Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] question on "Paul and Judaism" by Mark Nanos

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] question on "Paul and Judaism" by Mark Nanos
  • Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 16:19:51 -0600

Dear Mark,

I'm sorry that I did not read this article to which Billy is responding, and I may show my ignorance in my comments.

We do not have letters from Paul outlining the changes for the Jewish
participants, but we meet instead the kind of accommodations required of the
non-Jews who have turned from idolatry to righteousness. The primary Jewish
change that comes through in these letters is the way to regard and treat
these non-Jews: as equals. Every Jewish group develops new halakhot when
confronted by new developments. The question is not whether Torah applies,
but how to apply it, for Paul's group, as for any Jewish group. I know that
is not what most maintain for Paul, but it is what I see (so far).

HH: I think we're not under the law, Jew or Gentile. The first covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13),

I believe that Paul upheld the "traditional" (normal, common) understanding
of the covenantal relationship of the righteous God to Israel, the righteous
ones. Jews were born into this membership, and brought up in covenantal
relationship to God. There was an understanding that this was a privilege,
and also involved the obligation to walk rightly with this rightful God. If
one chose to disobey and persist on that course instead of repenting, one
could leave this relationship. That is not the same as what Paul thinks
about non-Jews, who are not born into that relationship, but must "begin"
it. The question for Jews is whether they will "continue" it; this, by the
way, is still a pertinent question for non-Jews after they have "begun."

HH: This seems right, but I think that ultimately, in terms of eternal judgment, we will find that God is impartial and deals with us all in similar terms.

I believe Paul wrestles with this question, but not in the same way as later
Christians do, because he is working within Judaism, not from an outside
perspective, from where it appears that there is a line between Christians
and pagans that includes Jews on the pagan side, and hence, the idea of the
need for conversion for "everyone." Instead, Paul sees an anomaly taking
place that is of God's doing, and will be resolved by God, wherein some
Jewish people are "disobeying," which is characterized as "stumbling," but
also clearly defined as not "falling," but in due time "all Israel will be
restored." (I am obviously drawing heavily on Rom 11 here, and below.)

HH: It matters in what terms Paul conceived of all Israel as being restored. I seriously doubt that he meant every individual of all time, although you may not be saying that.

It is Paul's role, and that of his fellow-Jewish Christ-believers to
represent the remnant on behalf of their Jewish brethren, who are
vicariously suffering in this present anomalous state that somehow is
mysteriously a part of how God is reaching out to all of the nations. He
sees those Jews who are not joining him in bringing the light to the
nations, which is Israel's awaited special eschatological role, as missing
out on the action. He sees those who oppose it as "disobedient," language
that betrays a belief that they are already in but not behaving as they
should, not that they are by nature out unless they believe in Christ to get
in. He expresses concern that the non-Jewish Christ-believer not mistake
what is going on so as to think and speak and live in a way that pushes the
stumbling so that they fall, i.e., reject the proposition of Jesus as
Christ. As recipients of God's special mercy, these non-Jews are to show
special mercy to the stumbling brethren of the people of God.

HH: This all seems acceptable, but it may be that some individuals will fall, although the nation won't.

Yes, this involves a value judgment, but it is a long way from the one that
Paul has been understood to make. It is one within the family, not from
outside, or making outsiders. It creates a subgroup line, not two groups.
Paul believes Jesus is Christ, which involves a truth claim, but he
"believes" it because of a special revelation, not because of the best of
reasoned arguments. This should make him sympathetic and not see a different
decision as rejection, as traditionally portrayed, but as deliberating, as
in an anomalous state awaiting God's resolution, and the rightful walking of
those who are responsible for proclaiming and living according to the
propositions of this truth claim. Sometimes his rhetoric shows compromising
of this respect for the other, but it is what I believe that he understood
to be right, and he would (should) have recognized criticism for his
failures to abide thereby (e.g., when making a curse wish in Gal 1 toward
those who did not see things his way).

HH: This last point seems way too subjective, if I understand it. Paul wrote that statement as an apostle. It was a true statement in Galatians 1, although I'm not sure which one you refer to. If it's Galatians 1:9, I don't see why that wouldn't apply to Jews. He speaks of those who willfully distort the gospel in that verse.

Hence, I do not agree with Sanders, e.g., with whom I interact in that
essay, that Paul rejects the efficacy of Israelite election. The gifts and
calling of God are irrevocable, Paul declares. Jews do not have to "get in"
in the same way as do non-Jews; they "are in" from birth, and need to
"maintain" that good standing by obeying the truth.

HH: No, Paul doesn't reject the Israelite election. But it is not so effective as to permanently include those who permanently reject Christ.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page