Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Comments on the Mystery of Romans by Mark Nanos

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Comments on the Mystery of Romans by Mark Nanos
  • Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 09:30:52 -0500


Dear Moon,
Sorry for the delay. Below your comments are some responses. I hope others
on the list will bear with the explanations, as they are as brief as I
thought they could be and still attempt to answer your questions. Thanks
again for the interaction to my work. I am honored by your affirmation of
my portrait of Paul, and how it has helped you understand him within the
context of Judaism, instead of against it. I will skip to the questions you
asked, but note that your summaries of some of my points are on target.

You wrote:

>Rom 9:30-32:
>The Gentiles have obtained the righteousness from faith. But
>Israel, though they pursued the Law of righteousness, has not
>attained it, BECAUSE they pursued it not from faith but as if
>it were from works.
>
>I would not interpret "because they pursued it not by faith
>but as if it were by works", to mean that
>the response of the Jews to God was not in faith.
>Paying attention to the whole context of Romans,
>I would interpret it to mean that they did not believe in Christ
>but rather adhered to the works of the Law as identity markers of the
>Law-people, thinking that they are "saved" because they are
>the Law-people.

I would prefer to speak not of saved, but of righteous ones, as Paul is
speaking here of righteousness. Saved from what? This is a later Christian
concern and expression that makes sense for gentiles who have been outside
of the righteous ones, while Paul and other Jewish people did not look for
salvation per se, but for a time of the restoration of all of creation. The
point is that Israelites believing they are righteous ones and observing
Torah in grateful response to God's calling is not a hindrance, but a help,
to then recognizing the Messiah of Israel who begins the process of God's
restoration of Israel and the creation from the corruption of creation
represented by death, war, hunger, etc. While different in emphasis, and
thus over the course of an argument, likely to lead in different
directions, your statement is in a similar direction to my understanding of
Paul, if I was trying to read him back through reformation concerns, such
as salvation, as I assume you are doing here (what do you think these
Law-people think that they are "saved from"?).

The difference on this point soon manifests itself in your questions.
>
>Q1: By the way, do you take the verse in a similar way?
>
>Now the argument is very subtle. Was it inherently wrong that
>they thought that they were "saved" because they were the Law-people?
>I would say, Yes and No. Being the law-people meant that they were
>in the covenant with God, made in grace. There was nothing wrong in it. But
>it was wrong that they still insisted on it after Christ had come.
>Because the Law pointed to Christ, it turned out that "they did not
>attained the Law" when they did not feel the need to believe in
>Christ fully satisfied with being the Law-people. The insistence
>on being the Law-people came down to mean that the death of Christ
>was redundant.

And here we go. Did they think they were saved? This I doubt. They thought
they were members of God's people Israel, of the righteous ones of God, and
thus, while sinning at times, not sinners (from among the gentiles, as Paul
puts it in Gal. 2:15). If asked about salvation/ restoration, I think they
would say that this is something they await and will welcome.

Thus I would disagree with your statement that "it was wrong that they
still insisted on it after Christ had come." This would imply that it was
wrong for a Christ-believer like Paul as well; that Torah observance was
obsolete. With this I disagree, but that is an argument for another day.

And I do not believe that Paul is meaning to say that non-Christ-believing
Israelites are necessarily "fully satisfied with being the Law-people."
Satisfied, sure, grateful too, but I would imagine that those of whom he
speaks in general do await a time of restoration and freedom from, for
example, death and taxes, especially at the hands of Romans governing the
Land that is supposed to be governed by God alone. Paul wishes in 10:1 for
these stumbling ones of Israel to be saved. But from what? From stumbling,
it would seem, over Christ, whom Paul believes changes what time it is, and
thus how gentiles are to be regarded in Christ. But this is not something
that, apart from Paul's perspective, that those in view would share a
concern to be saved from, unless they too were convinced that the time had
changed and they could be saved from the evils of the present age.

Nor do I agree that, for Israelites, "The insistence on being the
Law-people came down to mean that the death of Christ was redundant."
Paul's point is not about a problem with being an Israelite, but with
insisting that gentiles need to become Israelites too, that is, if they are
to be regarded among the righteous ones of God. The point is that some
Israelites, because they disagree about the meaning of Jesus, do not
therefore agree about the legitimacy of the "gospel of Christ" claim for
the inclusion of gentiles at the present time without becoming part of
Israel, part of the righteous ones "according to the flesh" as it were,
that is, identified as Israelites too, children of the fathers by faith.
That is why I think the two are inextricably tied up in Paul's argument
here and throughout Romans.

It is because of the social manifestation of this belief and its
concomitant effect upon Israelites not sharing this conviction that there
is so much at stake. That is, if just a belief in Jesus Christ with no
change in social consequences (since Israelites already observe
righteousness), in this case the claim for full and equal inclusion of
gentiles as gentiles, then there is no reason for this difference of
opinion to lead to any great divide. It is just a difference of opinion
about a dead man martyred by the despised Roman regime, but all Israelites
still seek the same thing in the present age, to live according to God's
word on righteousness, i.e., to love one another. But if this belief
imposes on the community a change as profound as this full inclusion
without conversion of these gentiles according to the Scriptures and
traditional processes for negotiating their full inclusion in the present
age for becoming Israelites, then it demands a measurable response in
social terms as well. You either accept or reject this claim, and behave
toward these gentiles and those who (mis)lead them (depending upon one's
perspective) in one way or the other.

Thus Paul's language of stumbling involves, I think inextricably, both
faith in Christ and in the inclusion of gentiles, for which this faith
stands (to put this in the language of the national anthem of the US; for
here the kind of symbolism might be clearer in a way, that believing in a
symbolic action or thing is believing in and thus walking according to what
it stands for, and one may be measured on the actions which manifest this
belief more easily than the confession of faith in the symbol alone,
although the two are inextricably linked when the confession is made. This
is what the language about works/actions/manifestations of Law is about, in
my opinion, not legalism or works-righteousness, but the claim to an
identity as an Israelite, which gentiles cannot make unless they become
proselytes. If gentiles do so after already becoming righteous ones by
faith of/in Christ, then they deny this has already taken place, which is
the context for reading Galatians and Paul's opposition to this move. But
it does not follow for those who already have this identity that they thus
abandon it, which is the traditional move that occurs when the division
between Israelites and the nations is lost and Paul's language is
abstracted to all humankind out of rhetorical context).
>
>Q2: In your posts and the book (p. 131 and 132), you said that the
>stumbling of Israel mentioned in
>Rom 9:32f has to do with their failure to regard Christ-believing
>Gentiles as equal participants in the promises of God. I did not quite
>understand it. Now it seems to me that, for
>non-believing Jews, to believe in Christ meant to regard Christ-believing
>Gentiles as equal members in the people of God. Yes, but in this context,
>the focus was on Israel's failure to believe in Christ and that was the
>stumbling of Israel, wasn't it? In Galtian, the issue of coparticipation
>into God's promise is quite visible. What is the reason that you
>detect this issue in Rom 9:30ff?

I believe the above argument addresses this question exactly. It is the
salient issue around which Romans turns as well: the interaction that
results when some Israelites believe in something that causes a change in
behavior that effects all of the community members, in this case, the full
inclusion of gentiles as though the end of the ages has dawned, instead of
managing the boundary according to the conventions of the present age. Why
has the end of the ages dawned by which this change in behavior toward
gentiles identity is justified? Because of some Israelites' faith in Jesus
as Christ. And thus the issue differentiating among Israelites in this
community is whether they share this faith or not.
>
>
>Q3:
>Rom 10:5-6
>
>Though you did not say it explicitly (as far as I read your book),
>your overall logic would not contrast the "righteousness from the law"
>and the "righteousness from faith" in these verses.
>You would interpret "the man who does these things will live in them" to
>mean that the Law was and is the legitimate mode of life and the guide to
>Christ. But then, how do you handle the contrast implied in the
>two contrasting expressions? Do you say that the righteousness from
>the law is nothing but the righteousness from faith? If so, on what
>grounds?

I do not follow. But I would point to 10:12. When Paul speaks of the fact
that because of faith in Christ there is no distinction between Jew and
gentile, he draws upon a distinction that still exists in order to make the
point. In other words, his point is that while the distinction remains, the
discrimination within the community of Christ-believers does not. This cuts
both ways. Jewish people in this community should accept gentiles as equals
in status, as righteous ones apart from becoming Israelites. So too ,the
logic should run, gentiles should accept Jewish people as righteous ones
apart from becoming non-Israelites, that is, as Torah-observant people.
Practicing righteousness based upon Law and faith in Christ is possible for
Israelites, but not required or, because the age to come has dawned,
permitted for non-Israelites; that is Paul's point, I think.
>
>Q4: Gal 2:19
>"Through the law, I died to the law in order that I might live for God."
>
>You interpret "throught the law I died tothe law" as follows:
>
>Through the law (which taught me to love God and my neighbor) I died to the
>law,
>that is, I was UNABLE to fulfill the servie of God and my neighbor:
>"the good that I wish, I do not do". t ABLveu
>
>But then, we would have:
>
>Through the law teaching love for God and neighbor, I died to the law
>i.e., was not able to fulfill the service of God and the neighbor,
>in order that I might live for God.
>
>How would being unable to fulfill the law lead to living for God?

