Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul and the Law

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Antonio Jerez <antonio.jerez AT privat.utfors.se>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul and the Law
  • Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 21:49:32 +0100


Dear Mark,
you wrote:

Antonio Jerez wrote:
>As for the strength of Terry's points on Romans 4 I percieve it to be that
>he first of all tries to find out why Paul in the first place would
>be so insistent
>on linking his gentiles with Abraham, the father of the Jews. There is after
>all no real need for Paul to go through all the contorted logic he displays
>in
>this passage (specially his equation of seed of Abraham = Christ) if he
>was just trying to prove that his gentiles were righteous gentiles,
>and not part of a reconstituted Israel that has its grounding in "the seed" =
>Christ.

Mark Nanos replied:
<<This is not an argument, but an assumption. I assume that this is
<<just what he would need to argue. So what?

OK, OK, maybe Terry Donaldson's arguments in "generic humanity" are
not as strong as they may look at a first glance. Actually, when reading
through
Romans 4 again I agree that 4:16-19 could actually be taken as implying that
Abraham is going to become father of different seeds (nations) - ethnic Israel
(which according to Paul's logic consists of unfaithful Israel and faithfull
Israel
i.e the jewish-christian remnant, and the gentiles who become sons of Abraham
by faith in Christ).

> You could probably start by explaining to me
>just exactly what people Paul refers to when he speaks of "God's
>Israel" in Gal. 6:16.

>>Empirical Israel, "of course" (he wrote with tongue in cheek). "Even
>>the Israel of God," in spite of all that Paul can be interpreted to
>>have just written.

This appears to close to the position of Burton and Richardson. They may be
right. But I cite Donaldson's objections to the Burton-Richardson reading.
On page 238 he writes:
"The position is not without merit. It offers an explanation of the awkward
placement of "and mercy" after "peace be upon them". (Why if Paul wanted
to say what he is actually taken to have said did he not simply say " peace
and mercy be upon them"?) And it has in its favour the fact that Paul nowhere
else uses "Israel" of the church. But undermining the first point is the
additional
KAI (KAI ELEOS KAI...) which is much more easily contrued with the ascensitive
sense "even" ("...and mercy, even upon the Israel of God". Against the second
is the whole argument of 3:6-29, culminating in the declaration that all who
are
in Christ, gentiles included, are part of Abraham's "seed". As Rom 9:6-7
makes
abundantly clear, Paul is well aware that the proper name of Abrahams "seed"
(SPERMA appears in v.7 cf 2 Cor 11:22) is Israel. The benediction, then,
should
probably read : " And al those who follow this rule - peace be upon them and
mercy, even upon the Israel of God. If so, Paul uses the unusual expression
"The
Israel of God" to refer to the new community of the new creation (cf. v.15)
made
up of Jews and gentiles."

> And how do you explain Paul's words in Rom 9:6
>when he claims emphatically that "for by no means all who decend from
>Israel belong to Israel, neither are all Abrahams children because they are
>his offspring...This means that it is not his physical descendants who make
>up the children of God, but the children of the promise are considered his
>offspring"? Who are Abrahams children "kata sarka" who are not truly
>Israel? And who are Abrahams true children, the true Israel? Does not Paul's
>words logically imply that there must be a fleshly (false) Israel and and
>true
>(spiritual) Israel?

>>This is simply remnant language to differentiate among empirical
>>Israelites. The remnant bears witness to the hope for the rest; it is
>>a restoration image, not a supersession one. Representatives from the
>>other Nations are not in view in this imagery.

