Corpus-Paul

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

Moon-Ryul Jung wrote:
It also seems that Paul was against "covenantal nomism"
>itself,
>the system that claims one is "saved" by being a true Jew, which is
>recognizable
>by ERGWN NOMOU. It is indicated by the following statement:
>"We Jews also believed in Christ Jesus, in order to
>be justified by faith in Christ and not by the "works of the law".
>So, it seems to me that Paul's criticism of the "works of the law" was
>more than "fight within family". I think Paul opposed Judaism,
>not because it taught salvation based one's works or merits,
>but because, as Sanders showed,
>  (a) it taught salvation based on being Jew, which is
>      defined by ERGWN NOMOU,
>   and (b) this system had deviated from the way of faith
>          which was supposed to be the proper response of the people
>          from the time of Abraham (as indicated by 9:31-32).

If I understand what you are saying, and what you say that Sander's
position is, then leaving aside point (a) for a moment, which is enormous
to tackle, but with which position I disagree as put, I would like to
challenge (b). Two notes on (a): I thought Sander's (rightly in my opinion)
argued that identity as the righteous people of God was based upon faith in
God's gracious choice, and that observance was an act of appreciation and
commitment to the covenant God had initiated. (Am I mistaken about Sander's
view?). And I doubt that ERGWN NOMOU can function as universaly as you have
it here; even the earlier posts admit that the phrase is hardly ever
attested, and the exception is the sectarian 4QMMT. Don't you also think it
strange to conclude that everyone taught it, but (almost) no one used the
phrase in the extant literature?

For (b). As far as the issue becomes one of the faith of those Jewish
people who disagree with Paul, this must be qualified, in my opinion, as
faith as it refers to Jesus, and not to God, or to his system of living
which we refer to as Torah/halakhah. In other words, I do not believe it
would be a true statement, nor do I believe that Paul articulated a view
that the system of Jewish people who did not believe in Jesus Christ "had
deviated from the way of faith" per se. Why? Because they believe what the
Scriptures uphold about observing God's Torah? The issue of faith is one
about faith in Christ or not as representing God's work on behalf of Israel
and thus now also the nations, an aspect of faith that Paul claims is
represented in the very Torah itself.

Is Paul against Judaism and Torah when these are the very institutions to
which he points in order to substantiate his faith claims as those of God?
I would think not, and note that his "May it never be" statements of Romans
are to this point (e.g., he claims faith in Christ upholds the Torah after
one of these announcements; 3:31; and the value of Jewish identity in terms
of circ. and Torah in another 3:1-2). He is against those who would
preclude the entrance of those of the nations on these grounds however, and
would claim that they fail to understand the times now upon them as
foretold in Judaism's Scriptures/Torah. To me it seems the faith question
is not about Torah observance, but about what time it is with respect to
Jesus Christ. Is a difference of opinion necessarily a departure from
faith? And why would not Torah observance for Jewish people (if taken as
God's way of preparing Israel for the seed; Gal. 3) advance the
possibilities of this faith rather than hinder (cause to "deviate")?

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City and
Postgraduate student at Univ. of St. Andrews