Review of Rudolph's and Willitts' Introduction to Messianic Judaism

Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Contextand Biblical Foundations. Edited by David J. Rudolph and Joel Willitts. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013, 335 pp., $26.99. 

David Rudolph and Joel Willitts have put together an important collection of essays addressing a contemporary religious movement (Messianic Judaism) that many are unaware of and a contemporary hermeneutical shift (post-supersessionism) that is beginning to take hold in some quarters of the biblical studies world. The book begins, after an important introduction by Rudolph, with 13 essays written by self-identified Messianic Jews and then 14 essays written by several leading NT scholars and theologians. It concludes with an extensive summary of each essay written by Willitts and an integrative conclusion pointing out the contemporary significance with regard to the book’s topic. This volume brings together authors who share a general outlook with regard to the continuing covenantal identity for Jews and represents an excellent model of cross-communal dialogue. The highly recommended book would be useful as a supplemental text in New Testament and theology courses, especially graduate seminars focused on ecclesiology and hermeneutics. It is written at a scholarly but accessible level and the short chapters keep the arguments moving forward while directing the reader to locations for more extensive coverage of the topic being discussed.  

It would be unwise to cover all 28 chapters in this brief review and Willitts’ chapter already does this. So, I will focus my comments on four chapters from each part, those that highlight several issues I found particularly probative, especially since I write and research from a similar post-supersessionist perspective. In chapter 1, Rudolph defines what he means by Messianic Judaism, “we are referring to a religious tradition in which Jews have claimed to follow Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah of Israel while continuing to live within the orbit of Judaism” (p. 21). This distinguishes the approach put forth in Part 1 from those who align more closely with Messianic Judaism as a sub-group identity within Protestant Evangelicalism. Rudolph notes that Jewish followers of Jesus continued for the first four centuries of our era and only disappeared under the threat of Constantine's sword and canon law (p. 25). It emerged again during the 18^th century and continues today in rather diverse expressions. The diversity evident among Messianic Jews is expressed in several important ways, e.g., Stuart Dauermann’s essay on “Messianic Jewish Outreach” is indicative of a critical debate over evangelism or, as Dauermann prefers, the not-synonymous-term “outreach” (p. 94). Outreach does proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah but the social implications of this message go beyond the individualistic discourse often associated with evangelism. It finds itself more closely aligned with the wider Jewish community in the way discipleship is expressed. The most intriguing aspect of Dauermann’s essay is the idea that gentile and Jewish repentance differs (p. 95). This insight is very important and sets a framework for a Torah-informed repentance that is oftentimes overlooked (see Rom 2:12; p. 96).  

Another area in which diversity is expressed is found in Mark Kinzer’s essay, one whose influence is found throughout the first part of this book. Kinzer’s concern is the liminal state Messianic Jews find themselves with regard to Evangelical Protestantism on the one hand and the wider Jewish community on the other. His essay describes the way Hashivenu and the UMJC have sought to carve out a place for Messianic Judaism within the contemporary expressions of Judaism. This is clearly a hotly debated but intriguing development. Most of the debates relate to “the evangelical theological tenets of biblical and soteriological exclusivism” (p. 128). Kinzer’s broader influence has been felt in the publication of Postmissionary Messianic Judaism, the term “postmissionary” was chosen to make an ecclesial point: “Messianic Jews are not called to be representatives of the Christian community operating within another religious community (i.e., the Jewish people) but to be fully part of the Jewish world in both religious and national terms. In fact, they are to represent the Jewish community in relation to the Church, rather than the reverse” (p. 132). What Kinzer’s work does is to allow the church to think through the social implications of what it means to be part of the commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12). While the debates over a more inclusivist soteriology will undoubtedly continue, Kinzer’s “bilateral ecclesiology” should not be lost in the discussion for the way the church could relate to the Jewish people (p. 137). One final area of diversity should be noted, Daniel Juster’s essay brings to the fore the debates over the way Messianic Jews relate to the broader gentile Christian world. Here the debates over supersessionism and the sordid history of anti-Judaism create significant communal tensions. The idea of one body of Messiah that is expressed in two different ways is crucial for the continuation of “unity with distinction? (pp. 137, 142). This is seen as Jews are encouraged to continue to relate to God as Jews and, with the exception of the “One Law” movement, gentiles are encouraged to relate to God as gentiles, all in a relationship of “interdependence” and “mutual blessing” (p. 142; see further on this Tucker, Remain in Your Calling, pp. 115-35).  

