Tuesday, 17 August 2010

Genesis and Legalism


Another contribution from Anne Askey, enjoy:


The sages speak of the Torah as a gem to be turned and turned and turned again.  Through devoted study, they are ever looking for clarity in the gemstone that is God’s word.  This afternoon, I would like to lead us in turning a well-known passage.  I would like to challenge us to consider an interpretation of Scripture that may differ from our own. I am not asking you to agree with every point I make. But I am asking you to be willing to engage with the insights others have discovered.  


Last time I was up here, I suggested that we needed to change our paradigm with respect to how we understand the word “law”.  In the Hebraic understanding, the word "law” refers to the teaching or instruction of a gracious Father.  Augustine, Luther, and many who have followed them, imposed a Roman understanding of law, onto the Biblical word. As a result, traditional Christianity began to view God’s justice as being equivalent to the retributive justice of Roman law.  We began to look at the problem of the broken world we live in, as a legal problem. We began to view the lawgiver, like that of the powerful tyranny of Rome: a conquering power that had imposed its will on us. We lost the restorative, relational understanding of justice extended by a gracious Father who reveals himself as the one who is not willing that any should perish. (2 Peter 3:9)  It takes study, practice, and intention to renew our minds.  But we are not alone. The Spirit of God guides us into truth (John 16:13.  This afternoon, we will look at Genesis 1-3 from a Hebraic point of view. We will begin with 1:26


Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."


What does it mean to be created in the image of God?  Both Christian and Jewish scholars agree that man is endowed with the ability to think, to act and to make choices.  He is relational. He can know and love his fellow man.  He can know and love God and can hold communion with Him.[i]


Chapter 1 of Genesis is written in a carefully crafted and formal poetic style. The transition to the next movement is marked in the original Hebrew by an obvious change in tone.  The narrative of Chapters 2 and 3 is written in a style that we might employ in telling stories around a campfire.  In the Hebraic worldview truth is often revealed in agadah or story.  Jesus is the certainly a master of agadah. Definitions, creeds, and doctines convey meaning, but stories evoke images that expand our understanding. Let’s look at how the story of Gen 2 and 3 expands our understanding of God. 


In our traditional interpretation of the Creation Story, Adam and Eve are considered to have been created perfect.  This interpretation leaves us with an unanswerable question.  How come these perfect people sinned? Is it a sufficient ‘answer’ to say that God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts? It is true that many things are inexplicable but I don’t think this is one of them.  What does the text itself tell us?  Gen 1:31 And God saw all that he had made and it was very good.     Do the words ‘very good’ and ‘perfect’ mean the same thing? If not, then where did the concept of perfection come from?


We need to look back into history.  The past affects who we are today.   Plato, one of the most well known of Greek philosophers, had a profound effect on the early church’s view of spirituality. In the 2nd Century AD, Justin Martyr an early apologist, called Plato the “Christian before Christ”.[ii]  Portraying Christ, the Jewish Messiah, as a ‘Christian’ illustrates the rift that was already forming between early Christianity and its Jewish roots.
Others who followed in the 3rd and 4th centuries placed an even greater emphasis on Plato’s ideas in their interpretations of Scripture. This emphasis is alive and well in the 21st century.  In the Platonic view of the world, reality is made up of two parts—the physical realm and the spiritual realm.  Plato defined the physical realm as the realm of the transitory, of the imperfect and full of shadows.  The spiritual realm is the realm of permanence, of the perfect and of the ideal. For Plato, the spiritual realm is superior to the physical realm.  Under the influence of Platonic thought, early traditional interpretations understood Eden as representing this spiritual realm. Adam and Eve in the garden were a state of perfection.  When they were banished from the garden, they fell to the inferiority of the material realm. But Eden is not a place of static permanence or perfection as defined by Plato. Adam and Eve were instructed to rule over creation, to be fruitful and to multiply and fill the earth. Eden is a realm of dynamic process.  It is a place that will experience change as Adam and Eve engage with God’s instruction. 


Furthermore, this platonic separation between the lower, inferior physical realm and the higher, superior spiritual realm is not Biblical. The spiritual and physical are always intertwined.  We join Judaism in declaring the Schema that God is one. In so doing we put all of life (physical and spiritual) under his rule. As Christians, we declare that God is Spirit (John 4:24), and we and we also declare that God became a physical human being (Phil 2:7). The incarnation situates the spiritual right in the midst of the physical.  Paul teaches us that our physical bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19).  There is no dichotomy between the physical and spiritual in the Bible. Hence I believe that the concept of Adam and Eve being perfect (as understood in the platonic view) and having fallen from the superior spiritual realm to the inferior physical realm is a concept that is questionable and is open to debate.


What does the Scripture tell us about Adam and Eve?  We already know from chapter one that the creation of man in God’s image was very good.  In the second telling of the story, in Chapter 2, we know that humankind was produced from physical dust and became a living being through God’s spiritual breath. (v 7) The Hebrew word adam, as well as being the name of the first man, can also mean humankind.  In 2:7, because Eve has not yet been created, adam refers to humankind.  We see then that human kind was originally androgynous.  Androgynous is an adjective that describes something that is made up of both sexes.  Androgynous adam or humankind, was given freedom to eat from the garden except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (2:15-17) We also know that it was not good for androgynous humankind to be alone. (2:18) Once again, we are able to question the Platonic concept of perfection. 


