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: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 18:17:44 -0600


Dear Antonio,
Some comments below yours.

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.

This is not an argument, but an assumption. I assume that this is just what he would need to argue. So what?

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.

Empirical Israel, "of course" (he wrote with tongue in cheek). "Even the Israel of God," in spite of all that Paul can be interpreted to have just written.

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?

This is simply remnant language to differentiate among empirical Israelites. The remnant bears witness to the hope for the rest; it is a restoration image, not a supersession one. Representatives from the other Nations are not in view in this imagery.


> 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.

What? If they are proselyte spiritual Israelites they are not non-proselyte non-Israelites, which is what gentiles are. An interpreter must choose one or the other; we did not invent the categories with which we must work.

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).

Paul argues that these "some" are not fallen but only stumbling presently; unfortunately his metaphor can be taken otherwise, as do you, and thus defeat his argumentative purpose for its inclusion. This is a topic on which I hope to someday write more.


>Why does he defend their justification
> as gentiles?

But does Paul really do that?

What? Please see Romans or Galatians, passim.


> 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?

I am surprised by this question. Romans and Galatians, passim. It is the way they are named in the epistolary opening and closing (Rom. 1:5-6, 13, 16; 15:15-18, 27), for example, and the point of his arguments throughout (surely too many to need to cite: cf. e.g., Rom. 3:29; 11:11-14; 15:7-21; Gal. 3:1 plus 8 and 14).

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.

This division of ethical and ritual commandments is anachronistic.

If they are a new kind of proselyte than why does Paul never call them such, but still gentiles? You have invented (followed the invention of) a category that Paul does not articulate in the extant correspondence. Paul writes of new kinds of relationships between Jews and Greeks, not new kinds of proselytes. Are there new kinds of males and females or slaves and free? Or is the point that they have a new understanding of each other as equals in Christ even though different in terms of social or biological construction according to human agents and agencies. Do the females or slaves think that in Christ they have become spiritual males or freedpersons, as you suggest for gentiles as spiritual Israelites? Would they care? If you should reply with a yes, then I wonder if you have considered these people in their own cultural world, or tried to imagine what was "really" important to them, not someone whose concerns are shaped by later cultural perceptions of what is real or important, for example on a full stomach at a computer screen.

In fact, as I see it, Paul
demanded far beyond the Noahide commandments of his proselytes.

On this we might agree.



> 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.

This is not an argument. I should reread his book no doubt, but I have read it closely and was not convinced of this point. Let's refrain from this kind of approach to the discussion, or just abandon the pretense of one. I think sufficient for our discussion is appeal to the writings of Paul. My question still stands.


> 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.

The connection you make is a non-sequitur. If your last statement is correct, and it is the same as my view by the way, your prior one (spiritual Israelites) does not follow. The logically conclusion is that they become righteous Jews and gentiles in Christ. Besides, who wanted to be a spiritual being only? Again, I think that your categories are anachronistic.


> 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).

Your interpretation of the demands of Rom. 9:6 is overstated at the very least. An interpretation such as yours may be allowed, but it is the "+ gentiles" that you have added to Paul's argument that he did not. Nor are two Israels in view, as this is remnant language for an intra-Israel phenomenon of presently unexpected suffering in the present "mystery" process of God's restoration of "all Israel," now somehow inclusive of the assistance of "gentiles" (note, not proselytes).


>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.

Yes, the household of faith in 6:10 seems to refer to the addressees of the letter who share faith in Christ among themselves. But the balance of the statement is to do good to all people. The "other" in view in the letter have been, on my reading, non-Christ-believing Israelites.


> 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)

Again it is you who supplies the connection between the inclusion of gentiles and their identity as proselytes rather than gentiles, and thus another non-sequitur is created for your case.

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.

Romans was not written to the Jewish people towards whom Paul was interested in changing the arrogant views of his gentile addressees. In-house polemic should not be in the first instance judged apart from its rhetorical context and function.

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?

I think that this is the wrong question to ask of Paul's text, primarily at least, since it misses the rhetorical context. It is the implied problem of current reservation toward the claims of these "gentiles" to equal status with proselytes by way of Christ apart from proselyte conversion that has created the exigence for the addressees. Paul confronts the way they are thinking about this problem, and calls for a renewal of their minds to see how their present conundrum is a part of a bigger and better plan, inscrutable as it may seem. Although they are not Israel, God is showing mercy to Israel through them, or at least should be (thus 12:1-15)! Thus they ought to give their bodies to to living graciously instead of arrogantly toward the suffering ones of Israel, as this suffering has proven to be on behalf of these gentiles, and not against their interests, as their present human vantage point (as "gentiles") has instead apparently allowed them to perceive the situation to be.

I do not see that you have answered my challenge for some demonstration that Paul refers to his addressees as proselytes rather than as gentiles, of which there is much evidence, or the associated questions listed above. Of course you may see the results of these posts otherwise.

You have made an effort, which I appreciate. I fear that my reply is a little testy. Antonio, I try to refrain from accusations and to assume that this is a good faith journey to learn together (I assume that none of us were present and that each of us is merely an interpreter with all of the baggage that necessarily obtains). I find personal comments offensive in the pursuit of historical interpretation, during which pursuit we all have much to learn.

Shabbat Shalom,
Mark Nanos
Kansas City





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page