In Part 2 the essays focus on the church and Messianic Judaism. I will highlight four of these essays, all of which are crucial for the development of a post-supersessionist approach to the NT. William S.Campbell’s essay “The Relationship between Israel and the Church” provides a post-supersessionist reading of Romans 9-11. This programmatic essay provides several interpretive trajectories for future scholars thinking about issues of supersessionism. For example, Campbell in reflecting on the purpose of Romans and the interdependence between gentiles and Jews in Christ concludes that “Israel is not merely a historical antecedent to the church, and the church has not replaced, and cannot displace, her in the divine purpose. Israel belongs to the present and future of the church and not merely to her inception” (p. 204). Anders Runesson’s essay “Paul’s Rule in All the Ekklēsiai” discusses 1 Cor 7:17-24 and argues that this passage provides scholars with a potential center for Paul’s theologizing. Runesson understands Paul’s rule to include the view that “socioethnic differences between the two groups [Jews and gentiles] ‘in Christ’” was expected by Paul and that the way each obeyed God’s commandments will look different based on this pattern of thought (p. 218). Also, Runesson is undoubtedly correct in noting that the use of ekklēsia by Paul should be understand as pointing to the idea that the Pauline movement was still within the broader synagogue community at this point (rather than disconnected from it) (p. 220). 

Justin Hardin’s essay addresses whether Gal 3:28 and Ephesians 2:14-18 should be understood to indicate that Paul sought to collapse ethnicity. He concludes, with regard to Gal 3:28 that Paul does not seek to obliterate ethnic identities: “On the contrary in this verse Paul announced the glorious universal reality that through faith in the Messiah, there is equality as children of Abraham across ethnic (as well as gender and social) boundaries” (pp. 228-29). In a similar way, Eph 2:14-18 does not erase ethnicity in the creation of the “one new humanity”; rather, it is a metaphor of “oneness” used by Paul to address the nature of the peace given in Christ (p. 231). Thus, those who claim that Paul develops a “race-less people” have overstated their position (p. 232). The idea that existing identities continue in Christ is a theme that is developed in Campbell, Runesson, and Hardin; however, Joel Willitts’ essay develops this further and in a way that provides an eschatological rationale for the continuation of ethnicity in Christ. Willitts researches Revelation 19-22 from a Jewish context (e.g., the bride imagery and Isaiah) and concludes that the New Heavens and New Earth are patterned on a Davidic city. Thus, Israel’s identity is never superseded and that “John teaches that Israel’s distinctive role in God’s administration of creation continues eternally” (p. 253). This interpretive approach provides a challenge to aspects of both amillennialism and premillenialism. Israel’s distinctive purposes are never supplanted (p. 246). 

Rudolph and Willitts are to be commended for putting together such a substantial volume. This book deserves wide attention from scholars, pastors, seminary students, and obviously those within the Messianic Jewish movement. It provides insights into the religious diversity evident in our contemporary context as well as alerting the reader to the emergence of a new paradigm for New Testament interpretation, i.e., post-supersessionism.

Review of David J. Rudolph's A Jew to the Jews

David J. Rudolph, A Jew to the Jews. (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 304) Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,  2011). xii + 290 pp., £69 (sewn paper), ISBN  978-3-16-149293-8.

