Conduct Unbecoming
but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 1 Corinthians 1:23 NASB
Stumbling Block – You certainly know that Paul’s choice of the Greek is a bit more outrageous than the typical translation, “stumbling block.” The Greek is skándalon. You can immediately see the English derivative, “scandal.” We choose “stumbling block” because of connections to the LXX, something Paul probably had in mind. But the word itself covers “‘springing forward and back,’ ‘slamming to,’ ‘closing on something,’ or ‘trapping,’ but later the meaning ‘offense,’ or ‘reason for punishment,’ occurs in the papyri.”[1] In the LXX, skándalon is the translation for two different verbal stems, yāqōš and kāšal:
yāqōš “originally means ‘to strike (slam)’ and then ‘to catch in a snare,’ Ps. 124:7, fig. Ps. 38:12. The noun מוקשׁoriginally means ‘stick,’ ‘throwing stick’ (== ‘boomerang’ 7), cf. Am. 3:5; Job 40:24, then ‘trap,’ Ps. 64:5; 69:22; 140:6; 141:9. Dominant, however, is the transf. use for ‘occasion of misfortune,’ ‘cause of ruin,’ e.g., Ex. 10:7; 1 S. 18:21; Job 34:30.”[2]
kāšal “is usually used of physical falling, but numbers of times the figurative use of failing or ruin occurs (Ps 64:8 [H 9]; II Chr 25:8). However, the root is rarely used in the sense of the [New Testament] skandalidzō ‘cause one to fall into sin.’”[3]
Did Paul mean that “Christ crucified” would cause the Jews to sin? Probably not, as Harris suggests that the Hebrew root is not used this way in the apostolic writings. But Paul did mean something ominous. An “occasion of misfortune” or “cause of ruin” seems better. But Paul also claims that all Jews have a special, covenantal relationship with YHVH, so how can he write that the crucifixion of the Messiah is an ominous sign? I believe Abraham Heschel provides a clue:
“The central Biblical fact is Sinai. Sinai was superimposed on the failure of Adam. It initiated an order of living, an answer to the question, How should man, a being created in the image of God, think, act, and feel?”[4]
Paul’s “central Biblical fact” isn’t Torah. It’s Yeshua. That doesn’t mean Paul abandons Torah. Luther, Et. al., were wrong. Paul is a Torah-observant Jew. But the coming of the Messiah means that Torah is to be interpreted in the light of this event. It is, therefore, secondary. Critically important, but still secondary. So, for Jews who believe that Sinai is the central fact, the Messiah will be a problem—dead or alive. For Paul, the Messiah is not a problem because the Messiah confirms the Torah. The reason “Christ crucified” is a skándalon is not because Torah is set aside (as Christian replacement theology interprets this verse) but rather because the Messiah is the ultimate authority on the application of Torah. Yeshua does not replace Torah. He replaces Moses.
We must seriously consider Heschel’s remark. It should come as no surprise that Jews are unable to accept Yeshua as the Messiah if that means setting aside Torah. That can never happen. We have only the Church to blame for this gross misinterpretation of Paul. Paul is not a Christian. He is an orthodox Jew who recognizes that Yeshua is now the arbiter of Torah. That’s all—but that’s enough.
Topical Index: Torah, Sinai, Moses, Yeshua, stumbling block, skándalon, 1 Corinthians 1:23
[1] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (p. 1036). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
[2] Stählin, G. (1964–). σκάνδαλον, σκανδαλίζω. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament(electronic ed., Vol. 7, pp. 340–341). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
[3] Harris, R. L. (1999). 1050 כָשַׁל. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 457). Chicago: Moody Press.
[4] Abraham Heschel, Between God and Man: An Interpretation of Judaism (Free Press Paperbacks, 1959), p. 239.
