Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Gal 2:16 and Covenantal Nomism (To Mark Nanos)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>
  • To: corpus-paul
  • Subject: RE: Gal 2:16 and Covenantal Nomism (To Mark Nanos)
  • Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 8:21:8


Mark, you did a great job in answering my questions. Now I seem to see your
points at last!??? But let us see if this is really so.

[Moon]
> >(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.
>
[Mark]
> 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.
>
[Mark]
> Part two of 8 is correct, but part one of 8 is not: Jewish people are
> righteous because God calls them so in covenant.

[Moon]
But if Jewish people were ALREADY righteous because God has called them so
in covenant, why did they have to believe in Christ to become righteous,
as Paul's autobiographical statement in in Gal 2:16 and his deep grief
(Rom ) over his kinsmen's failture to believe in Christ indicated?

[Moon]
> >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.

[Mark]
> 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.

[Moon]
You did not mean that Jewish people were secure regardless they believed in
Christ or not,did you? If you did, why then did Paul say:
(a) Rom 9:3
For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for
the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race.
(b)Rom 10:1
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be
saved.

I guess you mean that Jewish people were "secure" in the sense that they
were given the promise and were allowed to share God's end time blessing by
believing
Christ. Paul's argument regarding Gentiles was that they were also given
the same opportunity and that without becoming the people of the law.

[Moon]
> >
> >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.
>

[Mark]
> 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.**

[Moon]
Mark, this is great. The statement I marked off seems to reveal how you
would interpret Rom 9:31-32 and Rom 10:3-4. They talk about Jewish
people's
failure to believe in Christ. But on the other hand,
you said in another post [May 26] that 9:31-33 talks about Jewish
believers' failure to see that God has called Gentiles on equal footing
with them. Now you seem to say that their fault was not to see that
the Law pointed to Christ, and thereby not to believe in him.

About 9:31-33, you said:

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.

If Jewish people's stumbling was their failure, as Christ-believers, to
see that Gentiles were accepted on equal terms, that is, by faith in
Christ, then I do not understand Paul's anguish over his kinsmen. If that
was the issue, then he could have corrected them as he did to Peter, rather
than
having anguish even to the extent that he would have cut himself off from
Christ for the sake of his kinsmen.

In sum, you seem to say two things about Jewish people's stumbling. One,
Christ-believers' failure to see that Gentiles are accepted on equal
footing
with them. Two, Jewish people's failure to see that the Law pointed to
Christ
and thereby their failure to believe in Christ. I accept the point Two.
But I find it very hard to see the point One in Romans.

Mark, some side remarks. In the process of discussing with you, I think I
am beginning to see that Paul makes sense. I am familiar to the praises
given
to the Law in numerous passages of the Hebrew Scripture. I am also
familiar
with criticisms of prophets including John the Baptist and Jesus
againt Jewish people. These two things are compatible and the criticism of
Jewish people was in fact in accordance with the Law. But Paul's negative
statements about the Law is a different story. The discussion with you
gave me some hope that I might be able to interpret Paul's negative
statements on the Law from a different angle. For example,
I liked your interpretation of Paul's language "dying to the law" [May
27]:

[Mark]
I take the call for Jewish people to die to the discrimination against
non-Jewish people in Christ to be along the same line as one must adopt
with any kind of attachment that is too strong and thus limiting them
(remember it is
covetousness to which Paul directly refers in this passage), it is a
principle of reprioritizing. When you are too attached to the trees for
the
forest, you need to die to the trees and see the forest anew. But the
trees
remain, and in time you will no doubt need to die to the forest and look
again more closely at the trees. This is common for human attachments,
money, work, and on and on, even religious observance. Everything can
become a power that must be reassessed from time to time in a particular
context: Thus the Sabbath is made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath.

[Moon]
I like the interpretation along this line very much, because it tries to
understand Paul's statements in social, political, or practical terms,
rather than in phillosophical terms. I hope this is not simply my
bias as an empirical scientist/engineer.

Respectfully,
Moon

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


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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page