Book Review - “Paul And Judaism At The End Of History” by Matthew Novenson
If your work or interests seriously engage the relationship between Paul and Judaism, Matthew Novenson’s work is essential reading.
Matthew Novenson is a New Testament scholar who teaches at Princeton Theological Seminary. He has become a significant voice and advocate for the Paul within Judaism paradigm.
Two major features of Novenson’s work are:
1. Paul lived within the broad range of Judaism as the Apostle to the Gentiles.
2. Paul, upon becoming a Jesus-follower, acquired a unique view of time in which he saw the end of history as present, not future.
Novenson delivered another compelling work in his recently published book “Paul and Judaism at the End of History.”
Here are three things I liked about “Paul and Judaism at the End of History.”
1. Edgy, provocative essay titles and topics
The book is a collection of essays – all by Novenson. Titles include:
· “The Christian Problem of Paul and Judaism”
· “Paul’s Former Occupation in Ioudaismos”
· “Paul versus the Gentiles”
· “The Chauvinism of Paul”
If Paul is your thing, I’m sure those titles alone made you lean in.
2. I particularly enjoyed the essay “The Legalism of Paul.”
“Legalism” is a widely used term of derision, particularly in Christian circles. Typically, it refers to a group or individual deemed intensely and overly concerned with details of Torah/Law observance. But what if it can be demonstrated that Paul was concerned about such details and observance? Would we dare call him “legalistic?”
Contrary to prevailing assumptions, Paul’s letters demonstrate that he was, in Novenson’s words, a “halachic rigorist.” Novenson highlights the detailed halachic requirements Paul presents concerning “three deadly sins” (porneia, idolatry, and circumcision for Gentiles). Paul was not general about these topics. He presented detailed expectations for his in-Christ Gentiles based on Torah principles. Novenson writes, “Paul expresses ideas and attitudes that, when other people express them, those who use the term would call legalistic” (114).
This essay presents a significant challenge to traditional portrayals of Paul. Far from being Law-free, Paul was a firm advocate for the Torah and a unique innovator in how it applied to his non-Jewish audience.
3. In his “Carnal Israel” essay, Novenson argues that Paul has not redefined Israel.
It is common among interpreters to read Paul as reformatting, redefining, or sometimes “replacing” Israel in light of the new (Christian) community. Novenson engages 1 Cor 10:18, Gal 6:16, Phil 3:3, Rom 2:28-29, Rom 9:6, and Rom 11:26 to demonstrate that Paul has not redefined the terms “Israel,” “Jew,” and “Circumcision.” He concludes that “Gentiles-in-Christ are annexed to the people Israel but do not become the people Israel…In Paul’s way of thinking ethnicity, Jews are Jews, and gentiles gentiles” (184, 186).
Paul’s interpreters have largely understood Christ’s followers as “spiritual” or “true” Israel. I agree with Novenson that for Paul, “carnal Israel” was the only Israel there was (186).
On the critical side, some of the content in Novenson’s final essay created some dissonance for me.
Essay #9, “The End of the Law and the Last Man,” raised several questions. In his unpacking of Romans 10:1-8, where Paul famously speaks of the “telos” (end, goal, aim) of the Law, Novenson writes, “Moses legislated for mortals…whereas people-in-Christ are actually immortals. Christ is the end of the law, then, just to the extent that Christ is the end of human mortality” (228).
My questions center on how Novenson’s comments in this essay harmonize with his emphasis in Essay #5 (The Legalism of Paul) on Paul being a “halachic rigorist.”
Can Paul be both a “halachic rigorist” and see humans as “already angels…whose “glorification renders them disabled, so to speak, in relation to God’s law” (225)?
Put differently, if Paul viewed his in-Christ Gentiles like the angels (resurrected, immortal, etc.) and thus beyond the Law, why does Paul emphasize the Law so much in his letters?
Novenson carefully emphasizes that Paul does not abrogate or abolish the Law. However, he also emphasizes that “Paul insists, that the law does not have jurisdiction over the new creation” (235-236).
While I agree with Novenson’s emphasis on Paul’s apocalyptic sense of time, Paul still seems to have some ordinary hours left on his watch. Thus, he advises his communities on halachic matters even as he straddles the edge of time. Novenson seems to push Paul over time’s edge.
Again, the question for me is understanding the compatibility of how Novenson portrays Paul in Essay #5 and Essay #9. The former seems to have Paul still wearing a (fast-moving) watch, whereas the latter does not need to keep time at all.
My dissonance while reading this section of the book could be due to not fully grasping Novenson’s viewpoint in one or both of the essays I note here. If I’ve misunderstood him, I hope to gain greater clarity as I continue to enthusiastically engage with his work.