Does Paul Have Torah or Halachic Authority? Part 1

B"H

Does Paul Have Torah or Halachic Authority?

Paul, known as Shaul of Tarsus, remains one of the most influential yet polarizing figures in religious history. His writings have shaped much of Christian theology, particularly its approach to law, grace, and salvation. For many, Paul stands as the primary interpreter of the teachings of Yeshua (Jesus) and the bridge between Jewish and Gentile followers in the nascent Messianic community. However, his role and authority, particularly from a Jewish perspective, merit critical examination. Was Paul, as he is often portrayed in Christian circles, an authoritative voice on matters of Torah and halacha? Or was he, as his Jewish contemporaries might have argued, a controversial figure whose teachings deviated from established norms?

The question of Paul’s halachic authority is not merely an academic one; it has profound implications for understanding the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. Judaism, grounded in Torah and its detailed halachic framework, operates on a system of authority deeply rooted in tradition, ordination (semichah), and the unbroken chain of transmission (mesorah). Christianity, particularly in its Pauline interpretation, diverges significantly from this framework, emphasizing faith over works and universalizing its message beyond the boundaries of Jewish law. This divergence raises a critical question: could Paul’s teachings have been considered authoritative within a Jewish context, or were they fundamentally incompatible with halachic principles?

Paul himself claimed a unique role, describing his zeal for the traditions of his ancestors (Galatians ) and his education under the esteemed Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts). Yet, his subsequent teachings, especially regarding the Torah’s applicability to Gentiles and his reinterpretation of key mitzvot (commandments), reveal a profound departure from Pharisaic norms. These departures demand scrutiny in light of the qualifications required for halachic authority. Rabbinic tradition, as codified in the Talmud and later in the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, sets clear criteria for those who would interpret or legislate Jewish law. Paul’s background and actions must be measured against these standards to determine whether he could legitimately claim such authority.

Beyond the internal Jewish debate, Paul’s writings occupy a central place in Christian scripture. The canonization of his letters by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in the fourth century ensured their enduring influence. However, this process also raises questions about the nature of authority in Christianity. Protestants, for example, reject the authority of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches while simultaneously relying on their decisions regarding the New Testament canon. This paradox becomes particularly evident when examining the inclusion of Paul’s letters alongside the exclusion of other texts, such as the Apocrypha. What does this selective acceptance reveal about the authority underpinning Paul’s writings?

The discussion also touches on deeper theological and mystical dimensions. Paul’s writings exhibit elements of Midrashic interpretation and mystical thought, drawing on Jewish methods of scriptural engagement while applying them to a radically new framework. His allegorical readings, typological parallels, and references to divine mysteries echo rabbinic and even Kabbalistic traditions. Yet, these elements alone do not constitute halachic authority. Instead, they highlight the extent to which Paul borrowed from Jewish interpretive methods to advance his unique theological vision.

This thesis aims to address these questions comprehensively. It begins by exploring the historical evidence for Paul’s connection to the Sanhedrin, the supreme judicial and legislative body of ancient Judaism. Membership in the Sanhedrin required strict qualifications, including ordination, extensive knowledge of Torah and worldly disciplines, moral character, and communal recognition. Paul’s life and actions, as recorded in the New Testament and interpreted through Jewish sources, will be evaluated against these criteria.

The second section examines Paul’s halachic authority in light of his teachings. Key divergences from Torah law—such as his views on circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath observance—are analyzed to determine whether they align with or contradict halachic norms. Rabbinic sources, including the Talmud and the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, provide a framework for understanding these issues. Particular attention is given to Paul’s reinterpretation of mitzvot and his emphasis on faith over works, a hallmark of his theology but a departure from Jewish legal tradition.

The third section delves into the Midrashic and mystical elements in Paul’s writings. While these elements enrich his theological vision, they do not confer halachic authority. Examples of his allegorical interpretations and mystical themes are compared with similar techniques in rabbinic and Kabbalistic literature, highlighting both parallels and divergences.

The fourth section addresses the canonization of Paul’s letters by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and the implications of this process for Christian theology. The discussion will explore the logic of Protestant acceptance of Paul’s writings while rejecting other elements of the canon, such as the Apocrypha. This selective acceptance reveals a reliance on Catholic and Orthodox authority, even among those who explicitly reject it.