I'm not sure things are as simple as you try to make it. I am not claiming
that Paul is using a supersessionist image, but I am claiming that he is
using a "restoration" image that would have enraged almost any "normal"
Jew. He is actually turning the traditional hopes of Israel right on their
head
in chapter 9-11. "Normal" Jews appear to have believed that at the Eschaton
all children of Abraham who had faithfully kept the Covenant were assured
of salvation. At the Eschaton many gentiles would also turn to the God of
Israel.
But what is Paul's vision? First he claims that he feels sorrow every day
because
of the fate of his fellow Jews (9:1). Why? Because all of them are doomed to
perdition if they don't recognize Christ as God's Messiah (9:22-23 + 10:1 +
9:32
+ 11:23). Paul is also emphatic that Torah adherence alone is not what makes
one a true Israelite and assured of salvation - a true Israelite (a member of
the remnant)
must also have faith that God's promises to Israel have found their
fulfillment
in the salvific death and resurrection of Christ (9:32 + 10:1-13). And now
comes
the really radical part in Paul's vision; only a remnant of empirical Israel
really
belong in the present age (when Paul is writing his letter) to the faithful
(true)
Israel of God, but Paul has hopes that the unfaithful part of empirical
Israel will
soon mend their ways and reunite with the faithful remnant of Israel (9:6-7 +
11:17-26). But how is this going to happen? (this is where I think Mark Nanos
and I interpret Paul in very differen ways) According to my reading Paul's
envisions that the gentile-christians (who are now part of the faithful
Israel)
will by their presence and righteous living make unfaithful Israel jelous and
thereby make unfaithful Israel repent and reunite with the remnant (11:23-26)
This is where Paul really turns the traditional Jewish expectations on their
head.
Traditional beliefs held that at the Eschaton Israel was going to make the
gentiles
jelous and thereby have them turn to God. Paul claims that in the present age
the roles
are reversed - the converted gentiles are already in, while unfaithful Israel
are out
(at least for the moment). In the near future the gentile-christians will
hopefully lure
unfaithful Israel back.
After this exposition of my overall view on Paul's vision for the future I
believe
it is time to return to the claims Mark Nanos made in the above. Mark wrote
that "Representatives from the other Nations are not in view in this
imagery."
But is that really so? When I referred to the passage in Rom. 9:6-7 I was also
in reality reading it in the context of 9:6-32. And read through the whole I
think
it is hard to argue that the gentiles are not in view in this imagery. Why
would
Paul claim in v.9:6-7 that not all Israelites are true Israelites and not
all children
of Abraham his true children, if he doesn't really want to argue that you can
become a member of Israel and a true child of Abraham by simple faith in
the promises of God (gentiles believing in Christ)? And who are "the children
of the promise" in verse 8 if not the jewish-christians and the
gentile-christians?
And why is Paul turning the traditional reading of Gen. 12 around if not to
show
that God can chose whomever he wants as his children and change the rules
for entering into the people of God whenever he wants?

> > Perhaps someone could explain a few things to me. For example, why
> > does Paul write to and of gentiles in all of his letters if he is
> > writing to and of proselytes?

>Because Paul is still at work as a missionary among non-christian gentiles
>in the Diaspora, and because though his "proselytes" are part of the
>reconstituted
>"spiritual" Israel they can technically be called gentiles because
>ethnically they
>were born that way and because the rethorical logic in the letters sometimes
>demand it.

>>What? If they are proselyte spiritual Israelites they are not
>>non-proselyte non-Israelites, which is what gentiles are. An
>>interpreter must choose one or the other; we did not invent the
>>categories with which we must work.

I will try again. Paul himself did see his converted gentiles as a sort
of "proselytes" (part of God's people without circumcision). For rethorical
reasons he sometimes calls his "proselytes" gentiles, since empirically
they are gentiles by decent. Since in the reconstituted Israel there are two
ethnic groups - Jews and gentiles - Paul sometimes uses these terms to
distinguish them. The same confusing use of terminology happenes
when Paul talks about Israel - he can still talk of unfaithful Israel as
Israel,
while in a sense they are no longer really part of Israel.

> You could just as well ask why Paul still calls non-Christ-believing Jews
>Israelites when he actually believes that they have broken off from
>the true Israel
>(Rom 11:19-20).

>>Paul argues that these "some" are not fallen but only stumbling
>>presently; unfortunately his metaphor can be taken otherwise, as do
>>you, and thus defeat his argumentative purpose for its inclusion.
>>This is a topic on which I hope to someday write more.

