This review essay is part of the 2023 Society of Biblical Literature's review panel for Yael Fisch, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash. Find the full panel here.
Preamble and Thesis
It is an incredible opportunity and honour for me to reflect and respond to the work of Dr. Yael Fisch in her 2023 monograph, Written for Us—especially alongside such numinous colleagues whose work I greatly admire. I am thankful to Laura Dingeldein and Matthew Novenson for the chance to respond to what I consider to be a landmark work in Pauline Studies.
Eight years ago, in the fall of 2015, I was a young graduate student at Oxford who somehow found himself in a classroom learning how to (attempt to) read the rabbis with Dr. Joanna Weinberg, Professor of Hebrew and Jewish Studies at the Oriental Institute. A self-taught student of ancient Hebrew, I remember asking quite naively how many words I’d have to memorize to read and understand the Tannaim? (A nod to the way that biblical Hebrew is “learned” by many students in seminarian contexts today) Dr. Weinberg—whose soul I’m sure was dying inside—smiled and replied, “Whatever it takes for you to feel like you have control over the text.” Well, hearer, in the eight weeks of that term as I crawled through my first pages of the Mishnah, stumbled my way through passages of the Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, and damned-near drowned in my first paragraph of the Tosefta. I was not in control. I was a million miles from it.
What those eight weeks did train me to do, however, was to get a sense of the logic, the structure, and the ingenuity of rabbinic argumentation. Minutiae, implicit citation, contemporization, the capitalization of silence—or as Dr. Fisch puts it “intertextualization, decontextualization, and recontextualization” (65), these patterns of thinking opened a whole new epistemological world to me.
Reading through Dr. Fisch’s book took me back to that Michaelmas term in Oxford with one significant difference. Dr. Fisch’s explanations of textual patterns of ancient Jewish midrash and pesher, and midrash-pesher, were crystal clear. Rather than the rabbis, however, this time it was Paul’s ancient hermeneutics which suddenly seemed unfamiliar. I had lost control of Paul. It was disorientating and rejuvenating at the same time—and that’s a significant thing for a Pauline scholar to say! Most of the time it’s disorientating and frustrating. This response is my paltry attempt to get back in control of Paul.
My response here will focus specifically on the second chapter of Dr. Fisch’s book, her analysis of Romans 10:5–13 through midrash-pesher in conversation with Romans 3. I want to contend with the implication drawn that Paul gives preference to an oral nomos over a written nomos in scripture. In this response, I argue that Paul does not give preference to the oral over the written but emphasizes the oral in his wider argument in Romans 10 about ethnic Jews (Israel) who have not heard the message about Christ (“the word”). According to Romans 10 and 3, following the oral nomos is essential for fulfilling the written nomos.
Overview of Dr. Fisch’s Arguments about Paul’s Emphasis on an Oral Nomos over Written Nomos
In her analysis of Romans 10:5-13, Dr. Fisch focuses especially on explicit interlocutors in the text. Who gets to speak? Dr. Fisch draws our attention to two characters: Moses who “writes” (Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει, 10:5) and “The Righteousness by Trust” who “speaks” (ἡ δὲ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη, 10:6). While Moses quotes Leviticus 18:5, Paul uses “midrash-pesher rhetoric” to extract, alter, “peg,” and interpret Deuteronomy 30:12-14 in Romans 10:6-8. Even though Paul quotes a written text (Deuteronomy) and populates it in Romans, a written text, he nevertheless portrays it as spoken word[1]:
One of the key implications of Paul’s use of the midrash-pesher to let The Righteousness by Trust speak is that he prefers and prioritizes an oral nomos over the written.[2] Drawing on Romans 3, Fisch argues further that “the terms ‘Torah of deeds’ and ‘Torah of trust’ should both be understood as referring to scripture, that is, as different facets of Torah itself” (62-63). Paul “upholds Torah” (3:31) by arguing that there is “a double-nomos: the ‘nomos of works’ which is for the Jews and ineffective or even futile for gentiles-in-Christ, according to Paul, and nomos pisteōs which is the Torah that speaks to and of gentile Christ followers” (64). In her words: “[s]cripture holds, according to Paul, two nomoi, and it is through the torah of trust that he speaks to his [gentile] community” (65). Fisch understands that Paul presents Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12-14 as antithetical to one another, “a textual incompatibility,” a tension that Paul “leaves unresolved” (56).[3]
Key to Dr. Fisch’s argument is the connection between Romans 10:5-13 and 2 Corinthians 3, the well-known passage concerning letters of stone as a ministry of death, an allusion to the written Mosaic law. She argues:
“[I]n both Romans 10:5-13 and in 2 Corinthians 3 we find a devaluation of writing, the latter case more poignant. But the devaluation of writing is not a rejection of scripture in general: In Romans 10:5-13 the preference for the oral is creatively utilized in the manufacturing of a written(!) authoritative text. The “theoretical” distinction between letter and spirit in 2 Corinthians 3 is in Romans 10 internal to scripture itself, not as a distinction between textual/non-textual but as a dual aspect of scripture. Paul’s strategy in Romans 10 and 3, as I have reconstructed it here, is to make a division within scripture that allows him to marginalize many commandments with regards to the salvation of gentiles, while embracing and promoting other scriptures for them, re-presented as oral and living teaching.” (Pages 69-70)[4]
A visual summary of Dr. Fisch’s reconstruction of Paul’s nomoi and their function in Romans 3 and 10 might look something like this:
I agree with almost everything in this reconstruction except for two things: that the Righteousness by Trust that speaks is universally privileged by Paul, and that the purpose of this oral law is for his gospel to the gentiles. Rather, on my reading, the oral nomos is emphasized in Romans 10 because Paul is explaining why a part of Israel (that is, Jews who are not followers of Jesus) has not heard (=understood) the “word” which does not need to be brought down from heaven or brought up from the abyss, that is Christ. In other words, Paul’s emphasis on the nomos pisteōs in Romans 10 is not for the gospel to the gentiles per se, but rather for the gospel to Israel.
In this article, I want to attempt to briefly respond to three questions that I think arise from Dr. Fisch’s work:
Is the oral nomos, the Righteousness by Trust, the only one who speaks in Romans?
Is the oral nomos spoken only for the sake of gentile salvation?
Does Paul create an antithesis between the written and the oral nomoi and leave it unresolved?
Is the oral nomos, the Righteousness by Trust, the only one who speaks?
It is true that in Romans 10:5-13, the only nomos that “speaks” (λέγει) is the Righteousness by Trust, speaking Paul’s pegged excerpts from Deut 30:12-14. It is also the case, however, that “the writing” or “scripture” speaks in Rom 10:11 (λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή), when Paul references Isa 28:16.[5] Admittedly, while this writing speaks, it is nevertheless not a nomos.
Outside of Romans 10:5-13, however, Moses does speak. Just a few verses late, in Romans 10:19, “Moses speaks” (Μωϋσῆς λέγει) when Paul invokes Deut 32:21. Additionally, in Romans 3:19, Paul argues that “we know that whatever the nomos (the law of works = 3:20, 21, 27) is saying, it is speaking to those in the law, so that every mouth might be shut and the whole cosmos be accountable to God” (οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὅσα ὁ νόμος λέγει τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λαλεῖ*, ἵνα πᾶν στόμα φραγῇ καὶ ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ θεῷ). Paul envisions that the written law, not just the Righteousness by Trust is still presently speaking to convict all, both Jew and gentile, of their sin (Rom 3:9-18).
Is the oral nomos spoken only for the sake of gentile salvation?
In a similar manner to the Tannaim, Dr. Fisch argues that Paul uses midrash-pesher rhetoric for contemporization (cf. 43-44). Paul uses this technique in Romans 10 to contemporize Deut 30:12-14 for his gentile audience, “to speak to his gentile audience with and through verses and present scripture as speaking directly to them and their condition” (51).
