Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The Mystery of Romans: the theme of- - - restoration of Israel

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The Mystery of Romans: the theme of- - - restoration of Israel
  • Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 18:51:51 -0600


on 1/4/02 8:05 PM, moon-ryul jung at moon AT sogang.ac.kr wrote:

>[clip]... what Paul says amounts to the shift of the
> ground. While faithfulness to the commandments of God was essential,
> still faith in Christ, which was the commond ground, was critical
> for being the remnant. It was the fulfillment, yes. But it was the
> shifting of the ground as well, so that Gentiles may come into the
> covenant with God. IF GENTILES WERE NOT REQUIRED
> TO PRACTICE THE WORKS OF THE LAW, the rules of the game
> have been changed to accomodate the Gentile believers.
> What do you think?

I do not wish to speak for Boyarin or anyone else. Lets just try to
understand the first century issue for a moment. The approach discussed in
the clipped section (sans comment on Boyarin) brings to the front that the
"historical" issue was discussed among Jews of Paul's day may be represented
as one revolving around a difference of opinion about what time it was: the
present age, or the age to come (time of the Messiah and restoration of
Israel, not to mention of all of creation, or not). Paul and the other Jews
of the coalition of believers in Jesus argue that it is the dawning of the
age to come in the midst of the present age, and they are then a part of
bringing about the complete change of aeons, which role includes the
bringing in of the nations too, as well as the rest of Israel, who will be
provoked by this action to reconsider and join with them. They argue that
the response of the Gentiles testifies that this is what is taking place; in
other words, that it too is a fulfillment of prophecy.

If so, then, from their perspective this is not a shifting of the ground,
but a realization that God is fulfilling the promises to Israel of bringing
in the nations. Of course, if you are not convinced that this is the case,
then you will not likely accept the terms of the argument. You may well
argue that it is a shifting of the ground, and thus not compelling, even
though that is not an argument directly answering to the case being claimed.
Instead the case being made claims you must decide with or against the
proposition as a fulfillment of prophecy. Of course, the respondent need not
accept your terms, and may well counter on another line of argument. And so
it was. But that does not mean that is what the proponents understand
themselves to be doing/proposing. It is a matter of perspective.

The Jesus-believing Jewish coalition admits that some rules have shifted
where Gentile inclusion is concerned, but only as necessary to accommodate
the "reality" of the dawning of the age to come within the present age (an
unexpected twist for all of these Jews, as Acts brings out clearly), and
thus the integration of Israel and the nations in one assembly as equals.
But halakhah is always "shifting" within and between Jewish groups to
accommodate new developments, personalities, changing points of view. Yet it
is not viewed as shifting the ground, just managing it.

Ex.: In my view, these are the issues that arise in Antioch (of course, this
argument is dependent upon how one interprets the Antioch Incident of Gal.
2:11-21, but I hope you can see how the point is made by my interpretation
of that case, even though I am not trying to initiate a new thread thereby).

There Jesus-believing Jews eat with Jesus-believing Gentiles according to
Jewish dietary regulations, but not according to prevailing status
differentiation, that is, not as though pagan guests until becoming (or at
least initiating the process to become) proselytes, but as equals (as though
they were already proselytes). Thus the issue turns not around shifting the
ground (i.e., abrogating the dietary regulations = dismissing Torah), for
the meal is still conducted Jewishly (according to Torah/halakhah as
practiced in general in Antioch), but around declaring that the table
represents the meal of the end of the ages, when the nations will join
Israel in the worship of the One God of all humankind. That claim,
symbolized in the meal among equals (Jew and Gentile as equals in status) is
at dispute as to whether it is appropriate behavior in the present age. For
Jewish groups other than the Jesus-believers (those ones advocating
proselyte conversion in Antioch, in my view), these Gentiles may be welcome
as guests, but they are still pagans until proselytes, and thus not equals.
Even if they eat Jewish food and in Jewish ways at that Jewish group's
table, they eat it as non-Jews. To eat it as equals they need to become
members of Israel--i.e., proselytes (the males need to be circumcised =
complete the ritual process of conversion).

Thus the outcome of the story is whether Peter's action compels these
Gentiles to become Jewish proselytes, not whether it compels them to eat
Jewishly (v. 14).

I hope this example helps clarify why, from my reading, the historical
question was one of fulfillment for Paul, even if argued to be one of
shifting ground for some of those who disagreed with him. Hence I find Acts
21 to be an interesting and likely example of the difference between rumors
and perceptions of Paul and what he sought to represent by what he said and
did.

Regards,
Mark

(I will unfortunately be unable to participate in discussion from Mon-Sun)

--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com





  • Re: The Mystery of Romans: the theme of- - - restoration of Israel, Mark D. Nanos, 01/05/2002

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page