The chameleon is the quintessential image for a constantly changing individual. Proteus was an early sea-god who would change his shape in order to avoid capture. These images resonate with aspects of the scholarly consensus with regard to Paul’s claim that he became ‘all things to all people’. He remained Torah-observant among Jews but not among the non-Jews. Since the New Testament does not explicitly describe Paul engaging in such diverse practices, scholars fill in the gaps in the textual record with claims that Paul was just such a protean figure, one whose behaviors would change depending on his context. This raises an important interpretive question: is this a valid understanding of Paul and his mission practice among non-Jews? Was Paul a chameleon? 

In A Jew to the Jews, David J. Rudolph sets out to problematize the consensus view with regard to Paul’s lack of continued Torah-observance in his gentile mission. He sets out two parallel research paths for himself: (1) to show that 1 Cor 9.19-23 may not be irrefutable evidence for Paul’s lack of continued Torah-observance; and (2) to provide a constructive reading of this passage that results in understanding Paul as one who continued to be Torah-observant in his mission. This monograph is a revision of Rudolph’s 2007 Cambridge University Ph.D. thesis, which was supervised by Markus Bockmuehl. Revised theses often only account for subsequent scholarship at a minimal level; however, Rudolph’s revisions, when compared to the 2007 thesis version, are substantial and result in a thoroughly up-to-date work that engages scholarship as late as 2010, making this work that much more significant, and a good model for recent Ph.D. graduates who might be tempted not to make important revisions to their work before publication.

Chapter 1 introduces Rudolph’s argument by providing an overview of the case for the traditional reading of 1 Cor 9.19-23. He surveys contemporary scholarship with regard to the intertextual, contextual, and textual arguments that are marshalled in defence of the consensus interpretation. He then points out four areas in which the traditional view reflects interpretive inadequacies with regard to Paul’s context: (1) the practical impossibility of being ‘all things to all people’; (2) the presentation of Jews as ‘simpletons’; (3) the lack of evidence that Paul employed this strategy; and (4) the dismissal of both the Pauline and Lukan texts that present Paul as one who continues to be Torah observant (12-13). This final factor is central to Rudolph’s argument. Next, he briefly notes three other scholars who have read Paul in ways similar to himself: Peter Tomson, Mark Nanos, and Mark Kinzer. Rudolph establishes differences between his approach and theirs and suggests there is sufficient warrant for a reassessment of the scholarly framework with regard to whether 1 Cor 9.19-23 ‘precludes a Torah-observant Paul’ (17). This last phrase is an important qualifier in that Rudolph is not trying to prove that Paul remained Torah-observant; rather, his goal is to point out that scholars overstate their claim when they read 1 Cor 9.19-23 as indisputable evidence that Paul ceased to be Torah observant. The rest of the monograph addresses the intertextual, contextual, and textual arguments alluded to earlier in the introduction, and then it concludes with a proposed interpretation of 1 Cor 9.19-23 that fulfils Rudolph’s secondary goal of providing a reading of this passage that could allow for it to be understood ‘as the discourse of a Torah-observant Jew’ (18).

Chapter 2 surveys the key scriptural texts that are alluded to in the broader debate over the salience of Paul’s Jewish identity. The first part of the chapter addresses whether Paul’s Jewishness is inconsequential now that he is in Christ. Rudolph argues that Timothy’s circumcision, referenced in Acts 16.3, and the controverted phrase dia tous Ioudaious addresses timing issues and not circumcision itself. Next he addresses the putative erasure discourse in Paul’s writings and provides a series of convincing non-erasure readings for the following: (1) ‘circumcision is nothing’ (1 Cor 7.19; Gal 5.6; 6.15); (2) ‘no longer Jew or Greek’ (Gal 3.28); (3) third entity language (1 Cor 10.32); (4) ‘weak in faith’ discourse (Rom 14); (5) ‘former way of life’ and ‘rubbish’ language (Gal 1.13; Phil 3.8); and (6) ‘live like a gentile and not like a Jew’ discourse (Gal 2.14). Rudolph concludes that these verses do not indicate that Paul no longer considered himself a Jew; rather, he understood his Jewish identity as an ongoing calling in Christ. The second half of this chapter provides a constructive reading of Acts 21.17-26; Gal 5.3; Rom 2.25, 4.11-12, 16, 11.29, and 1 Cor 7.17-24 to suggest that Paul remained a Torah-observant Jew (89). Based on chapter 2, though the dominant segment of New Testament scholars would suggest otherwise, the label ‘Paul the Chameleon’ would be entirely inappropriate for the apostle, and Rudolph’s arguments are quite persuasive in this regard, especially his reading of Romans 14, 1 Cor 7.17-24. Those who seek to continue to view Paul as one whose Jewishness ceases to be significant will have to engage Rudolph’s arguments for those two passages.

Chapter 3 focuses more properly on the text of 1 Corinthians. Rudolph provides a contextual analysis of 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 that establishes Paul’s instruction concerning food offered to idols and the way these chapters may be understood as not being the teaching of one who has broken the boundaries of pluriform Second Temple Judaism. Rudolph addresses four issues that New Testament scholars have focused on with regard to this section: (1) the compositional unity of the passage; (2) the presence of the strong and the weak in the passage; (3) the situational permission with regard to eating idol food; and (4) the relationship of Paul’s teaching here with the apostolic decree in Acts 15. The most important findings are that, although Christ-followers were not permitted to eat idol food in cultic contexts, indeterminate food was permitted outside those contexts. However, idol food was still not permitted once it was known to be such, even outside the cultic context. So, Paul’s localized, contextualized teaching here is quite in line with the non-situational apostolic decree (101). This teaching, argues Rudolph, was quite Jewish in its orientation. He provides several reasons for his claim, the most substantial being the use of skandalizō two times in 1 Cor 8.13, a term that connects Paul’s teaching with Lev 19.14, thus placing Paul’s discourse within proper ‘Jewish ethical categories of thought and legal traditions surrounding Leviticus 19’ (104). So, rather than seeing Paul in 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 as one arguing in a non-Jewish fashion, he may be seen as one applying the principles of Jewish teaching and learning discourse in a flexible manner for gentiles in Christ. Rudolph concludes his contextual discussion by briefly noting the function of 1 Cor 9 within the literary unit of 1 Cor 8.1-11.1. He rightly sets aside the idea that Paul was defending his apostleship here; rather, ‘the central point of 1 Cor 9 is Paul’s renunciation of all rights (even those rights provided by Mosaic law and the Lord Jesus’ command) for the sake of the gospel’ (107-8).

Chapter 4 focuses in on the textual issues in 1 Cor 9.19-23. Rudolph begins by addressing possible contextual frameworks for Paul’s accommodation discourse. He concludes that there are no explicit references to Greco-Roman philosophical traditions nor any allusions convincing enough to accept the claim that Paul is working within an accepted accommodation topoi. Rudolph then surveys Second Temple texts to see if they provide insight into the adaptation language evident in Paul’s teaching. He concludes that there is evidence for similarities with regard ‘to the mindset of a first-century Jewish guest who seeks to please his host in everything’ (147). Next Rudolph considers whether the gospel traditions provide a proper framework for understanding Paul’s adaptation principle. He affirms Kim’s (2003) overall approach to the presence of an imitatio Christi discourse in 1 Cor 9.19-23, though he rightly sets aside Kim’s rather explicit supersessionist understanding of Mark 7.19b. This will be an important part of Rudolph positive reading in chapter 5, a reading that places Rudolph firmly in the post-supersessionist approach to New Testament interpretation. Finally, he concludes chapter 4 with detailed discussions of the semantic variations of the language in 1 Cor 9.19-23. Rudolph’s conclusions here form the basis of his reading that Paul may be understood in these verses to be a Torah-observant Jew. As Part I of A Jew to the Jews comes to a close, it is now clear that Rudolph does not think that Paul was a chameleon in any sense of the word. He was one who, it could be argued, maintained Torah observance not as missional adaptation, rather as a valid expression of covenant fidelity to the God of Israel.

