Corpus-Paul

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

Mark, your position needs listening, and please be kind and patient as you 
have been to make clarify your position. Let me ask some clarifying 
questions.

[Moon] 
> >Then, it seems clear that Paul criticised and opposed covenantal nomism of
> >Judaism.
> 
[Mark]
> 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.
> 

[Moon]
First of all, it seems that you understand Judaism of Paul's time
more than Sanders did in PPJ.  to is it true that 
Mark, On 05/26/99, ""Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT gvi.net>" wrote:
> 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).
> >
> Regards,
> Mark Nanos
> Kansas City and
> Postgraduate student at Univ. of St. Andrews