Finally, the conclusion synthesizes these findings, affirming that Paul lacks Torah or halachic authority according to Jewish tradition. His role as a theological figure in Christianity, while significant, is rooted in a framework that departs from Jewish law and tradition. This analysis provides a nuanced understanding of Paul’s place in religious history and clarifies the boundaries of halachic authority within Judaism.

By addressing these themes, this thesis seeks to contribute to the ongoing dialogue between Judaism and Christianity, offering a perspective that respects the distinctiveness of each tradition while critically engaging with their shared history. The question of Paul’s authority is not merely a historical or theological curiosity; it is a lens through which the complex interplay of law, faith, and tradition can be better understood.

Halachic and Rabbinic Authority

Paul’s Background as a Pharisee

Paul’s self-identification as a Pharisee (Acts, Philippians) provides an important starting point for evaluating his relationship to Torah and halacha. The Pharisees were a sect deeply committed to the oral and written Torah, emphasizing the transmission of traditions (mesorah) and the application of halachic principles to daily life. Pharisaic teachings formed the foundation of what would later become rabbinic Judaism, with its emphasis on legal precision, communal obligations, and personal piety.

Paul’s education under Rabban Gamaliel (Acts) further underscores his Pharisaic credentials.

Gamaliel, a leading sage of his time and a key figure in the Sanhedrin, advocated for a balanced and measured approach to halacha. The Mishnah (Pirkei Avot) records Gamaliel’s call to “make a fence around the Torah,” a principle that reflects the Pharisaic commitment to safeguarding Torah observance through rabbinic enactments.

However, while Paul’s education and zeal for Torah (Galatians) suggest a strong foundation in Pharisaic traditions, his later teachings reveal significant departures from these norms. To determine whether Paul could claim halachic authority, it is essential to examine the qualifications for such authority and evaluate his teachings against these criteria.

Qualifications for Halachic Authority

Rabbinic literature establishes clear qualifications for those who would serve as halachic authorities. The Talmud and Rambam’s Mishneh Torah provide a detailed framework for evaluating Paul’s credentials:

Semichah (Ordination):

Halachic authority requires ordination through an unbroken chain tracing back to Moshe Rabbeinu. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Sanhedrin) emphasizes that ordination must confer the legal capacity to interpret and legislate Jewish law.

There is no evidence that Paul received semichah. While his training under Gamaliel suggests a strong academic background, it does not confer the judicial or legislative authority required to issue binding halachic rulings.

Mastery of Torah and Wisdom:

Judges and halachic authorities must possess comprehensive knowledge of Torah, oral traditions, and worldly disciplines (Sanhedrin 17a). Rambam (Hilchot Sanhedrin) stresses the need for expertise in medicine, astronomy, and other sciences to ensure informed decision-making.

While Paul demonstrates familiarity with Torah and biblical texts, his reinterpretations—such as his allegorical approach to Abraham’s faith (Romans )—reflect theological innovation rather than mastery of established halachic principles.

Moral Character and Communal Recognition:

Halachic authorities must exhibit exemplary moral character and enjoy the trust of their community (Deuteronomy, Sanhedrin). Rambam (Hilchot Sanhedrin) mandates that judges be “humble, God-fearing, and universally respected.”

Paul’s divisive role in the early Messianic community and his persecution of believers (Acts) suggest a zeal that overshadowed the humility and communal trust required for halachic leadership.

Adherence to Halachic Norms:

A halachic authority must operate within the framework of established Jewish law. Rambam (Hilchot Mamrim) warns against those who deviate from the majority opinion or undermine the authority of the Sanhedrin.

Paul’s theological innovations, particularly his approach to Torah observance for Gentiles, place him outside the bounds of traditional halacha.

Paul’s Divergences from Halacha

Paul’s teachings depart significantly from halachic norms, particularly in three key areas: circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath observance.

Circumcision:

In Galatians, Paul writes, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.”

This statement directly contradicts the Torah’s covenantal requirement of circumcision (Genesis ). Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Milah) underscores that circumcision is a perpetual obligation for the descendants of Avraham.

Paul’s position reflects a theological shift that undermines a core halachic principle, further disqualifying him as an authority on Jewish law.

Dietary Laws:

In Romans, Paul asserts, “I am convinced that nothing is unclean in itself.”

This challenges the Torah’s clear distinctions between kosher and non-kosher foods (Leviticus). Rambam (Hilchot Ma’achalot Assurot) emphasizes the Torah’s dietary laws as integral to Jewish identity and sanctity.

By deemphasizing dietary laws, Paul removes a key boundary marker of Jewish observance, contradicting halachic norms.

