At the conclusion of a discussion Jewish scholars have the custom of always asking in Aramaic, "Mai ka mashma lan?" or "what then shall we say to this?" All teachings should also be conceived in practice. The Apostle Paul repeats this question five times in Romans.¹⁶⁷ Thus each sub-area is distinguished from the others. Also, when beginning a new subject Hebrew uses its own expression, "be-nogea le-", that is, "as for" this and that.

In 1 Corinthians new subject sections are distinguished by the Greek equivalent "peri de": "as for" (7:1), "as for virgins" (7:25), "as for offerings" (8:1), "as for spiritual gifts" (12:1), "as for collections" (16:1) or "as for brother Apollos" (16:25). We now wish to gather up separately those considerations which are of practical significance for Paul's life and teaching.

As for our conclusions and their "significance" (Heb. mashmaut"), we shall attempt to provide further answers to four main things that we have dealt with in our study:

a) universal and human teachings, to which a study of Paul's life leads,

b) methodological observations from the background to his teaching activity,

c) the main finds which we have encountered in our study and

d) references as to how the possible reader of our book might continue his own study of Paul.

Universal and Human Observations

 We have observed that the Apostle Paul's life and teaching belong together . He said to young Timothy: "Watch yourself and your teaching." The Pharisaic "reform movement", to which Paul most closely belonged, especially emphasised the holiness of God; on the other hand, God was to them "heavenly Father"; they believed in limited "pre-determination" or predestination and aimed at "making many disciples." Especially Gamaliel the Elder and the Hillelite school wished to apply their legal precepts "mipnei tiqun olam", that is, according to a renewed social situation. In particular, relations with the Gentiles should be taken care of "in order to maintain the peace." Similarly, they took care to improve the status of women in society.

From his great mentor Gamaliel Paul also learned his later relationship to Greek culture. And since his teacher had the most extensive correspondence of that time with Diaspora Jews and representatives of the Roman administration, on Paul too was impressed the significance of correspondence as a means of communication. Paul's preaching would have hardly been of enduring worth without his teaching and pastoral letters.

The prophet Jeremiah had Baruch as his scribe, Gamaliel Yohanan, and Paul a variety of people. The secretary for Romans was Tertius (Rom. 16:22) and for both letters to the Thessalonians the scribe was evidently Silas or Silvanus, Paul's co-worker on his second missionary journey (1 Thess. 1:1 and 2 Thess. 1:1). This Greek Jew was later Peter's scribe, too (1 Pet. 5:12). Greek-educated Luke too surely had his part to play in the writing of Paul's letters. In his late letter he says that Jesus is "descended from David according to my Gospel"(2 Tim. 2:8); it has been surmised that by this Paul could mean Luke's Gospel. From the perspective of textual criticism these matters should be taken into account when analysing Paul's letters.

In addition, Gamaliel aimed at human rational solutions and wished to avoid unnecessary controversial issues. If some "mahaloqet" or "division" or religious group seeks God's glory and not its own, one must wait and see whether its doctrine be of God. In particular, contemporary Essenes and different groups of "qanaim" or "religious zealots" caused riots even inside the Temple area.

The Apostle Paul was basically a city-dweller. This is reflected in his conceptual world. He evidently learned to know the Roman Empire through his father's business activities. Similarly, his special maritime skills may originate from these journeys. It may also be that Paul took part in the commercial "world exhibitions" in connection with the Olympic Games in Antioch in late summer 44. Perhaps he also knew the bi-yearly Isthmus Games held in Corinth. At least it is in Corinthians that he quotes metaphors relating to sporting life.

With these universal considerations is also linked Paul's inner development from a hate-exuding fanatic to a preacher of the "Gospel of grace". His own part in Stephen's stoning may have been greater than the Acts of the Apostles supposes. Therefore the matter comes up three times in the Acts of the Apostles and four times in his letters. Perhaps he had in mind a career as a member of the Sanhedrin, because he himself requested from the chief priests authorisation to stifle the first Christians.

On the Damascus road his inner "crisis" (Heb. mashber or "breaking") led to a complete change -- Jewish scholars say: "beli shvira ein tiqun", that is, "without breaking there is no repairing." The expression "tiqun meshihi" or "the Messianic correction" means returning, as it were, to the state of Paradise. In this "new creation", which the Messiah brings about, the wounds, sin, sickness and death caused by the Fall are eliminated.