This is a difficult passage. I have made an effort in Mystery of Romans to
tie this into Romans 7 to explain the predicament of a person accepting the
Johnnies-come-lately as equals. I cannot repeat the effort in full here.
The boundary which signifies the difference of status, offering honor and
safety, becomes a problem in such a case unless the other pays their dues
equally. Much like the laborers in the field who work all day but resent
those who work less but receive the same wages, it is difficult to accept
the proposition that gentiles enter as equals and obtain the same identity
and goods without paying their dues. That is the rhetorical context of the
Antioch Incident in which this language appears. I have tried to keep it
within this context in my argument. Thus Paul is saying something similar
to what you have raised above in the previous questions, that it is
justified on his and Peter's faith in Christ, or Christ's faithfulness to
them, that they have come to believe that gentiles are equals within the
present age, for they believe that the time has come for this. But the
boundary drawn by the Law to define, guide and protect the righteous ones
of Israel, ironically, now makes the acceptance of this for themselves very
difficult, unless the gentiles become similarly bounded, i.e., proselytes
of Israel. But they believe this is not to be done. They can only live this
way if they keep their focus on what they believe has changed in Christ. It
is not meant in either Gal. 2 or Rom. 7 to describe the plight on one who
does not believe in Christ, for in both contexts it rather describes the
plight of one who does.
>
>
>Q5:
>Gal 2:16
>
>Knowing that man is not righteoused from the works of the Law, but
>from faith in Christ, we too believed in Christ, in order that we
>may be righteoused from faith in Christ and not from the works of the Law,
>because all flesh will not be righteoused by the works of the Law.
>
>In your posts, you said that
>"being righteoused from the works of the Law" was not the position of
>the Jews in general, but it became an issue only when
>some Jews denied Christ-believing Gentiles equal coparticipation
>into the promises of God. When they insisted that those Gentile
>believers do the works of the Law, the identity markers of being
>Jew, it meant that they were righteoused only by being Jew. Because
>there was already a procedure by which Gentiles could become Jew,
>the death of Christ was redundant. Paul was against the position
>with such implication. Well said. But the language of Gal 2:16
>seems to indicate that they reached the conclusion before the
>issue of Gentile inclusion arose. The natural way to take the first
>part of Gal 2:16 seems to be:
>"Having come to know that man is not righteoused by the works of
>the Law, but by faith in Christ, we too believed in Christ".
>
>If "being righteoused by the works of the Law" was never an issue
>before the issue of Gentile inclusion arose,
>I find it hard to understand this statement. The statement implies
>that the realization that man is not righteoused by the works of the law
>came before they put their faith in Christ.
>
>It seems that the issue was there all the time, when Paul preached Christ
>to Jews. If being the Law-people was sufficient to receive the promise of
>God, there was no need for Paul to preach Christ to Jews. Now that this
>issue arose again among Gentile believers, Paul went back to the basics
>which were already restablished: no flesh will be righteoused simply by
>being Jews. Though they were given promises, they needed to believe in
>Christ to get them fulfilled.
>
>So, I would ask why do you think that Paul's autobiographical
>statement has to do just with the debate over the Gentile inclusion.
>
I do not think that 2:16 justifies the move you are making to another
context or setting for Paul or Peter. If the verse is taken alone, perhaps
the grammatical point is valid. But absolutizing from a grammatical point
such as this is mistaken in my view, asking more of the rhetoric than is
warranted by exegesis of this text in context. The language appears here in
the context of explaining the error of Peter's action with regard to
gentiles, for it implies something about their status that Peter does not
any longer believe. The elements of time implied in this context have to do
with how Peter behaved before his social anxiety led to his hypocrisy, and
how he misbehaved afterwards. Paul says he publicly confronted Peter after
his withdrawal for his hypocrisy. How this might work within Paul's thought
if their was a movement of faith in Christ among only Jewish people is not
in view, and while worthy of discussion, I think it is not warranted in the
context of this language here.

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page