Sabbath Observance:

In Colossians, Paul writes, “Let no one judge you…with regard to a Sabbath.”

This downplays the significance of Shabbat, which the Torah mandates as a sign of the covenant between God and Israel (Exodus). Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat) declares Shabbat observance one of the foundational pillars of Judaism.

Paul’s approach reflects a departure from halachic fidelity, emphasizing individual freedom over communal obligations.

Impact of Paul’s Teachings on the Early Community

Paul’s reinterpretations of Torah principles created significant tension within the early Messianic Jewish community. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) reflects this tension, as the apostles debated whether Gentile converts were obligated to observe the Torah. While the council ultimately exempted Gentiles from full Torah observance, it reaffirmed key prohibitions (e.g., idolatry, blood consumption) rooted in halachic principles.

Rambam’s Hilchot Teshuvah teaches that Torah observance is non-negotiable, emphasizing that every Jew is bound by its commandments. Paul’s message, which prioritizes faith over works, represents a fundamental departure from this principle. His theological framework, while innovative, is incompatible with the halachic worldview.

Paul’s Lack of Rabbinic Recognition

Paul’s divergence from halachic norms and his role in the early Messianic community further underscore his lack of recognition as a rabbinic authority. The Talmud (Avodah Zarah) warns against those who mislead others by distorting Torah principles, emphasizing the importance of fidelity to tradition.

Rabbinic literature does not acknowledge

Paul as part of the chain of transmission (mesorah) that safeguards Jewish law. Instead, his teachings reflect a break from this tradition, positioning him as a theological innovator rather than a halachic authority.

Paul’s background as a Pharisee and his education under Gamaliel suggest a strong foundation in Jewish law. However, his actions and teachings demonstrate a significant departure from halachic principles. Lacking semichah, communal recognition, and adherence to Torah norms, Paul cannot be considered a halachic authority. His theological innovations, while influential within Christianity, place him outside the framework of rabbinic Judaism.

Midrashic and Kabbalistic Connections in Paul’s Writings

Introduction to Midrashic and Mystical Interpretations

Paul’s writings exhibit clear influences from Jewish

interpretive traditions, particularly Midrashic techniques and themes that align with early mystical thought. These elements demonstrate his deep familiarity with Torah and Jewish methods of engaging scripture. However, while these interpretative methods enrich Paul’s theological arguments, they do not elevate his writings to the level of halachic authority. Midrash and mysticism in Jewish tradition serve to inspire deeper understanding, but they do not function as legal instruments for determining Jewish practice.

Paul’s application of Midrashic and mystical ideas highlights his creativity in reinterpreting Jewish scriptures to support his theological framework. By analyzing key examples of these techniques, this section explores their connections to rabbinic and Kabbalistic traditions while emphasizing the limitations of their authority.

Midrashic Techniques in Paul’s Writings

Paul frequently employs Midrashic methods, reinterpreting biblical narratives and concepts to construct theological arguments. While these methods align with Jewish hermeneutics, Paul often applies them in ways that diverge from traditional Jewish thought.

Allegory of Hagar and Sarah (Galatians)

Paul’s Interpretation:

Paul presents the story of Hagar and Sarah as an allegory for two covenants:

Hagar represents the covenant from Mount Sinai, associated with bondage.

Sarah represents the covenant of promise and freedom, tied to the “Jerusalem above.”

Paul uses this allegory to argue that believers in Yeshua (Jesus) are heirs of Sarah’s covenant of freedom, not bound by the law given at Sinai.

Midrashic Connections:

Rabbinic Midrash often employs allegory to draw ethical or theological lessons from biblical narratives. For example, Bereishit Rabbah interprets the tension between Hagar and Sarah as symbolic of competing spiritual trajectories.

However, Paul’s application diverges by framing the Sinai covenant as obsolete, a position inconsistent with Jewish Midrash, which affirms the eternal relevance of Torah.

Typology of Adam and Yeshua (Romans)

Paul’s Interpretation:

Paul draws a typological parallel between Adam and Yeshua:

Adam’s disobedience brought sin and death into the world.

Yeshua’s obedience brings grace and life.

This typology underpins Paul’s theology of original sin and redemption.

Midrashic Connections:

The Talmud and Midrash frequently explore typologies involving Adam. For instance, Mesechet Sanhedrin describes Adam as the archetype of humanity, whose actions influence all future generations.

Paul’s typology expands on this concept but introduces the idea of a second Adam (Yeshua) as a redemptive figure, a notion absent from rabbinic tradition.