I think you are missing the forest for staring too much at a single
tree. If you only look at the sentences in Rom 9:39 and 11:11 your
interpretation
might be a valid one. But why not also look at passages like 9:6-7,
9:21-23, 9:25-29 and finally the tree metaphor in 11:17-24. All these
passages are meant to be read in light of each other - and most
exegetes are agreed that the message is pretty clear; part of ethnical
Israel are no longer part of the real Israel until they repent and return to
the faithful remnant of Israel. The fact that Paul says in 11:26 that at the
end "all Israel will be saved" does not mean that all individual ethnic Jews
will be saved, just that Paul's Israel (the Church or the remnant?) plus those
individual Jews from unfaithful Israel who repent will be saved. Despite
your efforts in "Mystery of Romans" to give us a Paul who is more palpable
for "ecumenical and pastoral" purposes (page 158-159) I personally do
not believe that the Paul we see in Rom 9-11 will make todays Jews
much happier. Maybe they will be saved (if they turn to Christ), but what
good will that do to the many, many generations of Jews who lived the last
2000 years and according to Paul's logic are already lost.
I might add that the tree metaphor in 11:17 actually state that "some
of the branches have been broken off". There is no talk about "some
of the branches are dangling on the root of the tree and nearly broken
off". To make it even clearer Paul says it again in 11:20, "Through lack
of faith they were broken off and through faith you remain in place". The
lack how faith has little to do with the Jews not recognizing Paul's
gentiles as proselytes or righteous gentiles but a lot more to do with
their refusal to acclaim Jesus as the Christ.

> >Why does he defend their justification
> > as gentiles?
>
>But does Paul really do that?

>>What? Please see Romans or Galatians, passim.

Mea culpa, I must have had a blackout at the computer. I'll make
a new try. As I see it Paul defends the justification of his former
gentiles as a new kind of proselytes (no circumcision) because
he believes Christ has replaced Torah for both gentile and Jew
(Rom 7:1-4, Rom 10:4). I agree with Terry Donaldson that in these
passages Paul is talking to both Jew and gentile.

> > What does it mean to be a proselyte except to no longer
> > be a gentile, but rather now a Jew/Israelite?
>
>But where does Paul unequivocally say that his gentile-christians
>"in Christ" are still gentiles?

>>I am surprised by this question. Romans and Galatians, passim. It is
>>the way they are named in the epistolary opening and closing (Rom.
>>1:5-6, 13, 16; 15:15-18, 27), for example, and the point of his
>>arguments throughout (surely too many to need to cite: cf. e.g., Rom.
>>3:29; 11:11-14; 15:7-21; Gal. 3:1 plus 8 and 14).

OK. But the question is if Paul uses the term "gentiles" to distinguish
them from the other members of God's Israel (the jewish-christians)
for rethorical reasons or if he still sees them as gentiles who are not
part of Israel. Maybe we are only battling over the use of semantics.
If I recall rightly you argue in your book that Paul saw his "righteous
gentiles" as equal members of God's people. But what did God's
people mean to most firstcentury Jews? I think the answer is Israelites.
Righteous gentiles would not have been seen as truly part of God's
people, Israel. So if Paul went around in the Diaspora, claiming that
his uncircumcised gentiles were full members of God's people most Jews
would probably have taken that as a grave offense. Would you agree?
And here I believe it is time to return to a discussion that we probably
left unfinished a couple of weeks ago. In a message I asked you and
you replied 30 Januari:

>I believe there is also another interesting angle to this problem; why would
>Paul claim that the Law had once been binding on the people in his audience
>if he was only directing his message at former gentiles? As far as I can
>glean
>from the ancient sources Jews in the first century did not believe that the
>Law was meant for the gentiles.The standard view appear to have been
>that righteous gentiles could find salvation by following the Noachide laws
>(see the Apostolic decree in Acts and the Noah story in Genesis). On the
>other hand this didn't mean that these "godfearers" became Israelites - to
>become true members of God's people they had to take on "the yoke" of the
>Torah. Maybe Mark has some additional information that contradicts
>this picture?