I love God’s beautiful teaching style in chapter 2.  The Father respects the rational ability of this one created in His image.  In the naming of the animals, adam discovers that there is no counterpart for androgynous humankind. All the created creatures have helpers except adam (2:19-20) Having alerted mankind to that need, God graciously met that need. What was once one, now becomes two:  Male and Female.(2:21-22) Then we are told that because they were once one, and are now two, they will become one again.  (2:24) The Hebraic thinker asks:  Why did God create humankind as one, then break it apart into male and female, and then teach that male and female are meant to become one again?[iii] One answer, (and I say ‘one’ because Hebraic thinking is multi-dimensional and there are often many, overlapping and even contradictory answers to questions) one answer is that God wanted mankind to learn to love. This is not a surprising answer for to love one another is to fulfill the Torah (Rom 13:8, Matt 22:36-40.)   Learning to love requires an other, who is distinct and different from oneself.  Otherness can be defined at many levels. We differ from one another ethnically.  One of the strengths of this congregation is the wide range of ethnicities that gather together here. In our ethnic differences we are called to love God and to love one another.  Otherness in the business world may be based on hierarchy or position.  What a different world we would see in business if managers, labourers, secretaries, janitors, etc loved one another Biblically.  We are to love others who are distinct and different from us religiously. In this fellowship we have a great love for Jews. Are we as ready to extend that love to Muslims, to those in liberal denominations, to atheists, etc?  The distinction between Adam and Eve is of course gender.  In the garden they were to learn to love and in so doing, become one (The Hebrew word is echad which means unity).  It is the same word used of God when we say the schema. The Lord God is echad.  Becoming echad, is also part of bearing the image of God. Those of us who are married know that becoming echad is a process. The process for Adam and Eve was meant to be happening in Eden.  God came down into the garden in the cool of the day to talk with his children.(3:8) In these intimate times with God, Adam and Eve would grow and become what they were meant to be. Again we must question the platonic label of “perfection”.  In a sense, they were not ‘finished’ yet.  So rather than seeing Adam and Eve as perfect, I believe it is more true to the Biblical passage to see them as innocent and a work in progress.    


These two innocents have been given ‘law’, instruction taught by their Father, for life in the garden. They were to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it and rule over the living creatures(1:28), they were to become one flesh (2:24), and they were not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:16,17).  Only one of these ‘laws’ is negative.  How then is this injunction not to eat from one tree a loving instruction? 

The Hebraic worldview recognizes the existence of evil.  It does not get hung up on questions as to where it came from. Evil exists.  But it is not the equal opposite to good. (That would lead to the heresy of dualism-the view of the universe in which there is a good god and an evil god perpetually at war with each other.) In the Biblical revelation evil is subordinate to good. Think of all the stories where this is true. The resurrection of Jesus is arguably the most significant event so far that declares the triumph of good over evil. But God’s story is not over yet. We know that in the end, evil will be destroyed. Paul teaches us that the last enemy to be destroyed is death.  (1 Cor 15:26).


This reality of the existence of evil is embedded in the loving instruction the Father gave to Adam and Eve. God the sovereign creator has knowledge about the world that Adam and Eve do not have.  He is able to identify the consequence of eating. “Do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil or you will die.” In Hebraic thinking the word knowledge, implies experience.  In our King James Version we read variants of the verb “to know”.  

When Adam “knew his wife” the word knew describes the experience of sexual intimacy (Gen 4:1). By the same token, to know God is to experience God. To eat, to take in from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is to experience good and evil. This is something that Adam and Eve are not ready for. The dire consequence is indeed meant to keep them away. It is possible to read this consequence either as prescription or description.[iv] The prescriptive reading reinforces the paradigm of Roman Law.  This is the law: don’t eat.  This is the punishment: you will surely die. We infer, from the legal analogy, that the lawmaker is also the executioner.   A descriptive reading reinforces the paradigm of God as the loving Father giving instructions.  Don’t do this, because I know you will die. It is like a parent saying to a young child, don’t touch the hot stove; because I know you will burn yourself. 


But Adam and Eve, not yet fully grown into the creatures they were meant to be, did eat from the tree.  And they did die.  The minute they had to hide from God, who is the source of life, they died. Ephesians 2:1 tells us that ‘we are dead in our trespasses and sins’. In addition to death through alienation from God, they became subject to physical death. Some Jewish commentators think that had they not sinned, their ever-growing holiness would have kept them alive forever. [v]God is the source of life, not death. To have intimacy with Him is life. To be estranged from him is Death.  Death can be understood not as punishment but rather as the natural consequence of turning away from God. The wages of sin (turning away from God) is death.  (Rom 6:23)


When we understand law as loving instruction, our view of the lawgiver changes. When we remain influenced by the legal Roman view, we focus on deserved punishment. Jewish scholarship celebrates the grace of God. I love the insights Judaism has given into this next section of the story.   Look at God’s response to this sin.  Firstly, God caused the sound of his presence to be heard before he faced his wayward children (3:8).  Jewish commentary[vi] says that God didn’t want to surprise them and catch them off guard in their shame. God waited until they had sewn fig leaves together. He gave them time to see how inadequate their own solution to the problem was.  Then God asked the question:  Where are you (3:9)?  Didn’t God already know where they were?  Asking questions is fundamental to Hebraic thinking.  God asks the question in order to initiate dialogue.  Come let us reason together, says the Lord.  (Isaiah 1:18) In the ensuing verses of 3:10-14 God listens to all the sides of the story and then begins to set things in order. Don’t these actions look a lot like those of a loving parent who has discovered that his child has failed?


What kind of feelings would such a parent have?  David Pawson notes7 that scripture uses a poetic style to record God’s expression of feelings. There are three such poetic clusters in chapter three, as God speaks to the serpent, Eve and then to Adam.  Traditionally, we have viewed God as expressing anger because his holiness or justice has been affronted.  Could he be expressing his disappointment that relationship has been broken and shalom has been shattered? Already Adam and Eve are hiding from God. Already, the echad/unity between this first couple is breaking down.  Adam remonstrates, that it was all Eve’s fault (3:12). God, the disappointed Father, outlines the consequences that his children will have to bear because of their choice.