The problem as I see it with this reading is that while Romans might be addressed to gentiles, the context of Romans 10 relates specifically to the status of Israel and Jewish people who have not yet heard “the word,” that is Christ.[6] Paul’s discussion about the two nomoi in 10:5-13 is connected to Paul’s prayer that Israel might be saved (10:1) on one end and that some of them have not yet heard the good news (10:15-21) on the other end—more on this latter point in a moment. So, in the context of Romans 10, these two nomoi within scripture, and specifically the Righteousness by Trust, are relevant not only for gentiles but also for Israel, the Jewish people.
If we turn to Romans 3, there is also an indication that both nomoi, the law of works and the law of trust, apply both to Jews and to non-Jews not just to gentiles and their condition. In 3:27-28, Paul describes the two nomoi, and that a human is justified by trust apart from works, emphasizing the law of trust. But then in 3:29 Paul says, “Or is God only the god of the Jews? Is he not also God of the nations? Indeed, the nations also” (ἢ Ἰουδαίων ὁ θεὸς μόνον; οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν; ναὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν). Paul’s initial question in 3:29 presupposes that readers (Jewish or otherwise) would first apply the content of 3:27-28 to Jewish people first. Paul then only includes gentiles as secondary beneficiaries of this two-nomoi framework. This follows the pattern elsewhere in Romans about the priority of Paul’s gospel for Jew first and then for the Greek (1:16; 2:9; 2:10).
I mentioned above that Paul does not think that part of Israel has yet heard (=understood) the good news. Paul says that his people have a zeal for God but it is not based according to “knowledge” (ἐπίγνωσις, 10:2). He says literally that “they do not perceive/know the righteousness of God” (ἀγνοοῦντες γὰρ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην, 10:3). My impression from previous interpreters of Paul, arguing from the tacit understanding of the Jewish people as the gospel’s first recipients of Jesus’s message, is that Paul thinks Israel is intentionally ignoring the oral nomos, the Righteousness by Trust, that speaks. I don’t think this is the case in Romans 10.
There are several indications that suggest to me that Paul thinks part of Israel has not heard “the word,” Christ, and by extension the righteousness of God. In order to understand this, we need to follow Paul’s logic from Rom 10:5 through to the end of the chapter (so have your Nestle-Aland’s at the ready!).
In Rom 10:5, the Righteousness by Law (Leviticus 18:5) says that the person who does God’s laws will live. In Rom 10:6, the Righteousness by Trust (Deut 30:12-14) does not contradict Lev 18:5, but adds the element of hearing to doing these God’s laws. In order to do God’s laws (Lev 18:5) one must hear them first (Deut 30:12-14). Just because Paul does not quote the “hearing and doing” of Deut 30 in Rom 10:6-7, however, does not mean that he is excluding them. Fisch argues that Paul intentionally leaves out both the deeds aspect and the auditory nature of Deuteronomy 30, that this “commandment” is brought near so Israel can hear it and do it.[7] I think that Paul actually assumes both deeds, thus connecting Deut 30:12-14 to Lev 18:5, as well as the hearing aspect of Deut 30 since the wider context of Romans 10 is the question of whether Israel has heard the gospel. What Paul does alter explicitly in his excerpts from Deut 30:12-14 is that he interprets “the word” (Deut 30:14) not as “the commandment” (Deut 30:11), but as Christ (10:6-7). It is not the commandment that must be brought down from heaven or up from the abyss, but Christ.
In Rom 10:8, the word of trust of Deut 30:14 is Paul’s message of Christ that he proclaims. Extrapolating on the placement of this word in a believer’s “mouth” and “heart,” Paul then explains the importance of external verbal confession and internal heart trust (10:9), since trust in the heart leads to righteousness and confession leads to salvation (10:10). Isa 28:16 in Roman 10:11 serves as scriptural proof for trusting in Christ and Joel 2:32 in 10:13 serves as proof for the need for believers to call on the Lord, confessing that Jesus is Lord. Confessing and trusting. Trusting and calling. Both of these require hearing.
