Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>]

Dear Billy,
I have been reluctant to respond, thinking you were really asking for
interaction from others on the list. It would have been interesting, but you
have had but one taker, unfortunately. Perhaps I can clarify some things
about which you ask. I am afraid the topics are too big for an e-mail forum,
but I will give it a try.

I hope those who disagree, especially who are predisposed to disagree, will
respect the limitations of this forum. I welcome constructive discussion,
for there is much to work through to sort this out and see if, in the end of
the day, it works. I am convinced the traditional and prevailing views do
not. Does this?

on 11/7/04 11:26 AM, lejeune AT comcast.net at lejeune AT comcast.net wrote:

> Greetings,
> 
> In an online article called Paul and Judaism, Mark Nanos argues that in 
> Paul's
> Judaism, a new age has come and with it a change in the requirments for
> non-Jews:
> 
> "Incorporating non-Jews into the people of God in the present age as
> proselytes according to the traditions of the fathers is no longer
> halakhically warranted"
> 
> and
> 
> "In this service it does not reject Torah, but develops halakhah that
> articulates the appropriate way to observe Torah now, in view of ther
> revelation of Christ that the representatives of the nations are not to 
> become
> Israelites, but to join with the Israelites in a new community adumbrating 
> the
> restoration of all mankind"
> 
> My question: Now that the new age has come, are there any changes in the 
> "way
> to observe Torah now" for the Jews? What are those changes if any?

In my view, as I mention in that essay, there would be some changes expected
by those believing this to the the case, not in the sense of defying Torah,
but in the sense of interpreting it properly for "today" when believing
"today" is different than the "todays" prior to the resurrection of Jesus as
Christ (that the end of the ages has dawned in the midst of the present age,
creating conflicting norms). These primarily revolve around how to negotiate
the conviction that non-Jews have joined the people of God without becoming
Jews. This is not the same as joining as non-Jewish guests, as would be the
case in other Judaisms of the time. The common practice was to become
proselytes, but since that is ruled out by this Judaisms belief that they
must remain representatives of the other nations turning to the One God of
Israel as the One God of all humankind because the end of the ages has
arrived, there had to be new halakhot developed for how to work out the
social interaction between the Jewish and non-Jewish members.

We do not have letters from Paul outlining the changes for the Jewish
participants, but we meet instead the kind of accommodations required of the
non-Jews who have turned from idolatry to righteousness. The primary Jewish
change that comes through in these letters is the way to regard and treat
these non-Jews: as equals. Every Jewish group develops new halakhot when
confronted by new developments. The question is not whether Torah applies,
but how to apply it, for Paul's group, as for any Jewish group. I know that
is not what most maintain for Paul, but it is what I see (so far).

> 
> OK, I have another question. Also Nanos writes
> 
> "The question to search out is not how one gains righteousness, which poses
> the topic in universal terms for everyone, but how one not born Jewish gains
> equal standing among the rightousness ones."
> 
> I know this is a short article (I lost my copy of Mystery of Romans at a
> baseball game before I could read it), but is Nanos saying that for Paul
> everyone born Jewish automatically righteous? What would Paul say to the
> question "How does a Jewish man become righteous?"

I believe that Paul upheld the "traditional" (normal, common) understanding
of the covenantal relationship of the righteous God to Israel, the righteous
ones. Jews were born into this membership, and brought up in covenantal
relationship to God. There was an understanding that this was a privilege,
and also involved the obligation to walk rightly with this rightful God. If
one chose to disobey and persist on that course instead of repenting, one
could leave this relationship. That is not the same as what Paul thinks
about non-Jews, who are not born into that relationship, but must "begin"
it. The question for Jews is whether they will "continue" it; this, by the
way, is still a pertinent question for non-Jews after they have "begun."

Now what I suppose you are wondering about is how does faith in/of Jesus
Christ figure in for Jews, if they are already counted among the righteous
ones from birth; right?

I believe Paul wrestles with this question, but not in the same way as later
Christians do, because he is working within Judaism, not from an outside
perspective, from where it appears that there is a line between Christians
and pagans that includes Jews on the pagan side, and hence, the idea of the
need for conversion for "everyone."  Instead, Paul sees an anomaly taking
place that is of God's doing, and will be resolved by God, wherein some
Jewish people are "disobeying," which is characterized as "stumbling," but
also clearly defined as not "falling," but in due time "all Israel will be
restored."  (I am obviously drawing heavily on Rom 11 here, and below.)

It is Paul's role, and that of his fellow-Jewish Christ-believers to
represent the remnant on behalf of their Jewish brethren, who are
vicariously suffering in this present anomalous state that somehow is
mysteriously a part of how God is reaching out to all of the nations. He
sees those Jews who are not joining him in bringing the light to the
nations, which is Israel's awaited special eschatological role, as missing
out on the action. He sees those who oppose it as "disobedient," language
that betrays a belief that they are already in but not behaving as they
should, not that they are by nature out unless they believe in Christ to get
in. He expresses concern that the non-Jewish Christ-believer not mistake
what is going on so as to think and speak and live in a way that pushes the
stumbling so that they fall, i.e., reject the proposition of Jesus as
Christ. As recipients of God's special mercy, these non-Jews are to show
special mercy to the stumbling brethren of the people of God.

Yes, this involves a value judgment, but it is a long way from the one that
Paul has been understood to make. It is one within the family, not from
outside, or making outsiders. It creates a subgroup line, not two groups.
Paul believes Jesus is Christ, which involves a truth claim, but he
"believes" it because of a special revelation, not because of the best of
reasoned arguments. This should make him sympathetic and not see a different
decision as rejection, as traditionally portrayed, but as deliberating, as
in an anomalous state awaiting God's resolution, and the rightful walking of
those who are responsible for proclaiming and living according to the
propositions of this truth claim. Sometimes his rhetoric shows compromising
of this respect for the other, but it is what I believe that he understood
to be right, and he would (should) have recognized criticism for his
failures to abide thereby (e.g., when making a curse wish in Gal 1 toward
those who did not see things his way).

Hence, I do not agree with Sanders, e.g., with whom I interact in that
essay, that Paul rejects the efficacy of Israelite election. The gifts and
calling of God are irrevocable, Paul declares. Jews do not have to "get in"
in the same way as do non-Jews; they "are in" from birth, and need to
"maintain" that good standing by obeying the truth.
> 
> I think this is a great article by the way  and I learned much from it.

Thanks,
Mark
-- 
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Rockhurst University
Co-Moderator
http://home.comcast.net/~nanosmd/

> 
> --
> Billy LeJeune 
> Teacher 
> Hillsboro School 
> Franklin, TN
>