The conversation of 3:10-14 brings in a complicating factor.  This choice to eat was not Adam and Eve’s doing alone.  The serpent has lured the couple into disobedience (3:1 &4). We are not given the identity of the serpent in this passage, but a later scripture tells us that the serpent is Satan, the evil one (Rev 12:9).  And so evil makes its mark on God’s created order. The story introduces us to a conflict that will repeat itself until the end of the story when Satan will be overthrown.  I am sure you can think of countless examples throughout God’s revelation that identify this conflict.  In the story that we call the temptation of Christ, Jesus’ ministry started in conflict with Evil. And we see that Jesus used his father’s Torah/teaching to win that particular conflict. 


Does this acknowledgement of the existence of evil excuse Adam and Eve?  In her response to God’s question, Eve tries to blame Satan. “The devil made me do it.” (3:13) But the excuse is not good enough. God, the loving parent will discipline Adam and Eve because the Lord disciplines his sons (and daughters). (Deut 8:5, Heb 12:6,7) God’s first action however, is to curse the serpent and promise his eventual destruction (Gen 3:14,15).  And God keeps his promises!    


Then he turns to Eve.  Where once there was the joyous instruction to be fruitful and multiply, obedience to that commandment is now going to be filled with pain.  Where once, echad was to be learned in the beautiful intimacy of the garden, it will now be tainted with power struggles between male and female. 


Next God curses the ground itself and creation begins groaning in its bondage to decay. We have only to read this week’s newspaper to see creation groaning. Paul tells us that this cursed creation waits for the sons of God to be revealed.  (Rom 8:19-26)


Now God turns to Adam. Where once there was the satisfaction of work within the created order that was good, now that created order has been corrupted and Adam will toil and struggle (3:18) Where once food was a guaranteed commodity, now food must be gathered through hard work and the sweat of his brow. (3:19) Where once Adam and Eve lived with the source of life itself, they will be subject to physical death. (3:19)


What does God do next?  God sees their nakedness. He sees their failed attempts to cover it. In compassionate loving kindness, God provided for that need Himself. The God of Israel is a providing God.  God made garments of skin for his children. This act of God clothing his children, reverberates in a story Jesus tells centuries later.  In the parable of the prodigal son the loving father clothed his wayward son in fine robes.  (Luke 15:22)  Both the Genesis narrative of chapter 3 and the parable of the prodigal are stories of sons who were ‘dead’.  Both are stories of the compassionate father. 


Adam and Eve will continue to experience the disorder of evil in the world.  They must not eat of the tree of life (3:21) for the fruit of this tree is reserved for those who will overcome. (Rev 2:7) God puts them into exile. But exile too is an act of grace.  God has not abandoned his creatures.  Psalm 139 assures us that we are never out of his presence. Where can I go from your presence?  If I ascend to the heavens you are there.  If I descend to the depths you are there. Exile is a repeated theme throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.  Walter Brueggemann points out that the most remarkable fact about Exile is that in Exile, the prophetic voice of hope is the most intense.  He sites Isaiah 40-55, Jer 30-31 and Ezekiel 33-48 as examples. [vii]  The God who willed the exile is also the God who will faithfully exact restoration to shalom.  With Adam and Eve’s exile, the story of restoration begins and a climactic peak, though not the final climax, is the resurrection of Jesus.  John tells us “the reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the Devil’s work”.  (1 John 3:8) 

The actions of these innocent, but unfinished creatures were catastrophically significant. Creation, which Adam and Eve were meant to rule over has become corrupted. This story tells us why we live in a corrupt world.  We have inherited it.  We also learn from this story that our own actions are significant.  Man in the image of God, acts and those actions matter. 

Nowhere in these three chapters do we read that the image of God in Adam and Eve was destroyed.  The phrase, ‘image of God’ celebrates and enhances the dignity and authority of human persons who are a “little lower than the angels”( Ps 86:5)  Adam’s sin did not eliminate this mark of God’s likeness. Not even the flood eliminated the mark of God’s likeness. God’s instruction to Noah after the flood affirms the high value and worth of human persons who bear His image. Because humankind bears the image of God, they are not to be killed Gen 9:6[viii].

And nowhere in these passages do we see the concept of sinfulness being inherited by the next generation. We tend to impose this reading on the passage, through our interpretation (or misinterpretation?) of Paul in Romans.  We do not have time to go into that now, but it worth noting that Judaism rejects this concept of inherited sin on the basis that it contradicts the Torah of God.[ix] 

Deut 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. 

The prophetic voices of Ezekiel (18:1-4) and Jeremiah (31:29-30) also resist the concept of putting one generation to death for the sins of another. But wait!  We all know that phrase from Exodus 34: 7 “the sins of the father are visited on the sons to the third and fourth generation.” Surely that verse proves that sin is inherited!  Or does it?  Jewish readers look at this passage as referring to the effects of sin.  A child reared in  a home where sinfulness abounds, is prone to repeat the actions learned from his father.  But this is not saying that a child cannot make different choices.  Indeed the effects of sinful choices will be felt across the generations.  We learn from Genesis that the effects of Adam’s sin resulting in the corruption of the created world, have been, are and will be felt until all is restored. 

