Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul and the Law

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT mail.gvi.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul and the Law
  • Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 13:19:01 -0600


I also believe that your arguments
about Romans 4, paired with your further argumentation in the chapter
called "Israel" puts almost
insurmountable obstacles for Mark Nanos' thesis that Paul only saw his
gentile-christians as righteous gentiles and not part of the true "spiritual"
Israel that consisted of both gentile-christians and jewish-christians.

I am perplexed by this comment. Perhaps I am just missing some obvious strength to Donaldson's point (nice to hear from you on the list Terry), and I will admit that it has been several years from reading his book in its entirety, but I do not see any obstacles to my thesis; certainly nothing "insurmountable," for goodness sake. I wonder if the conclusion being drawn in this comment expresses Terry's sentiments actually.

By the way, I do not apparently get the point of the comment regarding seed in Romans 4; would you mind explaining the argumentative weight that it is supposed to carry? As far as I can see Paul knows one God who is involved in restoring all of humankind, one Israel whom God made a covenant with on behalf of restoring all humankind.

Perhaps someone could explain a few things to me. For example, why does Paul write to and of gentiles in all of his letters if he is writing to and of proselytes? Why does he defend their justification as gentiles? What does it mean to be a proselyte except to no longer be a gentile, but rather now a Jew/Israelite?

And if these "gentiles" are ostensible proselytes, why are they prohibited from becoming circumcised or observing Law as long as they do not do so to be justified, but only to live like proselytes who are justified? Is that not the same logic that Paul applies to the function of "Christian" living for these "gentiles," to turn from being servants of sin to being servants of righteousness? Even if he might allow other "gentiles" not too do so, why does he prohibit those who want this from doing so?

And why is it that the first arguments for "spiritual" or "true" Israel are found in the middle of the second century in the supersessionist theology of Justin Martyr, and not in Paul (per Peter Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church)? Why does he never equate the church with Israel in any unambiguous way? (the only arguable case in in Gal. 6:16, and I join P. Richardson and W. Campbell [nice to hear from you on the list too Bill] in finding no such thing, but quite the opposite being affirmed for empirical Israel--note too the distinction maintained in 6:10). Surely that is an important point if Paul's position and problems are the result of maintaining that these gentiles are proselytes/Jews/Israelites, and the church has replaced empirical Israel. Is that not something that providing clarity on for the different situations addressed in either Romans or Galatians would be of paramount importance, and not simply some possible subtle exegetical move in a narrative element of his case in Romans 4?

Regards,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page