Corpus-Paul

["moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>]

Kishore wrote:

> Dear Mr. Mark and dear Mr. Moon,
> 
> The discussion you both had on Dikaiosunh was interesting. What I found was
> that it was like a play between two who like to play.
> 
> In my opinion, it is clear that Paul is referring to the contrast-situation
> found with the Jews. Paul is not ambigous here or anywhere in this epistle
> about the reason which he mentions here, as to what is THE  requirement for
> the salvation.
> 

Dear Kishore, 

I am humbly and honestly trying to understand why Paul criticised Judaism, 
the
faith system of those Jews who did not accept Christ. I think neither Mark 
nor I has any question about "THE requirement for salvation". It is faith 
in
Christ. I do not understand why you thought you needed to state that fact.

I think the issue Mark and I was discussing is really important 
to understand Paul. But it seems that our discussion confused you.
So, let me briefly summarize the context of our discussion. I hope 
that it would you to see what is at stake here.

Sanders showed quite convincingly that Judaism did NOT teach legalism or 
salvation based on one's merits or works, as the traditional Reformation
theology taught. In Judaism, the people observed the Law in response to the 
grace of God who brought them into the convenant with
him. In sum, keeping the Law was the requirement for staying in the 
convenant,
but not the entrance requirement.  

This conclusion raises the question, why then did Paul criticise Judaism?
Sanders says: because it was not Christianity. Because the new age came
through Christ, Judaism no longer holds and the Jews should have accepted
Christ. But they didn't, so Paul criticised Judaism for that. In this 
view,
there is nothing wrong with Judaism in itself, it was a legitimate way of
relating to God. What was wrong with it is that it was not Christianity.

But there are those including myself, who are not satisfied with 
such dogmatic explanation. If Paul rejected Judaism, there should have 
been
some logical reason for it.  Dunn is a prime example who tried to find
what was the fault of Judaism other than legalism. It was adherence to 
identity marks such as circumcision and eating regulations. According to 
Dunn, it was adherence to identity marks, which make a person Jewish,
that was the fault of Judaism. It led the Jews unable to submit the
righteousness of God, that is, to accept Christ. 

In a sense Dunn is between  Sanders and those who think that Judaism
as decribed by Sanders is still a sort of legalism, a mixture of 
grace-based
salvation and work-based salvation. This is the context in which I raise 
the
question, why did Paul criticise Judaism and specifically its 
understanding
of the Law?

Now quite unexpectedly (at least to me), Mark claims that Paul did NOT  
criticise Judaism. He seems to say that what Paul criticised (both in 
Galatian and Romans) was Jewish position that Gentiles should pass
through the proselyte conversion process, i.e. should become Jew
(in addition to faith in Christ), in order to fully enter the convenant 
with God. This was a sort of in-house debate. In this debate, Paul
said something which might have been considered severe criticism on 
Judaism and the Law (especially to those who overheard the debate). 

As far as I understand, the position of Mark is unique. I guess that
he was able to come up with such a unique and unheard of position on 
"Paul and the Law" because he is a Jewish person who study Paul (as
he alluded in one of his posts responding to my post). I want to learn
from Mark, because he says something I have never heard. I think
it would be amazing if he could explain all the negative statements of 
Paul
on Judaism and the Law, but still could say that Paul did not criticise 
Judaism and the Law. 

I hope that the above explanation for the context of the debate between
 Mark and me helps you understand it is not just a "play between two 
who likes to play". 

Respectfully,
Moon

Moon-Ryul Jung
Assistant Professor
Dept of Computer Science
Soongsil University
Seoul, Korea
 
 

> >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?
> >
> >Respectfully
> >
> >Moon-Ryul Jung
> >Assistant Professor
> >Dept of Computer Science
> >Soongsil University
> >Seoul, Korea
> >
> >
> >---
> >You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: kosala AT md2.vsnl.net.in
> >To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> >
> >