Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>]

>Dear Mark, it would be exciting to experience yet another shift of
>paradigm! But to be successful, the shift of paradigm needs
>stubborn opponents. Let me play that role for the sake of arguments,
>at the least.
>
>[Moon]
>>What about Rom 9:32: Why? Because they did not persue it by faith,
>>but as if it were by works (hOTI OUK EK PISTEWS ALL WS EX ERGWN)?
>
>[Mark]
>What is your question? It seems to me that Paul is explaining the response
>to gentile inclusion, will it be by works (i.e., proselyte conversion, not
>the doing of Law by Jewish people) or by miraculous inclusion by faith
>of/in Christ?
>
>[Moon]
>I do not understand your comments. Rom 9:32 provides to the fact
>that  ISRAHL DE DIWKWN NOMON DIKAIOSUNHS EIS NOMON OUK EFQASEN
>(Israel who was seeking the law of righteousnes did not attain the law).
>
>Paul said that they failed to attain the law of righteousness,
>BECAUSE  they did not seek it OUK EK PISTEWS ALL' WS EX ERGWN
>(not by faith, but as if by works). Here the issue is NOT about
>Gentile inclusion, whether by faith of/in Christ or
>by proselyte conversion, BUT about why the Jews themselves failed
>to attain the law of righteousness.
>
>I also think that  ERGWN refers to identity marks of Jews, not doing of the
>law. But the context seems to indicate that the adherence to the
>identity marks caused Jews to seek the law OUK EK PISTEWS.
>So, why do you think that the section including 9:32 has to do with
>Jewish response to Gentile inclusion, not with their own fate?

Dear Moon,
I am unable to respond this week, but if you will read the verses before
you will find that the context of this statement is how other Jewish people
not believing in Christ are responding to gentiles who do, and thereby gain
identity as righteous ones "also." That is what Jewish people would have to
be convinced to believe about gentiles, instead of expecting them to become
proselytes to gain this identity, which Paul labels "works/acts of Law."
Notice that by 10:12 this is still the rhetorical comparitive point: there
is now no distinction.

Regards,
Mark Nanos

Businesmann, author, postgraduate student,
University of St. Andrews
and Kansas City, Missouri