Jewish worshippers understand from Genesis 1-3 that man is born innocent and bears the image of God and that image is good.  This understanding puts all mankind on the same footing as that of Adam and Eve. We too are born innocent and are bearers of the image of God. The difference between Adam and Eve and ourselves, is that our first actions occur, not in the beauty of the Garden of Eden, but in a world that is corrupt. The story teaches us that, what we do inherit from Adam and Eve is death and corruption.  The default position in a corrupt world is selfishness, looking after self interests first. 10 Our innocence is soon lost as we choose manipulation and self-centeredness. (We are not told at what age, innocence is lost.) Indeed, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23).  Man’s every inclination is evil. (Gen 6:5).  But God is not absent.  We may be alienated from Him, but he is already acting on our behalf.  Even while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8) 

Genesis 1-3 tells us how death entered the world.  It also shows us our gracious Father at work setting the world right. By one man’s sin, death reigns, by one man’s righteousness life reigns. (Rom 5:17)  The most incisive act to date in the setting of things right is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Jesus lived life as a human being in the power of the Holy Spirit. He chose obedience to God’s instructions in a corrupt world.  Jesus was the Torah made flesh and lived the Torah perfectly. But even prior to the incarnation, Scripture reveals others who lived lives of obedience. Enoch walked with God and was not.  (Gen 5:24) God says to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is none like him in all the earth, a blameless and upright man.” (Job 1:8) The Torah affirms the idea of choice.  In Cain’s story we read that the Lord said to Cain, “If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." (Gen 4:6-7) God assumes that Cain has a choice to master the sin that crouches at his door.  Moses exhorts the children of Israel to choose life, (Deut 30:19).  Joshua says, “Choose you this day whom you will serve”.  (Josh 24:15). When we try to grapple with the concepts of sovereignty and free will, we sometimes get caught up in arguments over whether or not man has any choice at all.  The Hebraic thinker understands God as choosing to self-limit his sovereignty in order to give man, made in his image, the ability to choose. 11 Hebraic thinkers understand faith as action, where choices actually do matter.    

Jesus’s death is the ultimate atoning sacrifice whereby sin is removed/or covered. Though his sacrifice, we draw near in restored relationship to God in repentance, confession, thanksgiving, and fellowship. The death of Christ is not sacrificial appeasement. Again we are products of our past.  Early Christianity, emerging from a Greco-Roman context, and already losing touch with its Hebraic roots interpreted Biblical sacrifice in the same categories as Greco-Roman sacrifice.  Pagan deities are angry gods that had to be appeased and whose wrath had to be propitiated. The God of Israel abounds in grace (Ex 34:6,7). He is for us! (Rom 8:31)The whole sacrificial system addresses relationship. Israel’s God provided mankind with the sacrificial system as a means of entering relationship with the Father through drawing near. That system comes into its greatest fullness in Messiah’s atoning sacrifice. Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, …” (Heb 10:19-22).

Jesus’s resurrection is the most decisive act in the story so far.  God raised Jesus from the dead.  (Rom 10:9) and with that act, God destroyed the power of death and the one who holds the power of death.(Heb 2:14) And now as CS Lewis puts it ‘death begins to work backward. 12 Creation was made corrupt by Adam’s choice. But it waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. (Roman 8:19) We are, in Messiah’s resurrected life, a new creation ( 2 Cor 5:17). We are sons and daughters of God.  (2 Cor 6:18). We are in the process of conforming to the image of God’s son. (Rom 8:29) This is gospel.

When we read Gen 1-3 through the paradigm that God’s law is like Roman law, sin is understood as a legal problem. I believe that to view sin primarily as a legal problem does a disservice to God.  Reading Gen 1-3 through the paradigm that God’s law is the teaching of a loving Father sharpens our focus on the relationship between God and man as well as the relationship between man and man.   We are reminded that all human beings, (ourselves, our neighbours and even our enemies), have tremendous value as bearers of God’s image and because of that are to be loved.  Jesus reminds us that the focal point of the Torah is relationship.  We are to love the Lord our God and our neighbour as ourselves (Matt 22:36-40.)  

In reading Gen 1-3 Hebraically, we are challenged to reconsider the standard excuse for our own disobedience.  For deep down in our psyche, when we believe we have inherited sin, we can easily think that we were and continue to be hopeless sinners, albeit saved by grace. This can lead to the dis-ease of ‘cheap grace’ where obedience doesn’t really matter because thankfully Jesus has paid the price for my sin.    But God teaches us that our choices do matter.  We are exhorted to choose life.   By Christ’s resurrection we have been set free from the power of sin in this corrupted world. This is our Passover story.

Last, but not least, when we understand Genesis 1-3 through the Hebraic paradigm, we are humbled by the recognition that this passage is more about God than it is about a self-centered focus on our sin.  God gives us instruction for living outside Eden, where shalom has been shattered.  God has redeemed us for obedience to that instruction, and in this way shalom is being restored. 

Blessed be the Lord God King of The Universe who restores shalom!    

 



[i] Francis Schaeffer’ Basic Bible Studies and the Chumash Commentary serve as two examples.


[ii] Being Human, Ranald MacCaulay and Jerram Barrs p 42


[iii] Audio teaching, Dwight Pryor “Reassessing the Doctrine of Original Sin.”


[iv] Dwight Pryor Audio Teaching Reassessing the Doctrine of Original Sin


[v] See Artscroll Chumash Gen 3:19


[vi] See Artscroll Chumash on Gen 1 -3


7


[vii] Reverberations of Faith p 70


[viii] Reverberations of Faith p 106


[ix] Dwight Pryor Audio Teaching Reassessing the Doctrine of Original Sin


10 ibid


11 ibid


12 CS Lewis The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe

Thursday, 20 May 2010

Paul and the Torah: A paradigm change


St Paul the Apostle
This mosaic was restored by G B Calandra in 1625. It originally decorated the state banquet hall of the Papal Lateran Palace of the Middle Ages. Paul is characterized by his long pointed beard -- Vatican Museums, Vatican City State

Here, with her permission, is the text of a talk given by a dear friend, Anne Askey at her fellowship last weekend. She has journeyed closely with us these past five years as we have completed Torah Club together. Her talk provides an excellent summary of how the Dead Sea Scrolls have thrown new light on the historical context in which Paul has written. As a result, scholars have begun to see a "new perspective" on his writings:
Readings:
From the Torah: Deut 32:46-47 he said to them, "Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words for you-they are your life. By them you will live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess." 
From the Nevaim or Prophets: Jos 1:8 Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.
From the Ketuvim, or writings: Psa 19:7-8 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes.
From the Gospels: Mat 5:17-18 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
From the Epistles: Rom 7:12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
Pray: Open our eyes that we may behold wondrous things in your law and teach us our Father, that we may we grow in the grace and knowledge of our Messiah Jesus to the praise and glory of your Name. Amen
Paradigms are ways of explaining things. When I was a child I was told that the earth was like a ball. In my young imagination I thought we lived inside that ball. And then one day my sister told me that the sun was way larger than the earth. And I began to wonder, “How could the sun fit inside the earth?” My paradigm clearly failed when it came to understanding the relationship between the sun and the earth.
Sometimes paradigms are shared by a group of people. In the time of Nicolas Copernicus, everyone thought that everything in the heavens revolved around the earth. This paradigm explained the simple observation that every morning the sun rose in the east and every night it went down in the west. Every year, the stars moved across the earth’s sky and returned to their starting place. Scientists, mathematicians, philosophers and theologians affirmed this paradigm. But there was one small problem: the known planets in their travel through the heavens did not follow what could be called an orbit about the earth. Sometimes they went backwards to what was expected. This observation bothered Nicolas Copernicus, who began to search for a better paradigm. He suggested that all the planets including earth revolved around the sun. He was initially opposed but eventually, truth won out. The Copernican paradigm fit the data.
Paradigms, both individual and corporate sometimes need to change to accommodate new data. This process is what coming to maturity is about.
We all have paradigms about all sorts of things: nature, society, family relationships, spirituality etc. Some of our paradigms are personal: others are shared with a larger group. Traditional Protestant Christianity is made up of paradigms that have loosely defined a large group of believers since the Reformation. Within this large group, are denominations that are defined by paradigms not necessarily held by the larger group, but held by enough people to form a denomination. This afternoon, I would like to take a look at the Traditional Protestant Christian paradigm regarding the term “law” and related to that, the traditional view of Paul. In so doing, I hope to challenge us all to think about our own paradigms and to be like the Bereans who searched the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:11)
The traditional paradigm of “law’ might best be summed up in the triumphalistic statement, “we are not under the law but under grace!” Indeed such a view appears to be buttressed by scripture. Turn in your bibles to:
· Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
· Gal 2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
We will look at these verses later, but first we will need a little background information which involves looking back into history. We are products of what has gone on before. Obviously an in depth analysis of history would take us far beyond the scope of this talk…and so I want to warn you that I am making some over simplifications in my summary of history. Historical events are always the result of many complex factors and influences.
We will start with that great name of the reformation: Martin Luther. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk in the Middle Ages. He has had a profound influence on paradigms held by Traditional Protestants. He most certainly interpreted the verses we have read together, as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit God’s favour. For Luther was caught within the legalism of the medieval church. He could not find peace with his angry God. God, in Luther’s paradigm had imposed unattainable requirements on him. In his torment, these words that highlighted grace, leapt out to Luther and wiped away his own legalistic attempts to merit God’s favour. This is indeed grace. However, it is important to remember Luther’s legalism was the legalism of the Medieval Church. But sadly, Luther cast Biblical Judaism in the same light as his medieval church. Luther and reformers after him, shared a paradigm that in Biblical Judaism, salvation was achieved by keeping the law. And since the time of Luther, we have read Paul in the way same Luther did. Paul is understood to be opposing “the law”, just as Luther had opposed “the law” of the medieval church.
But the roots of the paradigm go farther back than Luther. As a member of the Augustinian order, Luther was influenced by the work of Augustine of Hippo, who founded the order. Augustine, was also one of the ‘church fathers’. He lived in the fifth century AD when the Roman Empire was still intact. The stability of this great empire was known as Pax Romana, a term which means the peace of Rome. Pax Romana was established by a consistent application of Roman law. Rome, the strong power of that time, grew by subjugating weaker countries, annexing them to the empire and imposing Roman law in those conquered lands. Those who conformed to Roman Law lived a peaceful life which was their just reward, and those who didn’t conform were duly punished. Roman justice is retributive justice. Crimes are paid for with suitable punishment and conformity is rewarded. Augustine was not comfortably conversant in the Hebrew language, and not well acquainted with the Hebraic worldview and so he read the scriptures in Latin. Regrettably, he interpreted the Law of God through the lens of Roman law and developed a paradigm of God’s law. The stronger power, God subjugates the weaker power man, and imposes God’s law on man. When man fails to live up to the law, he deserves punishment. The man who conforms to God’s requirements enjoys peace. Augustine’s paradigm kept Luther from finding peace with God because no matter how hard Luther tried, he could not conform to the laws he perceived that God had placed on him.
Let me be clear that I am not questioning everything that Luther and Augustine understood. They preserved and recovered important Biblical truths. But we must also remember they were also products of their times, and understood the scriptures through their own cultures. Their paradigms have influenced our own. And as a result, in Traditional Protestant thinking, Judaism in general is seen as the very opposite of Christianity. Judaism is earthly, carnal, proud and works based; Christianity is heavenly, spiritual, humble and grace driven. This view of Judaism held in many traditional protestant churches is a cruel caricature. The caricature has distanced us from our Jewish brothers. It has distanced us from a more complete understanding of the God of Israel as revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures. And it does not fit with the biblical data as understood today.
If we want to understand the significant events within a culture we need to understand how that culture works. Nowhere is this more important than in Biblical interpretation. One of the first principles of in the interpretation of scripture, is to seek to understand what that scripture was saying to the first hearers. But this requires insight into the culture of the first hearers. Insight into the Hebraic culture is something that both Luther and Augustine did not have. Our understanding of Hebraic culture has grown exponentially since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in l948. In Biblical Scholarship, this discovery is arguably as significant as the establishment of Israel as a nation. The manuscripts from 2 Temple Judaism, unearthed at Qumran have shed much needed light on the time and culture into which God’s revelation through Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul was given. With more complete data regarding the culture into which God revealed himself, Traditional Protestant Christianity is challenged to rethink some of its long held paradigms. And depending on one’s point of view, that can be alarming or exciting.
Let’s look at the Hebraic paradigm of law. You probably are aware that the Hebrew word, Torah, is translated as nomos in Greek and law in our English Bibles. It doesn’t take much reading of the Hebrew Scriptures to recognize that Biblical Judaism has a very high view of the ‘Torah/law’. It is perfect (Psa 19:7) it is a delight (Psa 1:2) it is a gracious provision (Psa 119: 29) . In Biblical Judaism, the ‘Torah/law’ was never given as the entry into covenant with God. Entry into covenant was purely by the grace of God. God freely chose the children of Israel to enter covenant with him in faithfulness to his Promises to Abraham.
Deut 7:7,8 The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 
Redemption comes before Sinai. In Biblical Judaism, Torah/law is understood as a gift of grace, in which those chosen, were shown how to live as the people of God. Unlike Roman Law, Torah was not the law of a stronger conqueror subjecting its will on a weaker power. It was the teaching of a loving Father. God taught Moses, who taught the children of Israel, who were to teach their children how to relate to their Creator. ( See ArtScroll Chumash introduction, as well as study notes in the Chumash on the giving of the Torah: See also Jewish writers such as Abraham Joshua Heschel, Everyman’s Talmud by Abraham Cohen to get a sense of the Jewish view of Torah. )
Exo 24:12 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Come up to Me on the mountain and be there; and I will give you tablets of stone, and the law and commandments which I have written, that you may teach them."
Deut 6:7 MOSES speaking: You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.
God’s Torah/law is primarily relational and its justice restorative. It brings shalom, wholeness to man with himself, man with his fellow man and man with God.
Torah/law does not demand perfection, for within the Torah itself, is a way of return through offering and repentance. In the Hebraic understanding of sacrifice, offerings were not required as a penalty FOR sin. They are God’s provision for drawing near to God. The foundational basis for sacrifice/offering has always been the heart relationship. This is why the sages of Judaism teach that there is no forgiveness without repentance. (Chumash introduction to Leviticus 4: also Brad Young’s Meet the Rabbis.)
Jesus shared this high view of the Torah/law with the people of his day. Yes, He challenged the religious leaders to reevaluate their traditions relating to the Torah, but he never undermined the true intent of God’s gracious and loving instruction in how to live. In fact, Jesus takes us to the very heart of Torah/law. Jesus teaching on the Sermon on the Mount, which was given to his community of followers, reveals the heart principle of the commandments. For example,
.
Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old,[3] "You shall not commit adultery.'[4]
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
With such teaching, Jesus reinforces Moses’ words to circumcise one’s heart.
Deut 10:15-16 Yet the LORD set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today. Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer.
The caricature of Judaism as works-based salvation through keeping the law, has been perpetuated by people who have not respectfully engaged with, or are ignorant of the Hebraic culture. The reasons for this lack of engagement are complex and varied. However, since 1948 and the revitalization of Biblical Scholarship that has been generated through the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this caricature has been challenged. A pivotal work in l977, by EP Sanders marked a turning point in Biblical Scholarship. Sander’s understanding of the times and culture of 2 Temple Judaism was informed by his study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Rabbinic Literature, and other extra Biblical writings of that time period as they related to scripture. Please note that Sanders is not a “liberal” scholar. He is a Biblical NT Scholar who carefully considered the new data that was emerging post 1948 – data that didn’t fit with the traditional protestant paradigm. Sanders has convincingly shown NT scholars that the Judaism at the time of Christ and Paul was not a works-based religion. He coined a term called ‘covenantal nomism’ (Quoted by Dwight Pryor in his audio study of Romans. Referenced to p 422 of Paul and Palestinian Judaism, by E P Sanders. ) by which he describes his understanding of human obedience to the Torah/Law. Torah/Law was not construed as a means of entering God’s covenant. Entry into covenant cannot be earned, It is a gift of grace. Rather Torah obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within covenant, a means of declaring one’s love for God, a means of being separate/holy set apart. While various scholars disagree with Sander’s conclusions on some points, in general NT scholarship at the academic level has affirmed the understanding that, Judaism with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness has never been a religion of salvation through legalistic works. ( See N T Wright, Mark Nanos, Walter Brueggeman, Markus Bockmuehl, also writers in Judaism such as David R Blumenthal The Place of Faith and Grace in Judaism. )
But it is a fact of life that paradigm shifts at the academic level take time to filter down to the people who sit on the pews of Traditional Protestant churches. While it may feel unsettling, it is always good to remind ourselves that coming to maturity does involve paradigm shifts: and coming to maturity in faith is no different.
From this basic misunderstanding of the culture in which Jesus and Paul walked, comes a misunderstanding of the words of Paul. And so in the paradigm of Traditional Protestant Christianity, Paul has been understood to be the first Christian. Paul moved us on into the dispensation of grace. After all, he himself said, “you are no longer under law, but under grace”. But NT Scholars are rereading Paul in light of the new data from his culture and there is emerging what is called the New Perspective on Paul. This perspective, I believe offers a corrective voice to how we read Paul.
Whenever we read Paul, we must read him as a Hebraic thinker and not as a traditional Protestant. (Dwight Pryor audio teaching on Paul, the Law and the Church, available from www.jcstudies.com) Many of us have been told a story that on the Road to Damascus Saul was ‘converted’ to Christianity and to signify that change, his name became Paul. This story resonates with that Hebraic understanding that a name change accompanies a change in character or a significant event. But this is not the case in the story of Paul. Firstly Paul himself never mentions a name change in his defenses made before the Sanhedrin in Acts 22 and Agrippa in Acts 26. He simply reiterates his Damascus-Road vision in which a voice called to him, “Saul, Saul”. If the voice had changed his name, this would have been the time to note it. If his name ‘had changed’ subsequently, perhaps during his time in Arabia, surely he would have noted that fact in his defense. He does no such thing. Secondly, Luke the writer of Acts simply tells us that Saul was also called Paul.
Acts 13:9 Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas ….
Paul/Saul was known by two names. Why? He was born and raised in Tarsus, which was in the Greek-speaking world. In the context of Greek speakers, Saul uses his Greek name, Paul. This so called name change simply reflects the reality that Paul/Saul lived in two cultures each with its own language.
“What about Paul’s conversion to Christianity?” My Bible has the heading, “Saul’s Conversion” right there in black and white at the beginning of Acts 9. Firstly, is important to remember that Bible headings are only additions made by a translator. They are helpful in finding passages, but they are not and should never be understood as the ‘inspired word’. Given Luther’s influence on the traditional protestant Christian reading of Paul, the ‘title’ is an understandable interpretation drawn by the translators. For since Luther, we have understood Paul as a Jew who left his legalistic Judaism, and embraced the grace of Christianity. But in the light of Paul’s cultural context, is the conclusion true? Let’s look at the witness of the book of Acts. In chapter 16 we find the story of Paul casting the demon out of the slave girl at Phillipi. Turn to Acts 16: 20-21 and read the charges laid against Paul by the owners of the girl.
Acts 16:20 They brought them before the magistrates and said, "These men are Jews, and are throwing our city into an uproar
Acts 16:21 by advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice."
The slave owners testify that Paul is a Jew. Of course they had an ‘axe to grind’. But more convincing is the witness of Paul himself. After his arrest in Jerusalem, when Paul asks his guard for an opportunity to speak, we read
Acts 21:37 As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say something to you?"
Acts 21:38 "Do you speak Greek?" he replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago?"
Acts 21:39 Paul answered, "I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to the people." NOTE the present tense.
And when he speaks to the crowd
Acts 22:1 "Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defence."
Acts 22:2 When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic/Hebrew, they became very quiet.
Acts 22:3 Then Paul said: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.
And again before the Jewish court of the Sanhedrin
Acts 23:6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."
From his own lips, Paul, post Damascus-Road, situates himself firmly within the Judaisms of his day. He worships the same God he worshipped prior to his Damascus experience. But now he worships him with greater understanding than he had before, through the brighter light of Messiah. The voice on the road to Damascus did not say “Saul, Saul, repent of your legalistic works driven religion”. No, Saul was simply told to take the good news of the Messiah to the Gentiles so that they too could come to the true God, the God of Israel.
Acts 22:21 "Then the Lord said to me, 'Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'
For Paul, the Damascus experience is a calling and he affirms this in various letters.
1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God,
Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God—

