Corpus-Paul

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

Moon, you have admirably attempted to represent my position in your own
terms; and for the most part succeeded, at least in the early points. For
simplicity, I will copy some of the aspects of this that I would put
differently or disagree with, and skip the rest that I am in basic
agreement with.

You wrote:
>(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.

These two statements miss my point, although the first six represent my
position. This position Paul argues for is not an absolute, that is, it is
not about Jewish people or gentile people who do not believe in Christ.
This language seeks to articulate the situation of Christ-believers, for
whom their identity together as equals is based first upon identity with
Christ, although other distinctions like being Jewish or not, female and
male, slave or free, still remain. So what is "not any longer" is that not
"only" Israelites are righteous ones, but also representatives of other
nations who are in Christ.

Part two of 8 is correct, but part one of 8 is not: Jewish people are
righteous because God calls them so in covenant. Statements need to
maintain the contextual qualifiers they are made with, and many of Paul's
statements should be read by later readers with such phrases as "for
gentiles," or "for Christ-believers" to keep the focus of his point.
>
>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.

Moon,
This statement of Paul's is about "only" and "also"; in other words, this
comparative language is based on the premise that it is for the Law-people,
of course, but "not only" them, it is "also" for non-Law-people in Christ.
The implied premise is an understanding that the position of Jewish people
is secure; the argument is about the position of non-Jewish people on equal
footing. Is God the God of Israel only? Or is God the Creator God of all
humankind now reconciling both Israel and the nations in Christ? That is
Paul's point on my reading.
>
>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.

With this conclusion I disagree. The Law was not the stumbling block, but
an aid, a pedagogos to help see this, an advantage, a blessing, etc. Again
I reiterate, Paul finds fault not with the Law, but with those who fail (as
yet) to see that it points to Christ. The premise of his argument is the
legitimacy of the Law, and they stumble when they fail to recognize to what
the Law points (those other Jewish people by the way, not all Jewish
people, for Paul maintains that he is an example of how the Law succeeds
when an Israelite like himself is already granted grace to see it).
Ironically, it is the implicit failure to thus do the very Law they ground
their resistance to the gentile inclusion upon that Paul criticizes. And
don't forget that Paul's view is that this "moment" in Israel's history is
all happening in some inexplicable plan to benefit the nations first, but
also Israel in the end, out of order, one might say.

For Paul (e.g., in Rom. 7) the Law itself is holy and righteous and good,
even spiritual. I challenge you to look at commentaries on these
statements: you will note that it will be a very short read! Ever really
consider that Paul says the Law is spiritual (in this very letter)! He
places the problem squarely upon the one who fails to observe its
implications--which for him is the work of Christ. The problem for Paul is
not the Law, although this boundary does present problems for unifying
people into one, since among humans differences (which the Law by its
nature defines) seem to ineluctably lead to discrimination. He is trying to
make two people into one, yet remaining different. He says the differences
should not lead to discrimination for those now united as one in Christ.

>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?
>
Because the problem is not covenantal nomism, but with some people who fail
to see to what it points, i.e., Christ--from Paul's perspective anyway, in
this passage and elsewhere.
>
>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.

I appreciate your willingness to try and see the view from my corner. From
here, to me, it does not look like criticism of covenantal nomism, but of
some people's failure, on Paul's terms, to see the implications of
covenantal nomism. I see his points setting out the irony of this. It is of
a piece with the constant struggle between humans and the institutions
humans invent and participate in in order to promote good for "all" humans.
Yet these institutions can easily be manipulated by humans--even the very
ones who conceived of them on behalf of others--to promote their own
superiority on terms derived, ironically, from the very institutions, yet
running in spirit against their most noble intentions. Thus we have the
inhumanity of humanity.

Is there something wrong with institutions like kingship (or democracy, or
whatever governmental form is taken), or is it the king (or parallel
representative) that becomes at some point the problem? Something wrong
with marriage or divorce; or is it the abuse justified by one or the other
that is the problem? Likewise church, work, money, etc.

So Jesus says the Sabbath was for humans, not humans for the Sabbath.
Doesn't his statement confirm the institution, yet recognize its nobility
can be undermined by humans? Is he saying not to observe the Sabbath; or to
observe it in truth? So too the Law, prayer, acts of piety, and kindness
can all be subverted for other than the noble purpose they are meant to
(and can) serve, by different people at different times, and sadly, by each
person at different times. The rabbis recognize this just as do the
prophets. When Isaiah or Jeremiah criticize the sacraficial system, is it
the system or its subversion that is in view?

There is nothing wrong with covenantal nomism, and I find no evidence that
Paul believes otherwise; it is a gift of God. What will one so identified
do with it is the question. That is Paul's point I think, based upon his
belief that this covenant God had now acted in a way that made the
interpretation of that covenant subject to reevaluation in view of the
change in times that that action represented, that is, the dawning of the
age to come within the midst of the present age, and thus the inclusion of
the nations, as expected at that time.

To put this in Christian instead of Jewish terms, I hope without giving
offense: Is there anything wrong with faith in Christ because it is paraded
at some times by some people to justify the destruction of those who do not
share this faith? The boundary line drawn by Law which creates a problem
for Paul--though one I believe he never sought to abrogate since it was in
his view the creation of God and defined his own faith and identity--seems
to me to be made of the same stuff as Christ-faith; it identifies and thus
differentiates; that is the nature of covenants. Is Paul's (prophetic
style) criticism about the institution or belief or practice, or about what
is justified in its name? at least that is the issue, from another corner's
point of view.

Thanks for the dialogue,
Mark Nanos

Kansas City and
Postgraduate student at Univ. of St. Andrews