This leads us to Rom 10:14-15, where Paul asks how Israel are to get to this point. “How are they to call unless they first trust? How are they to trust unless they have heard? How are they to hear without someone telling them? How can someone proclaim unless someone is sent?”
In Romans 10:15, Paul then uses Isa 52:7 to say: “how ὡραῖοι are the feet of those who bring good news.” Interpreters usually take this as referring to the beauty of an apostle’s feet, perhaps a humble-brag to Paul’s pedicurist. But the term ὡραῖοι can mean both “beautiful” (related to appearance) and “timely” (related to timing), I think, is a double entendre, connecting the welcome feet of those sending the good news, but also highlighting the timing of that good news, which becomes essential when we start talking about Rom 10:19.
Paul then says something very surprising, he says “But not all have heard the good news” (Ἀλλʼ οὐ πάντες ὑπήκουσαν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ) (10:16) for Isaiah is saying “who trusted in our hearing (ἀκοή)?” (Isa 53:1). The verb ὑπακούω is usually translated as “obeyed” but I think we seem to miss the theme of “hearing” language here in 10:16-17. Paul’s drawing on Isa 53:1 does not concern a report, but continuing the motif of hearing. He explains the relevance of ἀκοή to his message in 10:17 – “Trust comes out of hearing, but hearing through the word of Christ.” Paul returns full circle to 10:6-7, where “the word” which is near (Deut 30:14) is Paul’s message of Christ, and salvation depends on hearing that message. This is the first indication that Israel, in some way, has not heard the good news.
In Rom 10:18 Paul confirms that Israel has not heard by asking, “But am I saying, ‘Have they not yet heard?’ (The use of μὴ anticipates an affirmative response: “Surely’ Israel has heard!”).” Instead of affirming his question, Paul says μενοῦνγε, “On the contrary,” implying that Israel has not yet heard.[8] He then quotes Ps 18:5 LXX in 10:18 (“to all the earth, their melodies have gone out, and to the ends of the earth, their words”). Whose melodies have gone out? Whose words have travelled to the ends of the earth? In the context of Psalm 18 in the LXX, it is not a written nomos, but it is the heavens and creation itself (cf. 18:1-4). This may be Paul harking back to his natural theology in Rom 1:19-21.
Then Paul says in Rom 10:19, “But am I saying, ‘Israel does not know?’” (ἀλλὰ λέγω, μὴ Ἰσραὴλ οὐκ ἔγνω, again with a double negative and the particle μὴ expecting an affirmative response: “Yes, surely Israel knows!”). Instead of responding directly, Moses speaks: “First (πρῶτος),” Moses says, “I will make you jealous by those who are not a nation, by a senseless nation I will make you angry” (Deut 32:21). Isaiah 65:1 boldly follows by saying that God has been found by those who did not seek him, revealed to those who did not ask for him. In other words, Paul is talking about the gentiles turning to the God of Israel in his own ministry. Why does Paul/Moses use πρῶτος here to talk about timing? What does this have to do with Israel hearing? I think this harks back to Paul’s use of Is 52:7, “How timely are the feet of those who bring good news.” But it also points forward to Paul’s conception of the hardening of Israel in Romans 11.
Paul’s comments about Israel hearing in Romans 10, I think need to be read through two key concepts in Romans and in 2 Corinthians; the hardening that has come upon Israel (Rom 11:25) and the veiling of reading Moses in 2 Cor 3:14-16. In 2 Corinthians 3:14-16, Paul argues that Israel’s perceptions (their senses) are hardened so much so that even in his present day a veil lies over their hearts when Moses is read audibly: “14 But their perceptions were hardened (ἀλλʼ ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα αὐτῶν). Until this day, today, the same veil remains over the reading aloud of the old covenant, not unveiled because it is set aside in Christ. 15 But until today whenever Moses is read aloud, a veil lies over their heart. 16 But if ever they turn to the Lord, the veil is removed.” In Romans 11:25, Paul uses a nominal cognate of the verb πωρόω in 2 Cor 3:14 to talk about the “hardening” (πώρωσις) that has come on part of Israel until the fullness of the nations come in. This hardening involves receiving “a spirit of bewilderment, eyes that do not see, and ears that do not hear, until this very day” (Rom 11:6).[9] If part of Israel’s perceptions are hardened, particularly if their hearts, are hardened (see the equation between the two in 2 Cor 3:14 and 3:15), then until this hardening is taken away they will not be able to “hear” Paul’s message—not in the sense that they cannot physically hear it, but in the sense that they cannot understand it. For Paul, if they cannot hear it (as in, understand it) then they cannot trust in their heart. If they cannot trust in their heart then they cannot confess Jesus is Lord—yet. The reason why Paul talks about Moses talking about the gentiles “first” is because Paul anticipates the time when the “full number of the gentiles has come in” (11:15) and the hardening on part of Israel is no longer there and they can finally hear the “the word” of Deut 30:12-14, for him, Christ. Only then will Israel be able to “hear.” To answer Paul’s question in Rom 10:19 about whether Israel knows, then, the answer is: not yet.
All this to say that Paul’s emphasis in Romans 10 on speaking and subsequently hearing—orality—is not because it is relevant only to his gentile communities, but because it serves as an explanation for why part of Israel still not has yet believed; they cannot believe because they cannot “hear” the oral nomos speaking about Christ and righteousness by trust.
Does Paul create an antithesis between the written and the oral nomoi and leave it unresolved?
I hinted above that I think there is an inherent connection between Paul’s use of Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12-14 in Romans 10. They are not in antithesis to one another, but complementary for Paul. In order to live, one must do God’s laws (Lev 18:5). In order to do God’s laws one has to hear the word (Deut 30:12-14). For Paul, the word is Christ (and, specifically, the Righteousness by Trust that comes through Christ). Some of the nations have heard it and are becoming living laws (cf. Rom 2:14). Part of Israel cannot hear the word because their hearts have been hardened. If they cannot hear the nomos speaking then they will not be able to call on the Lord and “live” (Lev 18:5), i.e. be saved.
If Paul truly does not understand an antithesis between the written and the oral nomoi, then what do we do with 2 Corinthians 3? Is it the case that 2 Corinthians 3 devalues writing?[10] The point of 2 Corinthians 3 is not that writing is antithetical to orality, but that the placement or mode of what is written matters. Indeed, Paul says that the “letter kills” (3:6), that the tablets of stone, a clear allusion to the Mosaic law, are a “ministry of death” (3:7). But Paul’s rhetoric here is not to denigrate that one is written and the other is not.[11] Instead, it is the placement of the writing that is important. Vital is 2 Cor 3:3: “You are a letter of Christ, prepared by us, written not with ink but with the spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets but in fleshly tablets of the heart”[12]:
What Paul is contrasting here is not written vs. the unwritten, but the placement of the writing: internal vs. external writing. This is, of course, invoking Jeremiah 31:33 and Ezekiel 36:26 where the prophets anticipate the Lord embedding his laws within the people, writing it on their hearts by the Spirit. These are the prime conditions for what Christine Hayes calls, “effortless obedience to the Torah.” In other words, the conditions of Lev 18:5, people living by God’s laws.
Hence, returning to Romans 10, the significance of Deut 30:12-14 is that the word is in you, it is in your mouth, it is in your hearts. Christ in believers is the inscription of the written law on the hearts of those who trust in him. Christ indwelling in Spirit (2 Cor 3:17-18) enables believers to internalize the law and become “living laws” with God’s laws written inside them, on their very being. This is how “Christ is the telos of the law for righteousness to all [both Jew and non-Jew] who trust” (Rom 10:4). In order for Jew and non-Jew to “live by” God’s laws (Lev 18:5) they have to hear the word of Christ, trust in their heart, call out to God, receive his spirit, and then, and only then—according to Paul—can they live by God’s laws. In this way, Paul does not pit the written and the oral in antithesis to one another, but he upholds the written through the oral (Rom 3:31).
Closing Reflection
My response is not intended to be a refutation of Dr. Fisch’s work; rather, it is to show how important it is to the study of Paul. I would not have been forced to reconsider orality and the theme of Israel’s hearing were it not for Dr. Fisch’s research on this very passage in Romans 10. I hope my comments have demonstrated the highest respect I have Dr. Fisch and the generative contribution that her book, Written for Us, makes to our respective fields. I am deeply grateful for her work.
Isaac T. Soon, University of British Columbia
[1] Fisch argues, “In other words, Paul’s ‘righteousness by pistis’ speaks rendered scripture, and at the same time, he renders scripture as oral speech (rather than written word) through its re-composition” (35).
[2] E.g., “Several themes thus cross paths in Romans 10…(c) the prioritization and preference for the oral over the written” (35).
[3] “If indeed Paul actively generates Deut 30:12-14 through the reformulation of its scriptural language aas antithetical to Lev 18:5, then it is curious–and in the wider context of scriptural exegesis of the first century, truly exceptional–that this antithesis is not presented as one that calls for resolution” (58).
[4] Elsewhere Fisch argues, “In contrast to these Second Temple models, Paul’s discourse is embedded in a preference of speech, and he conceives of scripture relevant to his gospel as speaking. I have argued that Romans 3 introduces a double-nomos, that in Romans 10 is implicitly attached to a discourse of orality” (76-77).
[5] Isaiah also speaks in 10:20 and 10:21. Romans 10:5-13 is actually an explicit working out of the Righteousness by Trust that emerges separate from the nomos in Rom 3:21. There Paul says that this separate nomos has been revealed by the (written) law and the prophets. This is precisely Paul’s use of Lev 18:5 (written nomos), Deut 30:12-14 (oral nomos), Isa 28:16 and Joel 2:32 (prophets) in Romans 10:5-13.
[6] I am purposely side-stepping the discussion about whether gentiles are the only immediate addressees of Romans, à la Stowers, Thorsteinssen, Thiessen, etc.
[7] ‘“It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who shall go up for us to heaven to bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it? Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ And so, Paul’s selective usage of these verses, not only leaves out “deeds” but also leaves out the fact that the verses speak of the law as auditory or oral” (68).
[8] On the use of μενοῦνγε as a contrastive see Luke 11:28, Rom 9:20, Phil 3:8; contrary to the way it is portrayed by commentators and New Testament grammars, it is not an affirming or resumptive particle but a contrastive one.
[9] This is more than merely a kind of “modesty” as found among rabbinic interpretations of gazing upon God. Here I am departing from Fisch: “In this sense, Paul is indeed correct that Jews (before him) read scripture with a veil on their hearts, that is, their scriptural hermeneutics place limits on what should be learned from scripture” (157). Additionally, Paul’s comments in 2 Corinthians 3:14-16 emphasise that it is not just Jewish hearers in the past but present Jewish hearers.
[10] “In both Romans 10:5-13 and in 2 Corinthians 3 we find a devaluation of writing” (69).
[11] I do not agree with Fisch’s argument that Paul and believers “do not depend on writing at all” or that “the new ministry of the new covenant is independent of writing” (133). Writing is central to Paul’s argument here, but one is unseen while the other is seen.
[12] φανερούμενοι ὅτι ἐστὲ ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ διακονηθεῖσα ὑφʼ ἡμῶν, ἐγγεγραμμένη οὐ μέλανι ἀλλὰ πνεύματι θεοῦ ζῶντος, οὐκ ἐν πλαξὶν λιθίναις ἀλλʼ ἐν πλαξὶν καρδίαις σαρκίναις