Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] Second Temple Judaism and Covenant

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "meta" <meta AT rraz.net>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Second Temple Judaism and Covenant
  • Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 14:08:51 -0700

John:  This is my response to the first part of your message, which was rejected apparently because I forgot to take off the tail.  So I'll try again and apologize to moderator.
 
YOU:   which implies also the partial non-fulfillment

ME:  Would you explain this--within the Tanakh please, without imputing the
NT to explain it?  If you consider this possible.  Your explanation of
promise and blessing (I would say "and" not "or"), is IMO very good.  The Tanakh
clearly shows with the major prophets that God's promise and blessing are
for all of God's creation, spreading from "the remnant" to all nations
through expected Yehud's influence.  The remnant was not itself elected.  It
was the remnant of those chosen people already elected at the beginning.
Paul points to the new way of God's action through Christ as the remnant
under Rome spreading the new Gospel.  In other words, the remnant continued
throughout.  What it takes is what now is guaranteed to work, according to
Paul.  The parties to the covenant reflect the dominant patron/client principle/practice
of ancient times, all the way through Roman times, and even today but not so
dominant.  Default never has been primal or necessary in the patronage
scheme.  Dependence is.  Restoration occurred through release from the
conquering nation and return to the homeland in the "New Israel" second
temple times.  Of course, we know it didn't work.  They remained weak and
then the Romans took over.  So now Paul says restoration and salvation again
has come, being offered by God for the final time, but in a
different--entirely different--way.  I think, contrary to your statement, the
old covenant did not work (Torah), so now there is a new covenant in Paul's
theology which does replace the old covenant.  Does this make me a
supercessonist?  In a sense yes, but it appears that God is a pragmatist,
and a very persevering one at that (but not that Jewism is replaced). 
And he did it before, as I interpret your very good analysis of the flood time, when God established (without human approval this time, "make": both initiated and confirmed) a new covenant after experiencing the failure of the old one to work, and then that one was dumped for another new covenant provided by the messiah Cyrus, and that one didn't work either.  Paul says
in effect neither of these three covenants worked, so God now is instituting
one guaranteed to work BECAUSE it doesn't depend on human beings.  IMO the
history of the covenant is not "renewing" but trying anew in a different
way, but always through Torah (so renewing in the Torah sense), until Paul,
when Torah is dumped--but only in the covenant sense.

Hellenized thinking already had begun long before Paul, and perhaps
Zoroastrian influenced the very strong dichotomy between good and
evil, whereas in the Tanakh is was obeyance and disobeyance, righteousness
and unrighteousness without making the ontological statement.
 
Jaspers' Axial Age began in the 8th century with the exponential increased market economy, including very extended trade, developing the great flowering of religion world-wide, gaining its apex in the 6th century, when btw the Tanakh was composed.  I wouldn't say God did it by moving families around, but that it was humanity compensating for these new economic conditions which had very adverse effects upon all society, especially in the separation from the wealthy/well-off and the poor dying or hardly surviving--as Jaspers points out.  Practical ethics, sympathy and religious empathy, self-giving love, salvation, etc. became dominant in all world religions, especially in the new religion of Buddhism (without God).

Richard Godwin.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page