Reinterpretation of Abraham’s Faith (Romans)

Paul’s Interpretation:

Paul emphasizes that Abraham’s righteousness was credited through faith, not works, arguing that justification comes by faith alone.

Midrashic Connections:

Rabbinic literature extols Abraham’s faith, as seen in Bereishit Rabbah, which highlights his unwavering trust in God during the Akedah (Binding of Isaac).

However, rabbinic sources also emphasize Abraham’s actions, such as his observance of mitzvot (Kiddushin), countering Paul’s exclusive focus on faith.

Kabbalistic Themes in Paul’s Theology

Although Paul predates the formal emergence of Kabbalah, his writings resonate with concepts later developed in Jewish mysticism. Themes such as divine mysteries, the heavenly realms, and the union of humanity with God appear throughout his letters, reflecting a mystical orientation.

The Mystery of Divine Wisdom (1 Corinthians)

Paul’s Teaching:

Paul speaks of a hidden wisdom, a divine mystery ordained before time and revealed through the Spirit.

This wisdom, he argues, transcends human understanding and is accessible only through spiritual revelation.

Kabbalistic Connections:

The concept of Sod (mystery) is central to Kabbalah, where it refers to esoteric knowledge revealed to the righteous. For example, the Zohar describes Torah as containing layers of hidden meaning accessible only through spiritual insight (Zohar).

Paul’s emphasis on spiritual revelation parallels Kabbalistic ideas but diverges by framing Yeshua as the ultimate key to divine wisdom.

The Heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians, Revelation)

Paul’s Teaching:

Paul contrasts the earthly Jerusalem with the “Jerusalem above,” a spiritual city symbolizing freedom and divine promise.

This theme is expanded in the Book of Revelation, which describes the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem as a new creation.

Kabbalistic Connections:

Kabbalistic texts frequently discuss the interplay between the earthly and heavenly Jerusalems. The Zohar (Zohar) describes the heavenly Jerusalem as the spiritual counterpart of its earthly manifestation, representing divine unity and redemption.

Paul’s vision aligns with this duality but reinterprets it through a Messianic lens, emphasizing the role of Yeshua in uniting the two realms.

Union with God (Ephesians)

Paul’s Teaching:

Paul speaks of believers being “filled with all the fullness of God,” a mystical union achieved through faith.

Kabbalistic Connections:

The concept of Devekut (cleaving to God) is a cornerstone of Jewish mysticism, emphasizing the soul’s connection to the Divine. Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim) also discusses the intellectual and spiritual union with God as the highest human aspiration.

Paul’s description of divine fullness reflects a similar aspiration but frames it as attainable through faith in Yeshua, diverging from the Jewish focus on Torah and mitzvot as pathways to Devekut.

Midrashic and Mystical Methods Without Halachic Authority

While Paul’s use of Midrashic and mystical methods demonstrates his familiarity with Jewish interpretive traditions, these methods do not confer halachic authority. In Judaism, halachic decisions are grounded in the Talmud, codified works such as the Mishneh Torah, and the rulings of recognized rabbinic authorities. Midrash and mysticism, while spiritually enriching, are considered supplementary to the halachic framework.

Rambam emphasizes this distinction in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, stating that knowledge of divine mysteries is a profound pursuit but must always be subordinate to the observance of Torah commandments. Paul’s teachings, which prioritize faith and mystical union over halachic observance, deviate from this principle.

Comparison to Rabbinic Authority

Rabbinic figures who employed Midrashic or mystical techniques did so within the bounds of halacha. For example:

Rabbi Akiva: Known for his esoteric interpretations, Rabbi Akiva’s insights remained firmly rooted in halachic discourse (Mesechet Sanhedrin).

The Arizal: A foundational figure in Kabbalah, the Arizal upheld the primacy of halachic observance, integrating mystical insights into the practice of mitzvot.

Paul’s writings, by contrast, reflect a break from halachic tradition, using Midrashic and mystical tools to construct a theology that diverges from Jewish law.

Paul’s writings exhibit significant Midrashic and mystical elements, drawing on Jewish interpretive methods to articulate his theological vision. However, these elements do not establish halachic authority. Midrash and Kabbalah enrich understanding and inspire spiritual growth but remain subordinate to halacha in Jewish tradition. Paul’s reinterpretations and mystical themes, while creative and influential, operate outside the boundaries of Jewish law, further underscoring his lack of halachic legitimacy.

End of Part 1