Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:17–20, “This is the rule I lay down in all the congregations. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised… Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.” New Testament scholars are increasingly making the argument that Paul’s metonymic statement in 1 Cor 7:18—“do not put on foreskin”—required Yeshua-believing Jews in his congregations to continue to live the circumcised life as a matter of calling and not to assimilate into Gentile lifestyle.

This interpretation of Paul’s rule in all the congregations, which Augustine defended (Op. mon. 11 [12]), remains a minority view in New Testament studies. However, my observation is that this interpretation is beginning to move from the margins to the center of the discussion over Paul’s perspective on the relationship between Yeshua-believing Jews and Torah.

New Testament scholars have long held that the Jerusalem community headed by Ya’akov (James) was (1) primarily composed of Jewish believers in Yeshua who (2) remained within the symbolic universe of Second Temple Judaism, and (3) strictly lived according to the Torah, with some members observing Pharisaic halakhah (Acts 15:4–5; 21:20–21). However, going back as far as Jerome, exegetes and ecclesial leaders have evaluated the Jerusalem congregation negatively because it retained its social identity within Judaism. As Craig Hill puts it:

In the first instance, the Jerusalem church is regarded as having been too Christian to be Jewish; in the second, it is thought too Jewish to be Christian.  The assumption in either case is that one could have been truly Christian only to the extent that one was not authentically Jewish. On a popular level, it is the first approach that dominates. Christians such as James and Peter, both leaders of the Jerusalem church, are thought to have thrown off the shackles of their Jewish past. It is not difficult to see this view as an uncritical retrojection of modern Gentile Christianity onto the primitive church. Issues more characteristic of Judaism, such as the restoration of Israel (a concern repeatedly mentioned in the description of the Jerusalem church in Acts 1-3), are therefore ignored. The opposite approach, more common in scholarly circles, is to regard figures such as Peter and, especially, James as too Jewish, and therefore sub- or pre- Christian. Christianity instead is the product of the Hellenistic church (ironically, those who did not have the benefit—or, apparently, the distraction—of having known Jesus), especially the apostle Paul. Hence, “Jewish Christianity” becomes secondary, problematic, and largely dismissible—except, that is, as a foil, the source of whatever one finds distasteful in early Christianity.¹

“. . . every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old.” Matthew 13:52

"Judaism or Christianity . . . Which came first?” How would you answer this question? Perhaps you would reason that Judaism, having been around since the days of Abraham, clearly, is the “mother” religion and Christianity, which began after the death and resurrection of Yeshua the Messiah, is the “daughter.” However, you might be surprised to learn that recent biblical scholarship has suggested a very different answer. Rather than seeing the relationship as parent/child, some scholars now believe that the better metaphor for the relationship would be siblings growing up together. In this view, both Judaism and Christianity originated during the same period and were shaped by many of the same social, political, and religious realities. Consider the following observations made by two top Jewish thinkers, Israel Yuval and Daniel Boyarin:

“. . . every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old.” Matthew 13:52

In the last issue of Verge, we made a surprising claim… Rather than seeing Judaism as the older tradition and Christianity, the younger, some modern scholars now view the emergence of (rabbinic) Judaism and Christianity as simultaneous. They were and continue to be siblings who had influence on each other as they grew up together in the ancient Mediterranean world.

We can find evidence of this mutuality in the traditions of biblical interpretation found in both. Rather than seeing the early rabbis and Church fathers as sitting in their own little enclaves, pouring over the text of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, think of them as often peering over the fence to see how the other fellows were doing their work.

As an illustration, both communities reflected long and hard on Genesis 22, the story of the binding of Isaac. You recall the account: God tests Abraham by telling him to trek to Mount Moriah and sacrifice his beloved son, Isaac. God sees this act of faithful obedience and declares that Abraham would be rewarded by showers of blessing on future generations of his family.

One often hears Jewish people remark, “We Jews believe that we can come directly to God.  We have no need for a mediator.”  Is this an accurate representation of historic Judaism?

Not exactly.  The individual Jew does not approach God directly.  This was recognized in the early 1950s by Will Herberg, one of the most prominent Jewish thinkers in America at that time:

In both Judaism and Christianity . . . there is no such thing as a direct and unmediated relation to God; this relation must in some way be mediated through one’s covenant status.  In Judaism, however, it is by virtue of his being a member of the People Israel that the believer approaches God and has standing before him; in Christianity, it is by virtue of his being a member of Christ . . . To be a Jew means to meet God and receive his grace in and through Israel; to be a Christian means to meet God and receive his grace in and through Christ . . . Authentic Judaism is therefore Israel-centered . . . while authentic Christianity is Christ-centered.  In neither need this centrality lead to a diversion from God, because in both it is through mediation that God is approached.