Corpus-Paul

["John Brand" <jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca>]

Date sent:              Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:09:10 -0600
Subject:                Re: [Corpus-Paul] question on "Paul and Judaism" by
Mark Nanos
From:                   "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>

Billy writes:
> > 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?

Mark responds:
> In my view, as I mention in that essay, there would be some changes
> expected by those believing this to 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).

John interjects:
To further support the idea that you are advocating, Mark, I thought
that I might draw the forum's attention to a modern day Jewish
response to non-Jewish interpretations of Halakhah:

"Judaism is a comprehensive way of life, filled with rules and
practices that affect every aspect of life: what you do when you wake
up in the morning, what you can and cannot eat, what you can and
cannot wear, how to groom yourself, how to conduct business, who you
can marry, how to observe the holidays and Shabbat, and perhaps most
important, how to treat G-d, other people, and animals. This set of
rules and practices is known as halakhah.

"The word "halakhah" is usually translated as "Jewish Law," although
a more literal translation might be "the path that one walks." The
word is derived from the Hebrew root Heh-Lamed-Kaf, meaning to go, to
walk or to travel.

"Some non-Jews and non-observant Jews criticize this legalistic
aspect of traditional Judaism, saying that it educes the religion to
a set of rituals devoid of spirituality. While there are certainly
some Jews who observe halakhah in this way, that is not the intention
of halakhah, and it is not even the correct way to observe halakhah.

"On the contrary, when properly observed, halakhah increases the
spirituality in a person's life, because it turns the most trivial,
mundane acts, such as eating and getting dressed, into acts of
religious significance. When people write to me and ask how to
increase their spirituality or the influence of their religion in
their lives, the only answer I can think of is: observe more
halakhah. Keep kosher or light Shabbat candles, pray after meals or
once or twice a day. When you do these things, you are constantly
reminded of your faith, and it becomes an integral part of your
entire existence."

(from www.Barmitzvahs.org - Halakhah: Jewish Law)

What strikes me in particular about this explanation of Halakhah is
the idea that it is designed to 'increase the spirituality in a
person's life.' Halakhah is the Jewish answer to the quest for
spirituality and a happy afterlife. I don't see Paul rejecting this
per se. What he contends IMO is that the Gentile has his own vehicle
designed to achieve the same objective. Both the Jew and the Gentile
are put on the same ground ('all sin and are falling short of the
glory of God') when it comes to the promethean image of Christ who
exposes the shame of all spirituality and calls us to move with him
in his sufferings so as to achieve the objective within Jew and
Gentile. It is the acceptance or rejection of the resurrection of
Christ that becomes the line between the darkness and the light.

On the way or path of the Gentile: Plato's 'Phaedo.233' helps us see
more clearly how Paul is incorporating the Greek movement from
darkness to light (quest for spirituality) into his gospel: 'he who
is a philosopher or lover of learning, and is entirely pure at
departing, is alone permitted to reach the gods. And this is the
reason … why the votaries of philosophy abstain from fleshly lusts
and endure and refuse to give themselves up to them.'

Mark continues:
> 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.

John responds:
I agree with you. Judaisms of our own day have a saying that is
derived from Isaiah which holds that they are 'light to the nations'
so that the Judaism of, for example, the Abaiudaiya Jews of Uganda
apply Judaism in a very different way than the Jews of New York. They
are still considered Jewish though their halakhah would not be in
every way similar to that of Jews around the world. Having said that,
there is a limit: Views such as the one you are saying Paul advocates
would be considered outside the boundary of what is Jewish.

Mark writes:
>[Paul] 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.

John interjects:
May I suggest a modification of your interpretation of Romans 11,
Mark? I agree that the focus is on the Jews rejection of Christ as
the fulfillment of the Messianic expectation. However, I would argue
along similar lines to Jesus statement 'if you had believed Moses,
you would have believed me' (John 5:46).  Before the advent of
Christ, the non-remnant portion of Judaism had failed to be a light
to the nations because they had failed to understand Moses with the
heart (see Deuteronomy 30:14 'the word is … in your heart, that you
may do it' cf, Paul's argument in Romans 10:6ff). Whereas the Gentile
had understood from the heart (Romans 10:20 quoting Isaiah 65:1 'I am
found of them that sought me not').

My understanding of what happens historically from the time of
Isaiah's writing to the advent of Christ, is that the theological
explanation for the cataclysmic events of the pre-Axial Age (prior to
6th Century BCE) of the Judaic prophets becomes dominant in the
thinking of the Persian Empire through Zoroaster. The germ of
Isaianic theology, for example, is that God requires justice
(cedaqah) rather than sacrifice (see Isaiah 1:11ff). And this is very
similar to Zoroaster's critique of the Iranian cult where 'right
mindedness' appears to subvert sacrifice [see R.C. Zaehner 'The Dawn
and Twilight of Zoroastrianism,' (New York: Phoenix Press, 1961)pp 34-
39). The criticism of sacrifice appears to have been disseminated
throughout the Persian Empire. For example, a stable or unifying
principle of logos (reason) is picked up the pre-Socratic Heraclietus
and incorporated into the philosophy of Plato.  Plato maintains that
one cannot know whether man was created as a plaything of the gods or
for a particular purpose (Laws.I.644). However, adopting the idea
that we are puppets of the gods, there is the knowledge that one of
the cords or strings (i.e. the affections) holding us up is the
'golden' cord of reason (logos) which is called the 'common law of
the State' (Laws.I.644-645). This is the difference between virtue
and vice (Ibid.)  In Plato's argument, the gods are not to be
placated through sacrifice (Republic.364). Logos is the 'savior'
(swthr) the virtue of men and the state(Republic.549). It is better
to justly suffer than to work injustice so as to be healthy
(Repbulic.IIff) and to enjoy a happy immortality (see Republic.X).

For the Jew, on the other hand, Halakhah  becomes salvation apart
from any understanding of justice (see Isaiah's critique of this view
in Isaiah 59, for example, which is quoted by Paul in Romans 3).
Because he does not understand what Torah embodies (i.e. the
preservative of a man and the state), the Jew of Paul's day could not
see why God should accept the Gentile apart from Halakhah. Neither
could Paul as Jew until he was confronted by Jesus on the road to
Damascus. From this 'Aha' moment (to use the idea of Sanders) Paul
had to work out his theology backward to the Mosaic revelation viz a
vis 'why didn't I see this from Judaism, itself?'

To follow this idea through to Romans 11:8 Paul quotes Deuteronomy
29:4 "YHWH has not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and
ears to hear, unto this day" and Isaiah 29:10 "YHWH has poured out
upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes." There
is a similar theme in Isaiah 6:10 which is quoted by Jesus in his
explanation of the Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:14-17). The Jew
failed to understand the justice (cedaqah) which Torah embodies
[Romans 2:20 Torah 'the embodiment (thn morfwsin) of knowledge and
the truth']. But the Gentiles did understand justice from the
universal logos and, thus, were prepared to receive Christ before his
advent.

Hopefully, you will find this input useful as constructive
interaction regarding your studies, Mark.