Corpus-Paul

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Mark,

I'm sorry that I did not read this article to which Billy is 
responding, and I may show my ignorance in my comments.

> 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).

HH: I think we're not under the law, Jew or Gentile. The first 
covenant is obsolete (Heb 8:13),

> 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."

HH: This seems right, but I think that ultimately, in terms of 
eternal judgment, we will find that God is impartial and deals with 
us all in similar terms.

> 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.)

HH: It matters in what terms Paul conceived of all Israel as being 
restored. I seriously doubt that he meant every individual of all 
time, although you may not be saying that.

> 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.

HH: This all seems acceptable, but it may be that some individuals 
will fall, although the nation won't.

> 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).

HH: This last point seems way too subjective, if I understand it. 
Paul wrote that statement as an apostle. It was a true statement in 
Galatians 1, although I'm not sure which one you refer to. If it's 
Galatians 1:9, I don't see why that wouldn't apply to Jews. He speaks 
of those who willfully distort the gospel in that verse.

> 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.

HH: No, Paul doesn't reject the Israelite election. But it is not so 
effective as to permanently include those who permanently reject 
Christ.

                                Yours,
                                Harold Holmyard