Corpus-Paul

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

Mark, now I seem to understand what you are getting at.  I think I am going 
to try to read Paul along the
line you suggested and see if it can be sustained.  For others who might 
have followed your post as
closely as I, let me summarize your points and raise some clarifying 
questions.
I will talk about the implications of Gal 2:16 and whether Paul criticised 
the
covenantal nomism. 

A) GAL 2:16

[Moon]

> >(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]
(your post with my comments/understanding added)
> 
(1) They [Jews] had NOT THOUGHT they were made righteous by works of law 
before,
 but by the actions of covenant by a gracious God to whom they were thus
 committed to behave righteously (i.e., observing Torah, which is training
 in the art of love [thank you Abraham Heschel]).
(2) Faith in Christ and works of Law are not necessarily in conflict, but
 Peter's withdrawal has put them in conflict in this instance. 
(3) IT WOULD IMPLY that they believed they were righteous ones 
                             because [they were] Israelites [i.e. 
                               they had the Jewish identity 
                                           by doing the works of the law],
   IF this was the basis  of discrimination.
(4)  It is because God has NOW acted this covenant toward BOTH Israel 
     AND the nations in Christ making both righteous now in the same way
    (and thus creating a new social identity among themselves).

 
> This argumentative position is thus predicated not on some absolute that
> other Jewish people believe, but upon an implied premise that arises only
> within this group (as far as Paul is concerned in this argument anyway)
> when it is violated by the kind of discrimination along the boundary line
> between Israelites and non-Israelites within this group, which Peter's
> withdrawal represented. 

[Moon] Your argument suggests I may be paraphrasing Gal 2:16 as follows:

'You (Peter) behaved AS IF a man is righteoused only by being Jewish, i.e.
   by performing the works of the law. 
[The works of the law are the identity markers of being Jewish;
 One is Jewish if and only if one does the works of the law]
But we all believed in Christ in order to be righteoused by faith in Christ 
and
not by the works of the law, because no flesh shall be righteoused 
by the works of the law."

Is this paraphrase OK for you?

In a more "logical language",  I interpret your position as follows:

(1) Paul opposed the proposition that one is righteoused by the works of 
the law.
(2) This proposition was NOT something that the Jewish people believed. 
    What they believed was that they were supposed to do the works of the 
law
    as covenant partners with God, i.e. as Jewish people.
(3) While they belived that they were already in the covenant [because of 
their fathers],
    they also believed that Gentiles should become the "people of the law" 
(Rom 4:14),
    i.e. Jews,  in order to GET IN in the covenant with God.  
    They become the people of the law IF AND ONLY IF they do the works of 
the law.
(5) Within the Jewish community, it is true that they did the works of the 
law
    because they were already the people of God, i.e. "righteous". But when 
the
    inclusion of Gentiles into the covenant was an issue, doing the works 
of the
    law was the means by which Gentiles become the people of the law. So, 
in that
    context it is practically true, thought not theoretically, that one is
    righteoused by the works of the law.
(5) The proposition that Gentiles should become the people of the law to 
get
    in the covenant was true in the old dispensation before Christ came. 
    For these Gentiles, the proposition that "one is righteoused by the 
works of the law"
    was true, because by doing the works of the law, they become the people 
of the law who
    are entitled to be in the covenant. It was also true of the Jewish 
people in the sense
    that  only the people of the law are in the covenant and  those 
gentiles who have not
    become the people of the law are out of the covenant. 
(6) Now through Christ God has acted this covenant toward BOTH Israel 
     AND the nations in Christ making both righteous  in the same way
     "by faith in Christ"   (and thus creating a new social identity among 
themselves).
(7) Therefore, the proposition that one is righteoused by the works of the 
law,
    i.e. one is righteoused by becoming the people of the law DOES NOT HOLD 
ANY
    LONGER.  
(8) Moreover, it is no longer true that the Jewish people are righteous by 
remaining
    to be the people of the law; they also become righteous by faith in 
Christ.

B) Covenantal Nomism

I think the proposition "being righteous by being the people of the law"
underlying the statements (5), (7), and (8) is the presupposition of the
following statements of Paul:

(a) Rom 4:14 For if  [only]  the PEOPLE OF THE LAW (hOI EK NOMOS) are 
heirs, faith is
rendered invalid and the promise is nullified.   
(b) Rom  4:16 For this reason it [the promise] is of faith , that it might 
be in accordance
 with grace, that the promise might be certain to ALL the seed,  that is,
     not to HIM who is  OF THE LAW ONLY (TWi EK TOU NOMOS MONON) 
     but ALSO to HIM who is OF THE FAITH of Abraham (TWi EK PISTEWS), 
  who is the father of us ALL.  

The statements (a) and (b) seem to argue against the proposition that ONLY 
hOI EK NOMOS
 are heirs and are given the promise. I think that the covenantal nomism of 
the Jewish
 people implies this proposition when they require  Gentiles to become the 
people
of the law by performing the works of the law. Paul opposed this 
proposition by
referring to Abraham, who were reckoned righteous before the Law came. 

You said that Paul did not criticise the covenantal nomism of Judaism per 
se,
in contrast to Sanders, who said Paul "attacked the traditional 
understanding
 of the covenant and election" 
(p. 46, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People). You said Paul criticized 
ONLY the
proposition that Gentiles should be Jewish (by accepting and observing the 
"works of
 the law, the identity markers of  being Jewish)  to be "righteous". 
How could we separate this proposition from the covenantal nomism per se?
You said they did not see the change of the time caused by Christ, unlike 
Paul.
In sum, their fault was that they did not have
this new thing, i.e. faith in Christ,  not that they had a wrong thing,
i.e. covenantal nomism. But the adherence to the traditional understanding 
of the
covenant and election was a stumbling block to accepting the new thing. 
We may consider the statements (a) and (b) above as Paul's criticism of 
the
 covenantal nomism, which claims that only the people of the law and those
who become the people of the law are heirs and are given the promise. 
 If the covenantal nomism drove them to think [Rom 10.3] that they did not
 need to believe in Christ, and all that was needed was to be 
the people of the law, how wouldn't Paul criticise the covenantal nomism?


Mark, you may notice that I have been pushed to the corner by your 
arguments, and
still answer back from the corner. Maybe that corner is the right place to 
continue
the fight. 
     

Cheers!

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