Chapter 5 provides Rudolph’s understanding of Paul as a Jew who continued to faithfully observe Torah throughout his mission among the nations by ‘imitating Christ’s accommodation and open table-fellowship’ (173). He views the flexibility evident in 1 Cor 9.19-23 as an expression of Paul’s belief that his Jewishness is a calling that continues in Christ, and that this passage can be understood ‘as the discourse of a Jew who remained within the bounds of pluriform Second Temple Judaism’ (173). He reads 1 Cor 9.19-23 as an expression of Paul’s imitation of Jesus’ interchange and accommodation-oriented table-fellowship with all. Rudolph argues that Paul was aware of Jesus’ rule of adaptation evident in the words ‘eat what is set before you’ (Luke 10.7-8). This rule originally focused primarily on ‘clean food of doubtful or defiled status’, but Paul expands it to apply to the questions relating to idol-food in Corinth (190).

Rudolph frames Paul’s statement ‘all things to all people’, not as a claim that Paul ceased to be Torah-observant, rather as an example of the way he applied Jesus’ adaptability rule, Jesus who likewise remained Torah-observant (Mark 5.17-20). Rudolph summarizes his view: ‘As Jesus became all things to all people through eating with ordinary Jews, Pharisees and sinners, Paul became “all things to all people” through eating with ordinary Jews, strict Jews (those “under the law”) and Gentile sinners’ (190). Paul’s halakhah with regard to commensality was flexible, and he adjusted it, as a bi-cultural mediator, based on his context (1 Cor 10.25-30).

Concerning the continued relevance of Paul’s Jewish identity, Rudolph understands Paul to be one who argued for the continuation of Jewish identity within the Christ-movement. He builds his case on 1 Cor 7.17-24, which teaches that Jews ‘in Christ’ should continue Torah observance as a vital expression of their calling from God. With regard to the claim that Jewish identity and Torah observance were inconsequential to Paul since the coming of Christ, Rudolph thinks that Paul kept his ‘rule in all the churches’ as one who ‘was “not without the law of God” (1 Cor 9.21)’ (212). Rudolph’s study is masterful, an argumentative tour de force that requires serious engagement by those contending that Jewish identity is no longer relevant for Jews ‘in Christ’. It will most likely be looked at as a seminal work among New Testament scholars engaged in post-supersessionist interpretation.

While it is clear that Paul should not be labelled a chameleon, and in this Rudolph’s study remains quite convincing, it is still hard to determine if it is possible to avoid the charges of hypocrisy that would be levelled against Paul for even these adaptable practices. Rudolph’s study rightly focuses on the behaviours evident in the text, but Paul may also be continuing his discussion of the way previous identities are transformed ‘in Christ’. Thus, I would suggest that 1 Cor 9.20-21 may evidence Paul’s principle of social identity adaptation. This is only a slight adjustment to Rudolph, taking into consideration the claims of duplicity mentioned by Nanos (2009) but still follows Rudolph and Tomson (1990) in seeing 1 Cor 9.20-21 as evidence of a relaxed halakhah with regard to the idolatrous intentions of the gentiles. Thus, this passage connects with Paul’s mission among the gentiles and his teaching concerning mission as social identification for those in Corinth (see Tucker 2011).

