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: "John Brand" <jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Question on 'Paul and Judaism' by Mark Nanos
  • Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:22:17 -0600

From: "rabbisaul" <tim AT rabbisaul.com>
To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Question on 'Paul and Judaism' by
Mark Nanos
Date sent: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:33:13 -0700

John had written:
What strikes me in particular about this explanation of Halakhah is
the idea that it is designed to 'increase the spirituality in a
person's life.' Halakhah is the Jewish answer to the quest for
spirituality and a happy afterlife. I don't see Paul rejecting this
per se.

Mark Nanos responds:
> >Paul expresses it per se! E.g., Gal 5:6 where Paul writes, "but faith
> working through love." In other words, he does not write in good
> Protestant fashion, "love working through faith." Worth thinking
> about.

Tim responds:
> Actually, "love working through faith" would be closer to a medieval
> Roman Catholic answer. Protestantism has historically been very
> strong on the issue of "faith working through love," although modern
> forms have often degenerated into faith that need not do anything at
> all, except believe once.

John adds:
Mark, are you not saying that Halakhah (ritual) together with Kavanah
(intentionality) as an expression of Jewish spirituality is not
rejected by Paul; it is, rather, affirmed by Paul in, for example,
Galatians 5:6 'faith working through love.' The turn of phrase 'love
working through faith' as an expression of Protestantism is that love
is of no account on its own; it must work through faith.Or, am I
misunderstanding what you are saying?

In Tim Gallant's essay 'Paul and Torah,' he writes:

"there can be no question of allowing Gentiles to come under Torah's
yoke. This would be to make them slaves in a covenant which not only
was never intended for them, but further, would seal them into a
covenant whose grace has been withdrawn."

(http://www.rabbisaul.com/overview.htm)

I am thinking that Tim's statement is expressive of what is
traditionally Protestant: Torah is a covenant that has been abrogated
so that the Jew is outside and needs to come in. This has been called
a 'replacement theology' and appears to be what Sanders is assuming
in his writing.

Please clarify.








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page