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: Antonio Jerez <antonio.jerez AT privat.utfors.se>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul and the Law
  • Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 23:32:22 +0100


Antonio Jerez wrote:

> > 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.

Mark Nanos replied:

> 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.

Dear Mark,
you wondered if the conclusion I drew in the above statement express
"Terry's sentiments actually". I suppose you refer to my claim that Paul
saw gentile-christians + jewish-christians as the true "spiritual" Israel".
I cannot speak for Terry, but I did certainly get the impression after reading
through all of his book that this is the conclusion he arrives at. If
I have misunderstood him I hope Terry will correct me.
As for the strength of Terry's points on Romans 4 I percieve it to be that
he first of all tries to find out why Paul in the first place would be so
insistent
on linking his gentiles with Abraham, the father of the Jews. There is after
all no real need for Paul to go through all the contorted logic he displays in
this passage (specially his equation of seed of Abraham = Christ) if he
was just trying to prove that his gentiles were righteous gentiles,
and not part of a reconstituted Israel that has its grounding in "the seed" =
Christ.
Maybe it would also help our discussion if you could pick out Terry's
book from the shelf and take a look at chapter 8, "Israel", and explain
where exactly his logic fails or the examples he supports his case on
don't carry any weight. You could probably start by explaining to me
just exactly what people Paul refers to when he speaks of "God's
Israel" in Gal. 6:16. And how do you explain Paul's words in Rom 9:6
when he claims emphatically that "for by no means all who decend from
Israel belong to Israel, neither are all Abrahams children because they are
his offspring...This means that it is not his physical descendants who make
up the children of God, but the children of the promise are considered his
offspring"? Who are Abrahams children "kata sarka" who are not truly
Israel? And who are Abrahams true children, the true Israel? Does not Paul's
words logically imply that there must be a fleshly (false) Israel and and true
(spiritual) Israel?

> 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?

Because Paul is still at work as a missionary among non-christian gentiles
in the Diaspora, and because though his "proselytes" are part of the
reconstituted
"spiritual" Israel they can technically be called gentiles because ethnically
they
were born that way and because the rethorical logic in the letters sometimes
demand it. You could just as well ask why Paul still calls
non-Christ-believing Jews
Israelites when he actually believes that they have broken off from the true
Israel
(Rom 11:19-20).

>Why does he defend their justification
> as gentiles?

But does Paul really do that?

> What does it mean to be a proselyte except to no longer
> be a gentile, but rather now a Jew/Israelite?

But where does Paul unequivocally say that his gentile-christians
"in Christ" are still gentiles? As I see it Paul has created a new
kind of proselyte; one who didnĀ“t have to take on the ethnic markers
that were part of Torah, but only the ethical commandments - the
Law of Christ or the spiritual Law of Christ. In fact, as I see it, Paul
demanded far beyond the Noahide commandments of his proselytes.


> 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?

I think you should reread Terry's book. In my opinion he gives excellent
answers to these kind of questions. One of the main strengths of his
book is that he never looses sight of the fact that everything that is
radically new in Paul's thinking ultimately goes back to the apostle
putting his crucified Messiah right at the center of all things.

> 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?

But this is the same kind of argument that I often saw repeated
in your book on Romans. And I still think it depends on a misunder-
standing of Paul. Paul does not really ask his gentiles to throw
all of the Law overboard in order to become "spiritual" Israelites.
In reality what has really been thrown away are the ethnic markers.
And why doesn't Paul wan't his proselytes to become Jews (= Israel
with ethnic markers)? Because in his view that would have denied
the efficacy of Christs dead to redeem humanity (both Jew and Gentile)
from sin.

> 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)?

Maybe Justin Martyr got it right after all? As explained earlier the
logic of all Paul's letters and specially a passage like Romans 9:6
demands two kinds of Israels, a false fleshly one (non-christian
Jews) and a true spiritual one (jewish-christians + gentiles).

>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).

I await your explanation of Gal. 6:16. And I really cannot see how
Paul's words in 6:10b is to be taken to include non-christian Jews.
The most natural reading appears to be that "the family of faith" are
the members of the Ekklesia.

> 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?

Paul does not actually say that the Ekklesia has replaced Israel.
What Romans 9-11 implies is that most Israelites have themselves
deserted God's Israel by denying that Jesus is the Christ. Faithful Israel
(jewish-christians plus the newly ingrafted gentiles) are now waiting
for the deserters to return to the flock. What fate did Paul think awaited
the deserters who didn't repent? Damnation and destruction (Rom 11:14,
Rom 9:22)
Seriously Mark, do you really believe that "normal" Jews who visited
the synagogues in Rome would have taken lightly to the kind of message
Paul is preaching in those passages. And do you really think that they
would have embraced and welcomed Paul's gentile flock (the ones who
were sure of salvation in contrast to fleshly Israelites) with words like
that ringing in their ears?

Best wishes

Antonio Jerez
Goteborg, Sweden





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page