Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Sanders and the "New" Perspective

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl P. Donfried" <kdonfrie AT email.smith.edu>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Sanders and the "New" Perspective
  • Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 13:34:34 -0400


Hi Mark,

Let me try to be brief, but hopefully not too confusing. As I mentioned
in my note to Roy, I will be away this next week so we won’t be able to
continue the conversation until sometime next week.

I originally had written:
> Also, the fact that Qumran uses Gen 15:6 in a diametrically opposed way
> that Paul does in Romans and Galatians suggests that the issue is far
> more pronounced than boundaries between Jews and Gentiles and the issue
> of circumcision alone. Circumcision may have triggered the issue in
> Galatians but that discussion has a far more profound deep structure as
> can also be seen in the classically different interpretation that Paul
> and Qumran give to Habakkuk 2:4b. The relationship of Jew and Gentile
> to Jesus Christ is through faith in him and that simply changes
> dramatically the role of the law in the life of the believer in Christ.

You responded:
“The last line involves logic I do not understand, nor apparently did the
early believers in Jesus. I do not think Paul would understand it
either; at
least I do not know where he ever addressed it except in the life of the
"gentile" believer in Christ, which changes the force of the point
significantly.”

I think the key is how we understand the use of dikaiosyne theou in
Paul, a phrase for which the exact Hebrew equivalent is found only in
the DSS, iQM4:6, 1QS10:25; 11:12. Much along the lines of Käsemann,
Stuhlmacher, Fitzmyer, et al, I understand that Paul is claiming that
God’s uprightness is manifested to all humanity through the death and
resurrection of JC and in that act he allows the vindication and
acquittal of sinful human beings. Perhaps one should also add, with a
shade of Bultmann, that “the righteousness of God” reveals God’s saving
and acquitting power.

Gal 6:2, “Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill
the law of Christ,” with it’s “the law of Christ” is a clear reflection
and short-hand summary of the essential point that Paul has made in Rom
8:1-4: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in
Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has
set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For God has done what
the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in
the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in
the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled
in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”
In the revelatory act of God in Jesus Christ the law is not rescinded
but transformed. Much like Jer 31:31, the one “in Christ” (a key,
perhaps the key, Pauline theological category) has been enabled to do
the Law as a gift of the Spirit, as long as what Paul has indicated in 1
Cor 15 remains constant: “1 Now I would remind you, brothers and
sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn
received, in which also you stand, 2 through which also you are being
saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless
you have come to believe in vain.”

That some, perhaps many in the Jesus movement, didn’t get the punchline
is, I think, very true and thus the necessity of some of Paul’s letters.
No doubt the success of Paul’s mission, forced the issue and led to
heated confrontations. Upon my return – if you still wish – we should
discuss further your point “I do not think Paul would understand it
either; at least I do not know where he ever addressed it except in the
life of the ‘gentile’ believer in Christ, which changes the force of the
point significantly.” Here we need to ask whether Paul is making as
sharp a distinction between Jew and Gentile within his congregations as
some of us do today. For example, to whom and why was Phil 3:9 written,
“and to be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes
from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the
righteousness from God based on faith,” as well as, for example, 2 Cor
3. And I still hold that Romans was written to both the Jewish and
Gentile Christians in Rome (despite some forceful and eloquent
arguments to the contrary!!) – and beyond (Jervell’s point).

--
Now, briefly, to your earlier points. Of course, Paul uses exhortations
and he can even in 1 Cor 7:19 say “Circumcision is nothing, and
uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is
everything.” But the point is that obeying such exhortations have
nothing to do with the vindication and acquittal of sinful human beings,
i.e., the righteousness of God. Rather the one who has been rightwised
can, in the way described in Rom 8:1ff, be obedient to the “the law of
the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.” Why 4QMMT with its use of the
phrase “miqsat ma`ase hattorah” is so important is not only that it
provides a parallel for the Pauline phrase but that it is used exactly
in a context of sdqh, righteousness/uprightness and uses the exact words
of Gen 15:6 that Paul cites about Abraham in Rom 4:2.

But, as I said earlier, much hangs on one’s interpretation of dikaiosyne
theou and that might, perhaps, be a useful place to move the discussion.