Meeting Christ changed Paul's world of values. He "died" to all that was important before. Now he was strong when he was weak, rich when he was poor and owning nothing he found that he possessed everything. He understood that only a "new creation", "bria hadasha", can "overcome the body of sin" and "our old man", so that we aim "to walk in the Spirit." Paul uses the same terms as the Essenes in depicting evil and his fleshly impulse. He does not believe that there is anything good in himself or that he could purify himself through fasting and stricter purification rituals -- he "knew," "perceived" and "saw" that "in his flesh" lived nothing good. Only "in Christ" is found the protective fence, the "seyag", which protects the believer on the right road. This apparently pessimistic attitude meant a new positive attitude towards life: "I can do all things in him who strengthens me."

"Tiqun meshihi" also led Paul to make doctrinal "corrections". Through the Torah he died to the Torah. The Law was indeed still to him holy, righteous and good. It functions as an educator and custodian "until the time determined by the Father." But Christ is the "end of the Law" and its "goal". In him the relationship to the Law changes into a personal relationship. He gives the Law a new motivation, "teamei Torah hadashim". Also the oldest, least censored Jewish literature speaks of this role of the Messiah as "mehoqeq"- that is, as "lawgiver". The Messiah gives a "new Law". He is "the Messiah our righteousness". The old Torah is "vanity of vanities" alongside the new.

These two thousand-year-long "days of the Messiah" of the tradition of Elijah are "the time of the Gentiles", when "the world travels on its normal track." Only afterwards will Israel receive the Torah of the Messiah and be renewed. This "rehabilitation" or "tiqun" means that Israel will once again be instituted as a priestly people "in its former position." Thus Israel's temporary "hardening" of heart will cease. This national and spiritual cultural crisis will be "like life from the dead."

The Methodological Approach

 Paul has been expected to interpret the Torah in the same way as his contemporaries or as the later synagogue did. Then it is forgotten that Paul felt himself to be in a "post-Messianic" situation, when the Messianic prophecies have already been fulfilled. And in accordance with his Hillelite education, Paul had the facilities to correct "halakhah", that is, his interpretation of the Law, "mipnei tiqun olam," that is, in accordance with the "new situation." In the Messianic era one must find Messianic interpretation. Paul loved the words "logical" and "analogy". He tried "to deduce" (Gr. logidzomai) logically what the coming of Christ meant with regard to the Torah. In his presentation he used the stylistic means of "midrashic" literature and its measuring principles (Heb. "middot"). Especially Hillel's third "middah", according to which Bible verses and ideas on the same subject are united in one "family", appears in his letters.

When recent Western scholarship criticizes Paul's way of arguing his ideas, this is due to the fact that the very individualizing Jewish manners of expression are not known. Professor Shmuel Safrai has said that "the information in the Talmud provides essential background for the correct understanding of the New Testament." The rabbis also give instructions for the way in which a scholar is to work: "The Old Testament leads to the Targums, the Targum leads to the Mishnah, the Mishnah leads to the Talmud."¹⁶⁸ And the Talmud emphasises: "The entire Torah is Hebrew, but associated with it are also things from the Targums."¹⁶⁹

In practice one can "rake" the background to Jewish Bible interpretation extremely thoroughly. Firstly, it is best to look at the Old Testament text. Then one must study what the Targums say about it. Thirdly, it is worth examining so-called "yalqut" literature, in which is collected book by book all the Old Testament verses quoted in the Talmud. This makes it possible to get to know the Talmud's discussion about these verses. Then one must, of course, look up the Greek Septuagint translation. The most abundant contribution one may perhaps find in the Miqraot Gedolot or MaLBiM Hebrew commentaries, where one finds in concentrated form interpretations of forty-two different sources. Also, the right understanding of Hebrew concepts and their background unity becomes clearer from these commentaries written in Rashi letters. Additional light on these considerations one can find in corresponding midrashic interpretations, e.g. in the Midrash Rabbah, which are admittedly not reference commentaries; some problems open up from the Zohar, the Aramaic exposition of Deuteronomy, of which there is a partial Hebrew translation; and finally one must study the conceptual world of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the aid of relevant Hebrew publications. One can tread this "long short road" only if one has the linguistic requirements and provided one has all the relevant basic literature at home. If one cannot relate the references of different books in a chronologically correct framework, the two-dozen-volume Encyclopedia Judaica is also of great help.

The Jewish Professor Pinchas Lapide has said that "Jesus was not a theologian because he was a Jew." However, Jesus had the ability to see the "essential" nucleus ("et ha-nolad") of the Scriptures and "motivate" the inner nature of the commandments. The same trait appears in Paul.

