewish customs in the Greco-Roman world are helpfully sketched in. Barclay says that Paul's advice is that the strong should only eat food (and drink) that is inoffensive to Jews at their common meals. No prescriptions are imposed upon the strong for eating their meals in the privacy of their own homes. In effect, Paul protects the lawobservance of the weak, even though he sides theologically with the strong. One of Barclay's most interesting observations, a correct one in my opinion, is that Paul's instruction on these matters ultimately undermines the validity of the Mosaic law. The weak are required to maintain fellowship and to desist from judging those who do not observe the law. Such associations can only have the effect of relativizing the law's importance in the long run. Paul has made it abundantly clear that abiding by the prescriptions of the Torah is finally irrelevant and unimportant.