If we extend the metaphor we began with, Paul is not a chameleon who changes his color, i.e., one who picks up and sets down his Jewish identity (even if that would have been possible) in order to take the gospel to the nations. However, we might describe him as the ‘Chameleon Paul’ if by that we mean one who was comfortable in diverse cultural environments, able to socially identify (but not integrate) with non-Jews as an expression of his theologizing. His focus on the negotiation of the practicalities of life within the Christ-movement would have been familiar to the Jews but new to gentiles in Christ (Ehrensperger 2011: 18). This metaphor is especially apropos since chameleons really cannot change their color in the first place; rather, they react to changing environmental situations and thus only appear to change. Maybe it is time to revisit scholarly misconceptions with regard to Paul’s so-called lifestyle adaptability. Rudolph’s monograph, A Jew to the Jews, provides a helpful starting point for addressing a number of these long-held and deeply-engrained views on Paul, his identity, and his mission.

References:

Ehrensperger, K. 2011. ‘All Things are Lawful but Not All Things are Helpful—All Things are Lawful but not All Things Build Up (1 Cor 10.23)—Identity Formation in the Space Between.’ Paper presented at the SNTS General Meeting, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY.

Kim, S. 2003. ‘Imitatio Christi (1 Corinthians 11:1): How Paul Imitates Jesus Christ in Dealing with Idol Food (1 Corinthians 8-10).’ Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.2: 193-206.

Nanos, M. 2009. ‘Paul’s Relationship to Torah in Light of His Strategy “to Become Everything to Everyone” (1 Corinthians 9:19–23).’ Paper presented at New Perspectives on Paul and the Jews: Interdisciplinary Academic Seminary, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium.

Tomson, P. J. 1990. Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Tucker, J. B. 2011. Remain in Your Calling: Paul and the Continuation of Social Identities in 1 Corinthians. Eugene, OR: Pickwick.

SBL Midwest Night One - Texts and Jewish Identity

I Attended the Plenary Session tonight on Social Identity based on Texts and Archaeology: The Jews. Gary Knoppers, from Penn State University, presented a paper entitled 'Social Identity Based on Texts and Archaeology: The Jews of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods'. Since I am writing a commentary on Ezra, I was most interested in this paper. He looked at recent archaeological evidence dealing with the 'town of Judah' and discussed the implications of vertical alliances and Artaxerxes' juridical charge to Ezra (Ez. 7.25-26). The Priestly linage of Ezra was discussed, his argument here is based an essay in his book, Community Identity in Judean Historiography (Eisenbrauns, 2009). He concluded with the role of the Temple in Jerusalem in the development of Judean identity (Ez. 7. 13-24). Overall it was a good paper, though, I am hesitant to use archaeology to determine specific nodes of social identity. However, he is right to note that there is a discernible diasporic Jewish identity during this period.

David Rudolph's paper was entitled 'Jesus-Believing Jews and Kol Yisrael: Rethinking Long-Held Assumptions'. David's paper felt like a summary of recent post-supersession reading of the NT. Furthermore, it was a nice summary of key arguments from his dissertation, which will be out next year, its entitled A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). David is interested in understanding how Jewish Christ-followers understood themselves in relation to others. He focused on the parting of the ways, which he explains should be dated to the 4th century CE. Next he looked at how Jesus-believing Jews understood themselves, he built on Paul Foster's work on Matthew. Finally, he discussed halakhic interpretations within the early Christ-movement. David concludes that Paul understood the Christ-movement as two segments (Jews and gentiles) united by faith in Christ.

Carol Bakhos of UCLA presented a paper entitled 'The World of the Rabbis: Fact and/or Fiction'. She started out by saying that she would not be discussing Jewish social identity during the Rabbinic period because she is not convinced that we can discern this from the extant texts. Her approach reminded of Judith Lieu's but she is right in noting that there is a need for an awareness of narrative discourse, attention to the way others discuss the same communities, and that there needs to be a rubric of categories in which these texts can be organized into meaning artifacts for the analysis of identity (a taxonomy of identity? someone should write one, maybe I will?). She looked at how Arabs are depicted in the Talmud as a case study for her approach. She also mentioned that the Iranian context of the Talmud is an area of emerging research. I found her presentation quite interesting and thought provoking.