This paper performs a rabbinical exegesis of Romans 2 using the Seven Rules of Hillel, the codified interpretive principles attributed to the renowned Jewish scholar Hillel and taught in his school. The analysis argues that Paul, trained under Gamliel in the School of Hillel, deliberately employed these rules to communicate the teachings of Jesus Christ to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles. Each of the seven rules — from Kal Vahomer (light and heavy) to Davar hilmad me'anino (explanation from context) — is applied to specific passages in Romans 2, demonstrating how Paul bridges the Hebrew Bible with the new covenant, critiques Jewish hypocrisy, and redefines the significance of circumcision and the law.
The paper demonstrates comparative textual analysis: it systematically juxtaposes Pauline passages with Old Testament verses, other New Testament books, and the rules themselves to reveal patterns of intertextuality. This technique shows how meaning is constructed across canonical boundaries rather than within a single text in isolation.
The paper opens with a contextual introduction establishing Paul's rabbinical training and the relevance of Romans 2. The body is organized into seven numbered sections, each corresponding to one of Hillel's rules and illustrating that rule with direct scriptural evidence from Romans 2 and related texts. A brief conclusion synthesizes the findings, arguing that the rabbinical lens illuminates both Paul's rhetorical strategy and the broader canonical significance of Romans 2.
Hillel is "remembered not for his inspired exegesis but for his rationalistic exegetical techniques" (Brewer 219). These rational exegetical techniques have been codified into the Seven Rules of Hillel, which many claim predate Hillel himself ("The Seven Rules of Hillel"). Regardless of when, how, and with whom the Seven Rules of rabbinical exegesis emerged, it is clear that Paul relied on these rules when conveying the teachings of Jesus Christ to the Jews. As Cohn-Sherbok points out, Paul's use of rabbinical interpretation and exegesis was deliberate and methodical. It has also been suggested that Paul used the Seven Rules of Hillel himself. There may be some historical basis for this presumption: "Paul was certainly taught these rules in the School of Hillel by Hillel's own grandson Gamliel. When we examine Paul's writings we will see that they are filled with usages of Hillel's Seven Rules" ("The Seven Rules of Hillel"). Therefore, it is natural to read Pauline texts with a rabbinical eye, and equally natural to apply the Seven Rules of Hillel when performing exegesis on books like Romans.
One of the reasons why Paul would have wanted to apply the Seven Rules of Hillel to his apostolic mission is that a rabbinical interpretation could help his Jewish audience better understand, and more readily accept, Jesus. Paul frequently alluded to the Old Testament when conveying the words and teachings of Christ. These allusions anchored the teachings of Jesus in the existing Jewish covenant with God while revealing continuity with the new covenant under Christ. Paul also knew that his Jewish audience would be concerned with keeping their covenant and maintaining a connection with pre-existing scripture. The Seven Rules of Hillel thus allowed Paul to communicate more effectively with a Jewish audience.
Romans 2 has been described as "the joker in the pack" and a much neglected portion of the Pauline corpus (Wright 1). The reasons for its being overlooked have to do with the fact that "generations of eager exegetes" have been "anxious to get to the juicy discussions that surround 3.19–20, 3.21–31" (Wright 1). Chapter 2 of Romans seems, to some, merely to reflect Paul's commentary on the nature of sin. The most extreme argument regarding the relevance of Romans 2 for exegetical purposes is summarized by Wright: "the passage was not a legitimate part of Paul's argument; it was an old synagogue sermon, with minimal Christian updating" (1). If Paul did simply adapt a synagogue sermon for a Christian audience, then it makes perfect sense to conduct a rabbinical exegesis of Romans 2 using the Seven Rules of Hillel. Those rules are as follows:
1. Kal Vahomer (Light and heavy); 2. G'zerah Shavah (Equivalence of expressions); 3. Binyan ab mikathub echad (Building up a "family" from a single text); 4. Binyab ab mishene kethubim (Building up a "family" from two or more texts); 5. Kelal uferat (The general and the particular); 6. Kayotze bo mimekom akhar (Analogy made from another passage); 7. Davar hilmad me'anino (Explanation obtained from context).
Paul does not use Kal Vahomer often in the chapter, but Romans 2:3 provides a clear example: "So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?" If a person cannot refrain from small (light) acts of judgment — such as the tendency to judge fellow human beings unnecessarily — then how is that person to contend with the much heavier judgment of God? Even where Paul does not invoke Kal Vahomer explicitly, the entire chapter functions as an example of the rule. Paul is preaching to an audience of both Jews and Gentiles, imploring them to understand that what they do in this world will have a strong bearing on the heavier day of judgment: "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law" (Romans 2:12).
It is possible to apply the rule of G'zerah Shavah across different Pauline texts. For example, in Romans, Paul states, "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law" (Romans 2:12). In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul states, "To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law." The rule of equivalence of expressions is especially fruitful when the Pauline text is compared with an Old Testament verse. For example, in Romans 2:4, Paul writes, "Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?" Similar root words appear in Exodus 34:6: "And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, 'The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness.'"
The rule of G'zerah Shavah can also be treated as a traditional concordance applied to specific words such as "blind." For example, "if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children" (Romans 2:19–20). This parallels a passage in Matthew 15:14: "Leave them alone. They are blind guides of the blind. If the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit." John 9:18 and several other passages in different texts reveal further concordance around the single word "blind": "The Jews therefore did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight."
The concept of God's impartiality is also important here. Paul states, "God does not show favoritism" (Romans 2:11). An equivalence of expression is found throughout the Old Testament, as in Deuteronomy 10:17 and Job 34:19, and also in the New Testament in Acts 10:34 and Romans 9:14.
The core theme and principle of Romans 2 is the law. Paul passionately argues that merely being circumcised does not make a Jew righteous in the eyes of the Lord. It is more important to be righteous than to be circumcised or to follow any other traditional Jewish law. Paul suggests that many Jews in his midst have become boastful ("Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God," Romans 2:17). Paul condemns hypocrisy and lip service to the law throughout Chapter 2 of Romans. Therefore, there are several instances of the rule of Binyan ab mikathub echad, as a "family" of ideas related to the law recurs throughout this single text and particularly within Romans 1–3. More specific examples include the building up of a family of words like circumcision, which Paul expands upon in Romans 2:25–29.
A rabbinical exegesis using the Seven Rules of Hillel is especially fruitful for Romans 2, a passage that is underappreciated but rich with social and religious commentary. Romans 2 allows Paul to fervently articulate the Gospel as it applies to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles. Paul employs persuasive techniques and rhetoric to convince his Gentile and Jewish listeners to rethink their spiritual lives, and he is strongly critical of the hypocrisy he has witnessed in the Jewish community.
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.