In Galatians, he likens his calling to that of Jeremiah (1:5)
Gal 1:15,16 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace,
to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood,…
God also made Ananias a witness to this calling when He instructed Ananias to go to Paul’s aid.
Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.
Indeed, by Paul’s own witness he is of the Jewish sect of the “The Way”, (Nazarenes) and that is all. Standing before Felix, he says
Acts 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.
Do you see how the force of our Traditional Protestant paradigm explaining Paul has caused us to gloss over these truths about Paul?
Granted, Paul is difficult to understand. Peter tells us
2Pe 3:15,16 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
2Pe 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
One complicating issue with understanding Paul’s writing with respect to the law is that Paul uses the Greek word nomos in a variety of ways. Sometimes, law nomos is simply the Greek translation of the Hebrew word, Torah and refers to the first five books of the Hebrew Scripture or the entire Tanach. As a Jew of 2 Temple Judaism, Paul would have been firm in his conviction that Torah/law was a gift of grace, and that observing Torah, was not the entry point into God’s covenant. Hence Paul tells us in Romans 7:12 that the “Torah/law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” In this instance he uses ‘nomos’ to refer to the Torah given by God.
Sometimes nomos is used to refer to a specific Oral Law. During the times of 2 Temple Judaism, Gentiles were being drawn to the God of Israel, even prior to the Messiah’s advent. An overriding question facing Judaism during these times was “What do we do with Gentiles? How do they enter covenant with God?” The rabbinic answer, communicated as oral law, was that Gentiles needed to convert to Judaism through the ceremony of circumcision and seal their proselyte status with the essential practices of keeping Kashrut Food laws, and Shabbat. But Salvation belongs to Our God. God, who sees the heart, is the one who saves. No man, not rabbi, priest, nor preacher, has the right to reduce God’s gracious calling, to a man-made formula, a set of steps defined by man for man. Paul argues vehemently against the specific ruling that Gentiles must become Jewish Proselytes in order to have a place in the kingdom of God.

New Perspective Scholars have shown us that Paul uses other terms to refer this specific oral law requiring Gentile conversion. In addition to the single word, nomos or law, he uses the phrase “works of the law”. Sometimes, he shortens that phrase to the single word “works”. In other places he refers to the requirement for Gentile conversion with the single word, “circumcision.” In reading Paul, we must be alert to the fact that the words , ‘law’, ‘works of the law’, ‘works’ and ‘circumcision’ in most cases, actually are technical terms for the concept of becoming a proselyte. ( Mark Nanos, N T Wright, Tim Hegg, J D G Dunn, Dwight Pryor audio teaching, Galatians Teaching bereansonline website) 

Paul argues against this specific ruling, using the written Torah as his foundational document. He reasons in Galatians that Abraham was called by grace, while he was yet uncircumcised. Therefore God’s calling is extended to the uncircumcised without the need to become proselytes. This foundational truth plus the experiential knowledge that God was granting salvation to Gentiles without their becoming proselytes form the basis of his argument against the ruling. New Perspective Scholars on Paul are agreed that Paul is not referring to ‘legalistic works of Judaism” when he is speaks of ‘works’ or ‘works of the law’. Rather he is referring to those practices, which proselytes to Judaism had to embrace to confirm their proselyte status: circumcision, kashrut and Sabbath.