Gottlieb Klein complained about the theological guru of his time, A. Harnack, that he was unable "to move independently in the area of rabbinic literature." Klein also says that Paul did not actually take any radical independent decisions in his interpretation of the Torah or in his missionary work. The Apostolic Council of Jerusalem only applied to the Gentiles the Jewish "derekh eretz" and "haggadot meshubbahot" regulations. At that time "the seven Noachic commandments" affecting Gentiles had not yet been defined, but their moral instructions were already in use.

In Klein's view, Paul "was fully and clearly aware of the significance of his way of action. He could not behave otherwise" -- but because of this "the bond to Israel must not be severed. No, it should be tied more strongly. But Israel does not have any privilege alongside the Gentiles, for in Christ all are one."

Rabbi Gottlieb Klein also says that Jewish "halakhic" interpretation of the Law has the danger that it "surrounds Israel with a net through which not even the smallest sunbeam can enter." However, "Israel's ethical tradition of teaching is like an oasis amidst the wilderness of halakhah."

Professor Klein did not accept Paul, but he understood his "post-Messianic" interpretation, because he knew the literature of the Second Temple period, in Martin Buber's words, "better than any of his contemporaries."

In accordance with the method we have chosen, we have aimed to find the "leading principles" of Paul's theology and their "place" (Gr. "topos") in his thinking. Such topical study presupposes a knowledge of the way of presentation of Jewish midrashic literature. The testimony of Paul's life is, however, the best guarantee of the reliability of his teaching.

The Uniqueness of Paul

 The contribution of our study lies mainly in the information and quotations from Jewish literature which we have illuminated throughout the discourse. Jewish scholars often refer to the fact that if someone quotes the rabbis' thoughts "be-shem omro", that is, "in the name of him who says," he "conveys salvation to the world". Both negative and positive things must be presented exactly as they are. A Jew did not experience the temptation to change a person's words. In this sense theories of "interpolation" proposed by liberal theology that, for instance, the words of Jesus were later "improved" by the church, seem incomprehensible. An improver should be on a higher ethical plane than the Master of the Gospel himself.

Jewish technical terms relating to the teaching of Torah and their Hebrew equivalents are important because unless one knows them, one can arrive at quite wrong conclusions, even if one otherwise follows Western logic. We have seen, for instance, the assertion that Paul had a negative attitude towards the Ten Commandments and the Torah. However, Paul spoke to those who knew the Law, and he did not therefore need to explain to his readers the meaning of the term Torah and of phrases connected with it. Of the Ten Commandments are used in the Old Testament the terms "the words of the covenant" or the "ten words" -- basic things which form the only possible basis for being in fellowship with holy God. Professor Klein loved Tanna debe Eliahu's idea that only a moral man can know God and only by living a moral life can we live in fellowship with the Holy Spirit. Paul's letters testify how strict he was about the moral state of the church.

When a Jew speaks of the Torah and commandments, "Torah umitzvot", he means the six hundred and thirteen commandments derived from the books of Moses and their interpretation in the Talmud and mediaeval literature. In addition, this Torah or "teaching" includes the so-called "fence of the Torah" or "seyag ha-Torah", supplementary commandments which protect the believer living within it, so that he does not infringe the actual precepts of the Torah.

According to Paul, with Christ's atoning work this "fence of the Law with its precepts" has been knocked down. Also Jewish literature says clearly that in the Messiah's Law there are not "zehut ve-hovah", that is, "'do'- and 'do not'- commandments." He gives the Law a new "motivation", "teamei Torah hadashim" and "returns the Law to its renewal," "ha-Torah hozeret le-hidushah."

When Paul said that we are not saved "by works", he did not make "good works" (Gr. erga kala and agatha) unnecessary. On the contrary, "we were created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." God wishes to purify for himself a "people who apply themselves to good works." And "as we have opportunity, let us do good."

Jews use of it the phrase "ma'asim tovim" or "gemilut hasadim". They have exact counsels as what this involves or how much of his property can be set aside for it. The Essenes too have similar instructions. Especially the Hillelite school was aware that love for one's neighbour should also be practised with "mammon".