Thanks in advance for accepting this hurried response and understanding
that I will not be in touch until at least next week. Enjoy what
remains of the summer.

Karl




"Mark D. Nanos" wrote:
>
> Dear Karl,
> This has been an interesting thread; thanks for initiating it and the
> follow-through. I would like to pose the problem in a slightly different way
> to see if this might help communicate why I don't follow the force of a
> point you seem to be trying to make from 4QMMT. I will do so below your
> comment.
>
> [You wrote:
> > Yes, with regard to Qumran there are references to doing the Law beyond
> > the two that you sight. I have them in my office if you wish them (I
> > return Aug 6 after the SNTS meetings). However, a critical one is in
> > 4QMMT. In 4QMMT C 30-31 the emphasis falls on the correct practice of
> > these deeds (“in your deed you may be reckoned as righteous”). What does
> > that mean? Is that not exactly the same connection that Paul makes
> > between work/deed and being reckoned as righteous, say in Rom 4:3ff.?
>
> You define the issue here as "the correct practice of these deeds." Now when
> I read Paul I see him calling also in many places for the correct practice
> of certain deeds, which he articulates variously in different contexts, and
> sometimes in distinction from how others practice certain deeds. So, for
> example, in Rom. 13:11ff., written to those whom Paul affirms in the letter
> opening to be "holy ones," he writes: Besides... it is full time now for you
> to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first
> believed; the night is far gone, the day is at hand. Let us then cast off
> the works of darkness and put on the armor of light; let us conduct
> ourselves becomingly as in the day, not in..." Or in 14:17: "he who thus
> serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men." Or in 1 Cor. 7:19,
> where what counts is "keeping the commandments of God." The list goes on,
> but I hope these have clarified the point.
>
> Do these phrases, when isolated, not make Paul a proponent of
> "works-righteousness" on the same terms as the author of 4QMMT? If not, then
> why not consider that the author of 4QMMT is likewise writing this kind of
> language for those who are already in covenant by grace, yet thereby obliged
> to behave appropriate to that standing? (in other words, that we are not
> dealing with works-righteousness, but with works appropriate for those who
> understand themselves to be the righteous ones by God's covenant, initiated
> by God's grace, the very thing that you will hear from pulpits of rabbis and
> ministers to this day).
>
> [snip]
>
> > Also, the fact that Qumran uses Gen 15:6 in a diametrically opposed way
> > that Paul does in Romans and Galatians suggests that the issue is far
> > more pronounced than boundaries between Jews and Gentiles and the issue
> > of circumcision alone. Circumcision may have triggered the issue in
> > Galatians but that discussion has a far more profound deep structure as
> > can also be seen in the classically different interpretation that Paul
> > and Qumran give to Habakkuk 2:4b. The relationship of Jew and Gentile
> > to Jesus Christ is through faith in him and that simply changes
> > dramatically the role of the law in the life of the believer in Christ.
>
> The last line involves logic I do not understand, nor apparently did the
> early believers in Jesus. I do not think Paul would understand it either; at
> least I do not know where he ever addressed it except in the life of the
> "gentile" believer in Christ, which changes the force of the point
> significantly.
>
> [snip]
>
> > By the way, is there a text where Paul completely rejects circumcision,
> > or is he merely rejecting a misunderstood and misapplied circumcision?
>
> As far as I can see it is not precisely either. He rejects proselyte
> conversion (which circumcision symbolizes) for gentile Christ-believers,
> because it undermines for them that they are already rendered righteous ones
> of God while remaining representatives of the Nations. He does not reject
> circumcision for Jewish people "by birth."
>
> Regards,
> Mark
> --
> Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
> 313 NE Landings Dr.
> Lee's Summit, MO 64064
> USA
> nanosmd AT home.com
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: kdonfrie AT smith.edu
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')

--


Karl P. Donfried
Elizabeth A. Woodson Professor
of Religion and Biblical Literature
Neilson Library A10
Smith College
Northampton, MA 01063

kdonfrie AT smith.edu
413 585-3669 (phone)
413 256-6202 (fax)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page