So in Gal 2:16 the term “works of the law” is not used to oppose the Written Torah/gracious teaching of God, but is used to argue against the specific ruling that Gentiles had to convert to Judaism. 

Gal 2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law , (technically becoming a proselyte) but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we (i.e. Jews) have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law (that is our own defined badges of circumcision, keeping of kashrut and Sabbath keeping) for by the works of the law ( i.e. becoming a proselyte through circumcision accompanied with kashrut and Sabbath keeping) no flesh shall be justified. 

This verse, which has been used as support for Luther’s understanding of law, takes on a very different meaning when we understand the culture into which it was written. We could glean even more from this verse if we had time to consider the Hebraic understanding of the words: justified, faith in Christ, and belief.
Paul is convinced that it is the grace of God that calls both Jew and Gentile to come into the community of God. Entry into the kingdom is never and has never been, by “works of the law”, either for Jew or Gentile.

Sometimes Paul uses nomos as a metaphor that gains force through comparison with Roman law, where a strong power subjugates a weaker power and forces it to yield to the law of the stronger power. Sin is like a strong power that subjugates the weaker power (us) and forces us to yield to the law of sin. Paul sometimes even speaks of the ‘law of sin’. It is indeed like a law that forces its will on society and the individual. This is quite clearly seen in Rom 7: 22,23
Rom 7:22-23 For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.

Paul delights in the Torah, the loving instructions of God. The ‘other law’ at work is not the Torah. The Torah does not work in the members of our body to wage war against the Torah. No, sin is at work, imposing its power on us. We are slaves/prisoners to sin, and this is why we need redemption! 

The many nuances of the word nomos may not have been as difficult for his first hearers to identify as it has become for us because we have been so thoroughly prejudiced to think that the word law refers to a legalistic Judaism. We do well to check our paradigms when reading Paul. 

Let’s go back now and look at Romans 6:14, which also appears to support the Traditional Protestant Paradigm of law. When we understand Paul as a Hebraic thinker, we may find it easier to discern how he is using the word nomos in this verse. I find it helpful to exchange the phrase “teaching of a gracious God” for the word “law’ in Paul’s writing. This helps me think about whether Paul is referring to Torah/law or to something else. For example
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
“For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the teaching of a gracious God but under grace.”?
Does it make sense say we are not subject to God’s teaching? Does it make sense to a Hebraic thinker to put God’s teaching in antithesis to grace?
Romans 6 is about sin. I believe it makes more sense to see Paul’s use of nomos/law in verse 14 as referring to that strong power of sin which forces its will on us. Here how I think the verse is better understood:
For sin, (this strong tyrannical power so like that of imperial Rome,) shall not have dominion over us, for we are not under its law (in the sense that we are presently under the tyranny of Roman Law) but we are under grace, (the covenantal faithfulness of God demonstrated to us in the life, death and resurrection of our Messiah, who releases us from the tyranny of sin.)
Paul's gospel was not freedom from Torah/law. Paul's gospel was the Gospel of God. It was a declaration that Gentiles could come to the true God through the messiah without becoming proselytes first. Listen to his introduction to Romans.
Rom 1:1-5 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God--the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.
Paul’s announcement to the Gentiles was that they too could enter covenant with the God of Israel through the Messiah. For Paul, the good news of God is that Gentiles can leave their idols, and draw near to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They did not have to become proselytes. However, Gentiles are called to the obedience that comes from faith. Have you ever wondered about that intriguing phrase at the end of verse 5? What did “obedience that comes from faith” mean to the first believers? What does it mean to us?
Why do paradigms matter? It matters because we don’t want to be guilty of those who substitute the teachings of men for the teachings of God. In the case of Law, the paradigm of Traditional Protestant theology is a misinformed paradigm. It does not fit with the data. If we are to grow in the grace and knowledge of Messiah Jesus, we must be willing to change our paradigms. As new data comes to light, under the sovereignty of God, it behooves us to search study the scripture through the Hebraic world view in which it is given.
Secondly it matters in our witness to Jews. It is true that they have stumbled over the Messiah. But we do Judaism a disservice when we assume it is a legalistic religion. The failure of Judaism is not its alleged legalism. It has failed to see that Yeshua is further revelation of God’s grace and truth. Grace and Truth are two attributes of God that Judaism has reverently kept over the millennia. We, who have been so influenced by Luther’s paradigm, need to remember that what may appear to us as legalism is to Judaism, mitzvah: good deeds that express love for God and fellow man. That sounds to me a lot like Jesus summation of the Torah.
Thirdly, it matters to our daily obedience. What is God asking of us? Do we take seriously the words of our Hebrew Messiah?
Mat 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice torahlessness.'
______________________________
If you want to learn more about NPP work on Paul try. NT Wright, Paul, Fresh Perspectives or What St Paul Really Said Tim Hegg’s The Letter Writer, Brad Young Paul the Jewish Theologian, Mark Nanos The Irony of Galatians.
If you want to investigate the Hebraic roots of our faith try websites: bereansonliine and jcstudies, hebrewforchristians or Marvin Wilson’s book, Our Father Abraham.
If you want to understand Biblical Judaism better, try the works of Walter Breuggemann such as Theology of the Old Testament or Reverberations of Faith