>>No. This is exactly what I refer to in my above objections to your
>>first premise. Here you have it right. I suppose the problem is that
>>you think Paul indicates a different view than other Jews. I know of
>>no such passage, and see none in your post. Rather than repeat a few
>>of your comments, for the sake of space I will just note that I do
>>not think that Gal. 5:1 indicates otherwise. It is not the Law that
>>these gentiles are returning too, since they were not under it. Of
>>course this is a circular as your argument, that since they are
>>returning to something that is a yoke they must be returning to the
>>Law. In other words, this passage will not resolve the impasse, but
>>will lead only to a longer and necessary discussion of the larger
>>context in which the verse is found.

To judge by your answer I don't think you really understood the point
was trying to make. I'm not only gleaning on passages like Gal 5:1
(which I still don't think you have answered satisfactorily in your discussion
with Prof. Jung), but also passages like Rom 3:19-20, 7-6. Why does Paul
have to be so insistent that the Law was never truly efficacious for neither
Jew nor gentile troughout the contorted logic he presents in Rom chapter
1 - 8 ? (chapters which you hardly take a deep look at in your book on Romans)
Why does he downplay the Law so much both in Romans and in his other
letters if he was only talking to righteous gentiles who had never been under
the Law in the first place? Why not just say to them; "my dear fellow
brethren.
Don't listen to those dumb people who claim that you have to take on the Law
in order to be saved. The law is a wonderful thing, but it was only meant for
me and my fellow Jews. It has never been meant for you and God does not
demand it of you in order to be saved."? Why this twisted logic through
chapters
1-8 and why this downplaying of the Law in favour of Christ if he isn't
arguing
that his gentiles are in a sense part of Israel and therefore according to the
standards of the former era under the Law?

>As I see it Paul has created a new
>kind of proselyte; one who didn´t have to take on the ethnic markers
>that were part of Torah, but only the ethical commandments - the
>Law of Christ or the spiritual Law of Christ.

>>this division of ethical and ritual commandments is anachronistic.

I'm not so sure at all that this is "anachronistic". We have after all
testimony, from among others Philo, that some Jews in the Diaspora
had already in the first century started to distinguish between the
ethnical commandents of Torah (circumcision, purity rules) and
the ethical ones. Philo even tells about Jews in Alexandra who had
these ideas. I am quite convinced that you could find similar Jews
(although a very small minority) in another gentile cities.

>>If they are a new kind of proselyte than why does Paul never call
>>them such, but still gentiles?

Probably because the word proselyte was associated with circumcision.
Though Paul can still call his christians, gentiles, for rethorical reasons
he also calls them God's people and children of Abraham which are
normally terms reserved for proselytes/Israelites.

>> You have invented (followed the
>>invention of) a category that Paul does not articulate in the extant
>>correspondence.

And I can just as well claim that you have invented a new form of
righteous gentile in the first century - one who could call
himself a child of Abraham and part of God's people. Were do
we find a firstcentury zebra like that in Jewish communities outside
Paul's? The zebra gets even more curious to me since in my reading
of the evidence in the letters Paul doesn't even stick to the "Noahide
commandments" agreed on at the Apostolic council.

>> Paul writes of new kinds of relationships between
>>Jews and Greeks, not new kinds of proselytes. Are there new kinds of
>>males and females or slaves and free? Or is the point that they have
>>a new understanding of each other as equals in Christ even though
>>different in terms of social or biological construction according to
>>human agents and agencies. Do the females or slaves think that in
>>Christ they have become spiritual males or freedpersons, as you
>>suggest for gentiles as spiritual Israelites? Would they care? If you
>>should reply with a yes, then I wonder if you have considered these
>>people in their own cultural world, or tried to imagine what was
>>"really" important to them, not someone whose concerns are shaped by
>>later cultural perceptions of what is real or important, for example
>>on a full stomach at a computer screen.

