Corpus-Paul

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

I had written in response to an earlier post:
>>He[Paul] 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")?
>
>This was my comment to Moon's post:
>>> 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).
>>
>
And Moon replied:
>Is a difference of opinion necessarily a departure from
>faith? I would not think so. But I think it was more than a difference of
>opinion. (a) Doesn't Gal 2:16
>   ("We Jews also believed in Christ Jesus, in order to
>    be justified by faith in Christ and not by the "works of the law")
>indicate that Paul and Peter deserted Judaism which taught
>that one is righteoused by doing the "works of the law", the identity
>markers
>of being Jew?

Mark Nanos replies:
I do not see desertion from Judaism here. The question is how gentiles are
to be included among the righteous ones, a status reserved for Israelites
in the present age by the covenant offered by God. The traditional way was
by proselyte conversion. The revelation of Christ has led this group to
believe that has changed, and that now representatives of the nations may
share the status of righteous ones without becoming members of a particular
nation God had selected (Israel) to bring this message to the rest of the
nations; hence no need for proselyte conversion for these gentiles (and
doing so would lose sight of the  change within the present age that this
group believes has been effected by the death of Christ). Israelites still
continue to be Israelites, but others do not become Israelites; together
they worship the One God of Israel and of all of creation. It is not a
disavowal of Judaism, but an inter-Jewish distinction between this Jewish
group and other Jewish groups. It is the anxiety of trying to be accepted
by the other Jewish groups (fearing the ones of/for circumcision) that had
led to Peter's hypocritical behavior on the terms of this group where the
truth of the gospel for gentile inclusion as equals without proselyte
conversion was concerned. This is the rhetorical context of the verse you
quote. I do not accept your premise that the other Judaisms taught works of
law in order to become righteous, except for gentiles wishing to convert.
Jewish people observe law because they are righteous ones by the doing of
God; so too Paul and Peter as I see it. That is note what is at dispute;
rather, again, it is how to include gentiles as the righteous ones that
sets this Judaism apart.

>(b) Doesn't Rom 9:31-32
>   (Israel pursuing the law of righteousness has not reached the law. Why?
>    Because they did so not from faith but AS IF from works [of the law].)
>indicate that Paul thought the way of Judaism failed to attain its own
>goal
>    because they thought they would achieve the goal by keeping their
>identity markers, i.e. the works of the law?

Mark Nanos again:
No, at least as I read this (to which I have replied in an earlier
discussion with you). The stumbling to which Paul refers is whether
gentiles are accepted on the terms of this group, that is, by faith in
Christ without becoming Israelites. And Paul insists that Israel has not
fallen, but only stumbled, which is somehow part of God's plan that seems
inscrutable even to Paul. That is, that somehow gentiles will now play a
part in becoming righteous ones of God in order to assist God in bringing
about the realization of those of Israel who do not see yet the changing of
times that has come in Christ. Paul's letter seems to be designed to ask
these gentiles to behave righteously, and thus to assist in this process,
rather than disregarding the now vicarious suffering of these stumbling
Israelites, which is ironically, now on these gentile's behalf. He argues
from his own continued identity as an Israelite (and thus someone obliged
to behave as an Israelite) to highlight this point.

Of course Jewish people should observe the Law, that is not the problem but
an advantage (note that by the logic of 1 Cor. 7:17-20 to remain in a
circumcised state and Gal. 5:3 that one in a circumcised state is obliged
to observe the Law, that Paul holds this view). The issue returns to a
question on the place of Christ, not the Law. Was he or was he not the one
who has brought the age to come into the present age? Is that not the real
question that set apart this Jewish group from other Jewish groups at the
first? And it is the implications for how gentiles are viewed that is the
rub that sets this group apart on social terms (implied in 5:11; it is not
for faith in Christ or not observing Law, but for not circumcising gentiles
that Paul is persecuted by representatives of other Judaisms or Jewish
interest groups).
>
>Then, it seems clear that Paul criticised and opposed covenantal nomism of
>Judaism.

With this statement I do not agree. In fact I think it forms the basis of
his own faith claims for Christ, both for Israel (not against; what does
Christ/Messiah mean anyway otherwise) and the nations.

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