Luther\u2019s influence on the way we read Paul is considerable, and I have no intention of criticizing Luther\u2019s application of Paul\u2019s writings to his own time and experience: that is a separate issue. But it is certainly a priori<\/i>likely that the situation Paul confronted in the context of 1st century Judaism was not<\/i> exactly the same as that which Luther addressed in 16th century Catholicism, a millenium and a half later.<\/p>\n
Paul keeps coming back to one particular work of the Law: circumcision. But few seem to notice that this is probably the least appropriate \u2018work of the Law\u2019 for him to choose to represent or symbolize self-justification and self-righteousness. Circumcision was normally done when one was 8 days old (and I don\u2019t recall being concerned to justify myself before God through my own accomplishment at that age, although my memory is admittedly spotty for that particular stage in my life), and it is done to the male infant by someone else. Hardly an obvious choice of works to represent human accomplishment and the attempt to \u2018earn one\u2019s way to heaven\u2019.<\/p>\n
So what did circumcision signify in this period? First and foremost, the distinction betwee Jews and Gentiles. Here are some typical Jewish views of the works of the Law and of Gentiles in the Judaism of this period:<\/p>\n
Letter of Aristeas 139,142: In his wisdom the Lawgiver (i.e. Moses)\u2026surrounded us with unbroken fences and with walls of iron, so that we might not be permitted to mix with any other people in any respect\u2026Thus, in order to protect us from corruption through contact with others or through association with bad influences, he surrounded us on all sides with strict traditions relating to eating, drinking, hearing, touching and seeing, in the manner of the Law.<\/p>\n
Jubilees 22:16: Separate yourselves from the Gentiles: Do not eat with them, and do not do the things that they do, and do not have fellowship with them. For all their deeds are defiled, and all their ways are corrupt, and depraved, and disgusting.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
[Apologies to any Gentile readers who found the above quote offensive]<\/p>\n
We should also ask whether the Law itself seems to have been opposed to grace, since Paul seems to be arguing not against mere self-righteousness as a misunderstanding of the Law, but about something universal and intrinsic to the Law itself. Read Deuteronomy 9:4-6. If anything, this sounds like the opposite<\/i> of merit-based divine favor.<\/p>\n
Was early Judaism completely legalistic, as some have assumed? There were surely legalists then, but there are legalistic Christians today; the question is about the overall character of the religion as a whole. Worth noting is the hymn from Qumran which says: \u201cI know that righteousness does not belong to men nor perfection of path to the sons of men. To God Most High belong all righteous deeds.\u201d At the very least, not all were legalists.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-4322766310529933542?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"