When I talk about Paul's gentiles as "spiritual" Israelites I am not
trying to claim the have become spiritual beings by joining the Church.
I am saying that they have become Israelites, without being born ethnic
Jews, by following the "spiritual" Law of Christ (Rom 8:1). As I see it
this spiritual Law of Christ (basically Torah without ethnic markers and
purity regulations that keep others out) is according to Paul meant for
both gentile and Jew.

By the way; how do you read a passage like Phil. 3:3 "For we who worship
God through the Spirit and pride ourselves on Christ Jesus, and do not
confide in the flesh, we are the truly circumcised". Who are the we? Just
the gentiles or both gentiles and Jews?

>In fact, as I see it, Paul
>demanded far beyond the Noahide commandments of his proselytes.

>>On this we might agree.

> > And if these "gentiles" are ostensible proselytes, why are they
> > prohibited from becoming circumcised or observing Law as long as they
> > do not do so to be justified, but only to live like proselytes who
> > are justified?

>I think you should reread Terry's book. In my opinion he gives excellent
>answers to these kind of questions. One of the main strengths of his
>book is that he never looses sight of the fact that everything that is
>radically new in Paul's thinking ultimately goes back to the apostle
>putting his crucified Messiah right at the center of all things.

>>This is not an argument. I should reread his book no doubt, but I
>>have read it closely and was not convinced of this point. Let's
>>refrain from this kind of approach to the discussion, or just abandon
>>the pretense of one. I think sufficient for our discussion is appeal
>>to the writings of Paul. My question still stands.

Apologies given. But I still think Terry Donaldson is on the right track
when he claims that Paul's vehemency when he want´s to save his
"proselytes" from circumcision and the whole yoke of the Law is
due to Paul's belief that Christ has in a sense replaced the Law for
both gentile and Jew. I know that you are of a contrary opinion, but
since I haven't seen any extended arguments in your Romans book
about ALL passages in the letters where Paul talks about the Law
I cannot yet measure the strenght of your arguments. One of the great
strenghts of Terry's book is that he takes a holistic view to Paul's letters.
With all due respect, but I didn't get the same impression when I read
your book on Romans. As I see it you just focus on a few passages
in Romans without bothering to see if the threads extend to other letters.

> > Is that not the same logic that Paul applies to the
> > function of "Christian" living for these "gentiles," to turn from
> > being servants of sin to being servants of righteousness? Even if he
> > might allow other "gentiles" not too do so, why does he prohibit
> > those who want this from doing so?

>But this is the same kind of argument that I often saw repeated
>in your book on Romans. And I still think it depends on a misunder-
>standing of Paul. Paul does not really ask his gentiles to throw
>all of the Law overboard in order to become "spiritual" Israelites.
>In reality what has really been thrown away are the ethnic markers.
>And why doesn't Paul wan't his proselytes to become Jews (= Israel
>with ethnic markers)? Because in his view that would have denied
>the efficacy of Christs dead to redeem humanity (both Jew and Gentile)
>from sin.

>>The connection you make is a non-sequitur. If your last statement is
>>correct, and it is the same as my view by the way, your prior one
>>(spiritual Israelites) does not follow. The logically conclusion is
>>that they become righteous Jews and gentiles in Christ. Besides, who
>>wanted to be a spiritual being only? Again, I think that your
>>categories are anachronistic.

OK. Let's assume that Paul´s gentiles are just righteous gentiles (I
have actually not ruled this option out yet). If you agree with me
that Paul considered that for his "gentiles to circumcise would have
denied the the efficacy of Christs dead to redeem humanity (both
Jew and Gentile) from sin.", where does this leave Torah-observant
Jews who did not recognize Jesus as the Christ? Do you read the
evidence in Paul's letters to indicate that they could be saved by
just following the path of covenantal nomism?



> > And why is it that the first arguments for "spiritual" or "true"
> > Israel are found in the middle of the second century in the
> > supersessionist theology of Justin Martyr, and not in Paul (per Peter
> > Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church)?
>
>Maybe Justin Martyr got it right after all? As explained earlier the
>logic of all Paul's letters and specially a passage like Romans 9:6
>demands two kinds of Israels, a false fleshly one (non-christian
>Jews) and a true spiritual one (jewish-christians + gentiles).

>>Your interpretation of the demands of Rom. 9:6 is overstated at the
>>very least. An interpretation such as yours may be allowed, but it is
>>the "+ gentiles" that you have added to Paul's argument that he did
>>not. Nor are two Israels in view, as this is remnant language for an
>>intra-Israel phenomenon of presently unexpected suffering in the
>>present "mystery" process of God's restoration of "all Israel," now
>>somehow inclusive of the assistance of "gentiles" (note, not
>>proselytes).

As said before; I read Rom 9:6 in light of what follows throughout
chapters 9-11. I try to have a holistic approach, and I do not think
your interpretation of the Two Israel-theology does justice to all the
relevant passages. I actually missed a thorough discussion of all the
passages in your Romans book - my impression was that you were
picking and choosing a bit too much to make your particlar thesis
fit the data. As for the question if the gentiles are to be included in
Paul's true Israel I certainly wouldn't bet my life on that. You may still
be right about that, but on the question of there being a true and a
false Israel in Paul's theology I am not prepared to budge an inch until
I have seen your exegesis of all the relevant passages.


>
> >Why does he never equate
> > the church with Israel in any unambiguous way? (the only arguable
> > case in in Gal. 6:16, and I join P. Richardson and W. Campbell [nice
> > to hear from you on the list too Bill] in finding no such thing, but
> > quite the opposite being affirmed for empirical Israel--note too the
> > distinction maintained in 6:10).
>
>I await your explanation of Gal. 6:16. And I really cannot see how
>Paul's words in 6:10b is to be taken to include non-christian Jews.
>The most natural reading appears to be that "the family of faith" are
>the members of the Ekklesia.

>>Yes, the household of faith in 6:10 seems to refer to the addressees
>>of the letter who share faith in Christ among themselves. But the
>>balance of the statement is to do good to all people. The "other" in
>>view in the letter have been, on my reading, non-Christ-believing
>>Israelites.

Maybe the "other" in the rest of Galatians refer to non-christian Jews.
But the passage you mentioned, 6:10, in no way supports your position
that Paul feels much spiritual kindredness any longer with other Jews.
In fact Paul appears to lump non-christian Jews together with gentile
heathens when talking about "all people" who are to be treated with
kindness, while members of the Ekklesia are to treated even better.

> > Surely that is an important point
> > if Paul's position and problems are the result of maintaining that
> > these gentiles are proselytes/Jews/Israelites, and the church has
> > replaced empirical Israel. Is that not something that providing
> > clarity on for the different situations addressed in either Romans or
> > Galatians would be of paramount importance, and not simply some
> > possible subtle exegetical move in a narrative element of his case in
> > Romans 4?

>Paul does not actually say that the Ekklesia has replaced Israel.
>What Romans 9-11 implies is that most Israelites have themselves
>deserted God's Israel by denying that Jesus is the Christ. Faithful Israel
>(jewish-christians plus the newly ingrafted gentiles) are now waiting
>for the deserters to return to the flock. What fate did Paul think awaited
>the deserters who didn't repent? Damnation and destruction (Rom 11:14,
>Rom 9:22)

>>Again it is you who supplies the connection between the inclusion of
>>gentiles and their identity as proselytes rather than gentiles, and
>>thus another non-sequitur is created for your case.

Maybe it is me who supplies a connection that is not actually there. But
the reason I do it is that I primarily read the tree metaphor in Rom 11:17 -24
as clearly implying that the "wild olive shoot" (9:17) is grafted (becoming
part
of) onto the root of the tree (the jewish-christian remnant) and thereby
becoming
part of Israel. If Paul's meaning with the metaphor was not to imply that the
wild olive shoot was becoming part of the root in a true sense then he
chose an unlucky metaphor that could easily be misunderstood (as you claim
I am doing). Why didn't Paul construct a "better" metaphor with two olive
trees - one representing Israel and the other the righteous gentiles?

>Seriously Mark, do you really believe that "normal" Jews who visited
>the synagogues in Rome would have taken lightly to the kind of message
>Paul is preaching in those passages.

>>Romans was not written to the Jewish people towards whom Paul was
>>interested in changing the arrogant views of his gentile addressees.
>>In-house polemic should not be in the first instance judged apart
>>from its rhetorical context and function.

Are you arguing that Paul would never have said in public in a
synagogue that he and the other jewish-christians belonged to the
faithful remnant of Israel who had the key to salvation for other Jews
- belief in Christ? Personally I think Paul said it many times without
hesitation and got both wipped and stoned for it.


> And do you really think that they
>would have embraced and welcomed Paul's gentile flock (the ones who
>were sure of salvation in contrast to fleshly Israelites) with words like
>that ringing in their ears?

>>I think that this is the wrong question to ask of Paul's text,
>>primarily at least, since it misses the rhetorical context. It is the
>>implied problem of current reservation toward the claims of these
>>"gentiles" to equal status with proselytes by way of Christ apart
>>from proselyte conversion that has created the exigence for the
>>addressees. Paul confronts the way they are thinking about this
>>problem, and calls for a renewal of their minds to see how their
>>present conundrum is a part of a bigger and better plan, inscrutable
>>as it may seem. Although they are not Israel, God is showing mercy to
>>Israel through them, or at least should be (thus 12:1-15)! Thus they
>>ought to give their bodies to to living graciously instead of
>>arrogantly toward the suffering ones of Israel, as this suffering has
>>proven to be on behalf of these gentiles, and not against their
>>interests, as their present human vantage point (as "gentiles") has
>>instead apparently allowed them to perceive the situation to be.

And I think that you are still seriously underplaying the offensiveness
to most Jews of the gospel about a crucified criminal that is said to
be their Messiah and their only road to salvation. One of the problems
with your Romans book is that you mostly concentrate on those passages
(mainly from chapter 9 forwards) that fit the thesis you are trying to build.
In my opinion chapters 1-9 also show that Paul is combating the hybris
of most of his Jewish compatriots, not just his own gentile-christians.

If the message about the crucified Messiah was so inoffensive why
did Peter get imprisoned at an early stage? And why did John the
Zebedee get executed by Agrippa?

>>I do not see that you have answered my challenge for some
>>demonstration that Paul refers to his addressees as proselytes rather
>>than as gentiles, of which there is much evidence, or the associated
>>questions listed above. Of course you may see the results of these
>>posts otherwise.

As I have said already; I am less convinced today than a couple of
days ago that Donaldson's arguments about Pauls "proselytes" are
much stronger than yours. I am still testing the waters on that question.
But on Paul's attitude to the Law for both Jew and Gentile I still think
Donaldson has the clear upper hand. That may also change in the
future when I have seen your further arguments.

>>You have made an effort, which I appreciate. I fear that my reply is
>>a little testy. Antonio, I try to refrain from accusations and to
>>assume that this is a good faith journey to learn together (I assume
>>that none of us were present and that each of us is merely an
>>interpreter with all of the baggage that necessarily obtains). I find
>>personal comments offensive in the pursuit of historical
>>interpretation, during which pursuit we all have much to learn.

And I still appreciate your patience and knowledge. Though I do not
always agree with all your conclusions I have profited immensely from
seeing your very original ideas and having to rethink quite a few things
that I had often taken for granted. In one way I very much wish that your
thesis would be right since that would explain quite a lot that has puzzled
me about Early Christianity - not the least the Apostolic decree, the
seemingly
Law-abiding Jerusalem Church and the "renegade" Paul's relation to all
this - but until know there are always some pieces of the puzzle that in my
view do not fit wholly with your reconstruction.
As for your supposed testiness, I don't think that is much to talk about.
You are always corteous. But I would say that I was myself a bit testy
yesterday, and that may have shown in parts of my message, since I
was quite tired when I sat at the computer last night.

Best wishes

Antonio Jerez
Goteborg, Sweden







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page