If one is not aware of these things, which are self-evident to Jewish scholars, it can lead to ordinary "acts of love" (agatha) being regarded as the antithesis of justification by faith. The "works of the Law" required by the Torah do not save us; but these "good works" are fruits of the Spirit which believers should produce in their everyday life. Some of the sensitive details in Acts also gain a new background when one views them in a contemporary light. So, for example, the meeting at Troas which continued late into the night may have been the so-called "melaveh malkah", which because of the associated prayers is also called by the name "the Messiah's meal" or "David's meal". According to the tradition of the Oriental churches, the first Christians celebrated the "eucharist" or Holy Communion in connection with this last meal of the Sabbath. It was deliberately continued late into the night. Hillel and Shammai debated about its details. An especially carefully laid table is said to be like an "altar". And the "havdalah" or "distinguishing" of the wine should be done in accordance with given regulations. The idea of a special "Messiah's meal" is also reflected in Psalm 22 and 23 and, for instance, in the Midrash on Ruth. There it is said four times: "Whoever eats the Messiah's meal in this world will eat it in the life to come." And "vinegar is the sufferings of which it is written: 'He was wounded for our transgressions.'" This background information also explains the perspective of eternity of the Lord's Supper, which Jesus emphasised. Similarly, Paul's words that one may not eat the Lord's body "without distinguishing" it from the rest of the meal, gain a new perspective.

In all research one must also take care of the comprehensiveness of the subject. Is the background information provided sufficient to give a correct overall picture? Are the details related in the right way to the target people's thought? Hillel's second "middah" or "measuring principle" aimed at "analysing the inner causal connection of the same matter." Are Paul's letters different main themes "grouped" correctly, are the "generalisations" made well-founded and are "basic things" internalized so that they correspond to Paul's thought? These questions were especially observed by the Hillelite school.

Dr. Peter J. Tomson has made a study of "halakhah" in Paul's letters under the supervision of Israeli professors.¹⁷⁰ It contains numerous conceptual analyses. However, only the especially initiated reader can perceive the inner causal connections of this scattered information. In his excellent book Tomson declares that although in the West during the past two centuries scholars have made better acquaintance with rabbinic sources, nevertheless, "halakhic" literature is least known. Christian theology has been interpreted from the standpoint of the Greek world.

Paul's logic is "homiletic and pastoral" rather than systematic. Actually Paul reached his doctrinal position, as did other rabbis, as dictated by practical problems. For precisely this reason he should be studied as a man and as a teacher.

Paul's letters are different from all Jewish sources in that he does not rely on any contemporary scholar -- not Hillel, not Shammai and not even Gamaliel. Only the written Old Testament word was good enough for him as the foundation of doctrine and life. His way of thinking and his style do indeed follow the rules followed by these scholars. And scholarship should find out whether Jesus' or Paul's teachings correspond to contemporary Messianic expectation. But when the Apostle Paul encountered Christ, it changed his entire way of thinking and life. He concentrated on speaking now only of the Kingdom of God and its eschatological fulfilment in Jesus. Thus he aims to convince his hearers that Jesus is the Messiah and Saviour.

What is to be hoped of the reader

 We have together covered a fair distance of ancient "paper bridges". These old Jewish sources reflect the same legacy of faith on which the Gospels and letters of Paul are based. Of the reader I dare to expect that we would be like the Berean Jews (Acts 17:11). "Now the Bereans were more of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the word with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

The Bible is not a disposable item. We are like Holy Land tourists: the first trip makes one's head spin and one can hardly remember anything about it except the general impression it makes. On the second and third trip the "topography" of Israel begins to take shape in our eyes, one grows attached to it and many details gain a new significance. Similarly, the Apostle Paul's inner life and details of his teaching become clarified perhaps only after several readings.

For these armchair journeys our book has an appended chart which can help us find out more about Paul's missionary journeys, their main events and the places from where he wrote his letters. The same things can also be brought into focus by studying the related maps. Paul's life and teachings can have a revolutionary effect on our lives.

In the Acts of the Apostles there are sensitive vignettes of Paul's life and more extensive excerpts from his speeches, such as his appearance before King Agrippa in chapter 26. Similarly, the description in chapter 27 of an autumn storm and shipwreck is regarded as the most detailed account of seafaring in Antiquity. These and other full presentations should be read in their own contexts.

Extracts from Paul's letters, his hymn to love in 1 Corinthians 13 or the joyful letter to the Philippians are worth reading as they are. At the same time one can mark in one's Bible Paul's many catalogues of virtues and words of consolation and encouragement. Especially Jewish readers, such as Rabbi Gottlieb Klein, saw in these similarities one of the greatest jewels of "derekh eretz" literature.

Also, the Apostle Paul's profound message of our human weakness and the work of the Holy Spirit "in our creature of clay" come up on our armchair journey. And as often as Paul thanks God for his goodness, we too can join in the same "hodayah": "Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work in us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen" (Eph. 3:20-21).
----------
167.    Rom. 4:1, 6:1, 7:7, 9:14 and 30.
168.    Sifrei Shoftim, pisgah 161.
169.    Mashehet Sofrim 1.
170.    Tomson, Paul and the Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles.