Go here to download a thought-provoking piece by Nate Oman. Oman teaches contract law among other subjects at William & Mary Law School. I consider him a friend and have posted on his work quite a few times (here, here, and here for a few).
In Temple, Talmud, and Sacrament: Some Christian Thoughts on Halakhah Oman responds to Chaim Saiman's book, "Halakhah: The Rabbinic Idea of Law". I haven't read Saiman's book so I can't comment on Oman's responses except to say they seem careful and measured. According to Oman, one aspect of Saiman's argument is a response to Christian criticisms of the practice of the study of Jewish law, the Halakhah. Saiman defends the halakhic project by comparing it to Christian theologizing. Just as Christians have developed the meaning of the text of Scripture with the tools of Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy (and others, more recently), scholars of Halakhah participated in the "morally serious engagement with God's law called for by Jesus, but also a medium through which the rabbis [did] the work reserved for philosophers and theologians within the Christian tradition."
First, Oman concurs with Saiman's observation that the criticisms leveled by Jesus against the rabbinic scholars of his day were echoed by Jewish scholarly community itself. In other words, not all Pharisees were "Pharisees" (with the negative connotation most Christians give that term). Many halakhic scholars then and since have agreed with Jesus' warnings against exalting the form of Torah over its substance.
Second, Oman parts company with Saiman's contention that halakhic scholarship is the Jewish equivalent of Christian theology. Saiman identifies the halakhic project following the destruction of the Second Temple as a means of reproducing what had been lost, a place where God meets his people. Halakhah was not a form of arid logic chopping but rather the best practical way to be in the presence of God:
I hope this summary of the first part of Oman's piece has whetted the appetites of my readers. If this isn't enough, there's more where Oman works backwards from a respectful view of the halakhic project to challenge the conclusion of Robert Cover in his famous Nomos and Narrative. But I'll let folks read that part for themselves.
In Temple, Talmud, and Sacrament: Some Christian Thoughts on Halakhah Oman responds to Chaim Saiman's book, "Halakhah: The Rabbinic Idea of Law". I haven't read Saiman's book so I can't comment on Oman's responses except to say they seem careful and measured. According to Oman, one aspect of Saiman's argument is a response to Christian criticisms of the practice of the study of Jewish law, the Halakhah. Saiman defends the halakhic project by comparing it to Christian theologizing. Just as Christians have developed the meaning of the text of Scripture with the tools of Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy (and others, more recently), scholars of Halakhah participated in the "morally serious engagement with God's law called for by Jesus, but also a medium through which the rabbis [did] the work reserved for philosophers and theologians within the Christian tradition."
First, Oman concurs with Saiman's observation that the criticisms leveled by Jesus against the rabbinic scholars of his day were echoed by Jewish scholarly community itself. In other words, not all Pharisees were "Pharisees" (with the negative connotation most Christians give that term). Many halakhic scholars then and since have agreed with Jesus' warnings against exalting the form of Torah over its substance.
Second, Oman parts company with Saiman's contention that halakhic scholarship is the Jewish equivalent of Christian theology. Saiman identifies the halakhic project following the destruction of the Second Temple as a means of reproducing what had been lost, a place where God meets his people. Halakhah was not a form of arid logic chopping but rather the best practical way to be in the presence of God:
As described by Saiman, the halakhah performs many of the same spiritual functions as the Temple. The study of the law isn’t simply a way in which one thinks about God or ethics or cosmology. Rather it becomes a way of coming into the presence of God. Seen in these terms, the continued study of the laws governing the service of the Temple makes good sense. The Temple is transformed from a literal structure into a legal structure, and one can come within the holy of holies through the act of legal study rather than through the rituals of the tabernacle.Accurate as Saiman's understanding of Halahkah may be, Oman is correct to point out that the equivalent for Christians is not theology but communion. For Christians, the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) is the place today where God meets his people in the most intimate fashion. On any Christian account the Church is the post-Pentecost form of the temple (2 Corinthians 6.16) but in the Lord's Supper the generalized presence of God's Spirit is focused in a special way:
Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, so then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified ... (Westminster Confession of Faith 29.7)But this observation brings me to one that Oman failed to make in connection with the first of Saiman's arguments. The deepest bone of contention between Jesus and his Pharisaic opponents was not how they misapplied Torah--as serious an issue as that was--but over the relationship of Jesus to Torah. Jesus not only obediently lived under Torah, he fulfilled it in a unique and final way (Matthew 5.17-18). As Rabbi Saul put it, Christ is the telos of the Law (Romans 14.4).
I hope this summary of the first part of Oman's piece has whetted the appetites of my readers. If this isn't enough, there's more where Oman works backwards from a respectful view of the halakhic project to challenge the conclusion of Robert Cover in his famous Nomos and Narrative. But I'll let folks read that part for themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment