Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Question on 'Paul and Judaism' by Mark Nanos

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "rabbisaul" <tim AT rabbisaul.com>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Question on 'Paul and Judaism' by Mark Nanos
  • Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:04:24 -0700

John Brand writes,

In Tim Gallant's essay 'Paul and Torah,' he writes:

"there can be no question of allowing Gentiles to come under Torah's
yoke. This would be to make them slaves in a covenant which not only
was never intended for them, but further, would seal them into a
covenant whose grace has been withdrawn."

(http://www.rabbisaul.com/overview.htm)

I am thinking that Tim's statement is expressive of what is
traditionally Protestant: Torah is a covenant that has been abrogated
so that the Jew is outside and needs to come in. This has been called
a 'replacement theology' and appears to be what Sanders is assuming
in his writing.

Please clarify.

Not sure if John is asking me to clarify, or Mark. But my position is essentially this: Paul's great charge against Israel, in placing her "under Sin" alongside the Gentiles (Rom 3.9), is unbelief. Specifically, from the outset of Romans, he has appealed to the prophetic witness to Israel's Messiah (1.2ff); by failing to believe her Messiah, Israel has been unfaithful with the "oracles" of God (3.2), an unfaithfulness which comes to its most poignant expression in Israel's judgment against Him (which, I believe, is the point of Paul's citation of the LXX of Ps 51.4).

In chapter 2, Paul has laid the groundwork for all of this, by standing in the prophetic tradition (note the echoes of Jeremiah and Isaiah in 2.17ff). He has argued that it is possible for a Jew to break covenant, possession of the law notwithstanding. To demonstrate this, he has appealed to a handful of extreme sins (adultery, theft, sacrilege; Rom 2.21-22) - sins which, no doubt, he thought would be unusual and serious enough that his Jewish interlocuter would be compelled to agree with him, that even a Jew would be classified a covenant-breaker if he practiced such law-breaking. (In other words, the frequent charge that Paul is illogical and implying that all Jews are guilty of sins which were in fact rare is fundamentally misguided.) Thus in 2.17-29, Paul shows that circumcision and possession of Torah are not absolute guarantees that a Jew will not be "reckoned" a Gentile (2.25); likewise, a Gentile who has the law written on his heart (i.e. becomes a recipient of the promised new covenant) will be counted as if he were circumcised. In other words, a reversal of covenantal roles is possible.

The unfaithfulness Paul charges Israel with, then, is not generic covenant-breaking (contra common Protestant readings of Romans); it is the rejection of the saving reign of God in His Messiah.

What about Romans 11.11? Dr Nanos has suggested that Paul explicitly says that Israel has *not* fallen. I demur. Paul certainly does say that Israel has not stumbled *so that* they should fall. I take this to be a denial of purpose, but not a denial of result.

To clarify. Paul writes: "I say then, have they stumbled that [hina] they should fall? Certainly not!" The hina construction can denote either purpose or result (although I grant that the former is more common). The question is whether Paul denies both. I say that this cannot be.

Why not? Because what immediately follows presupposes precisely that Israel has indeed fallen: "But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!" (11.11b-12). Paul affirms salvation and riches for the world; hence necessarily he affirms Israel's fall. In truth, the language in 11.11-12 parallels the language in chapter 5 regarding the Adamic fall. (Paul uses paraptoma for a singular event, which is unusual for him; occasionally he uses the term in the singular generically; usually he employs the plural. Only in Romans 5 and 11 does he use the singular particularistically.)

Moreover, Paul speaks in 11.19ff of the breaking off of branches; surely it is not overstating the case to call this a "fall."

God's purpose is not for Israel's fall. But what does that denial mean? In the context, it means that the point of this fall was not the ultimate rejection of Israel. Rather, it was life for the world, and even the ultimate restoration of Israel. Paul's eschatology (which echoes that found elsewhere) appears to be that once Israel accepts the reign of her Messiah, the resurrection will occur with the renovation of all things (see 11.15). Hence, Israel's fall literally has meant life for the world; had Israel not fallen through unbelief, the Gentile world would have perished altogether. Thus God's pattern of sacrificing a firstborn son, and then raising him up, appears to hold true for Israel as well. This, I think, is the point of Rom 11.30-32: the Gentiles have received mercy precisely through Israel's disobedience, but Israel will also obtain mercy through the same mercy which God has displayed to the Gentiles.

tim


Tim Gallant
Pastor, Conrad Christian Reformed Church
(Conrad, MT)

On the Web:
http://www.biblicalstudiescenter.org
http://www.covenantrenewal.com
http://www.rabbisaul.com
http://www.testimonium.org
http://www.paedocommunion.com
http://www.pactumbooks.com

Weblog:
http://www.upsaid.com/rabbisaul






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page