Corpus-Paul

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

Tim,
I will offer a few comments below, but I recognize that you are working out
of a large very well known system (reformed theology), and the discussion
can move to/from many points. You are working with a construction of Paul,
as are the developers of that system, so too is anyone who thinks otherwise,
and to make a few points on the topic at hand. We are all readers of Paul,
interpreters. Let's discuss the texts to which you appeal. Sorry about the
length; I hope the interested reader will find it useful.

on 11/12/04 11:04 PM, rabbisaul at tim AT rabbisaul.com wrote:

> 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 covenant whose grace has been withdrawn."

I have not read this essay, but I can tell a few things from this citation.
1) I cannot tell if this first statement has been qualified, but there
certainly can be a question about any interpretation, by definition, and
failure to recognize that, if that is the case, is telling for the value of
discussion. To assume otherwise is to address only those who already hold
your views.
2) I cannot tell the context of the first statement, but there certainly can
be a place for allowing non-Jews to come under Torah teaching within
Judaism, and within the teaching of Paul. He puts them there. There are many
examples, but just one to note is Gal 4:21, when Paul asks them if they have
"heard Torah" on the matter at hand, that is, have they understood Torah in
the way that Paul does. He does not ask them why they bother with Torah, or
instruct them to dismiss its place. He then proceeds to teach them from
Torah, including appeal to Gen and the Haftarah of Isa 54:1. (too big a
topic for this post.)
3) Why Torah's "yoke"? This is a negative characterization that tells
something about the person who so phrases it, but it does not communicate to
someone who does not share that valuation. It is polemical language, not
respectful. Is Christ's yoke a parallel? Is there no question of allowing
Jews to come under Christ's yoke? Is that not putting language on the same
negatively inscribed scales, so that the non-Christ-valuing reader gets the
assumed negative valuation (of Christ) without having to explain why it is
negatively valued (as yoked), while the positively-valuing Christ-believer
is left wondering what that means (if not already naturally turning into
something positive, like, why not be yoked to Christ, that is a good thing,
unlike being yoked to Torah, a bad thing). In other words, this is the
language of ideological polemic, explanations that do not explain except to
those who do not need an explanation, because they share the writer's point
of view, even if for unexplained reasons.
4) See note three for same comments about use of "slaves" in second
sentence.
5) "Grace has been withdrawn." What on earth does that mean? Are you talking
about Paul's point of view, which expresses that God's gifts and calling are
irrevocable in Rom 11; that Paul? How could (Abrahamic or Mosaic) covenant
be defined without grace, since it is an agreement initiated by God('s
grace). If "withdrawn," what is left? Do you mean that the covenant is
terminated? If so, that is another problem, but I cannot tell.

Hopefully that is enough to make the simple point that disposition to the
evidence to be discussed is telling, but it does not constitute a convincing
argument to someone not similarly predisposed. But these are comments about
a passage written by you and cited by John, and not your post to which I
will respond below.

>> 
>> (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).

1) Where does Paul make it explicit that his comments are about an entity
called Israel? What does it mean that Israel is charged with unbelief? (I
see comments about "some Israelites," and about some not having faith in
Christ that they should have from Paul's point of view, but from within the
covenant, that is viewed more as "disobedience" or "unfaithfulness," and the
point is that it is a temporary stage of a process that leads to its
resolution, not a final state, as one looking back from a later time might
conclude.)

2) I do not see support for your reading of Rom 3:2. A rhetorical question
is posed, in diatribe fashion, asking "what if" and specifically about "some
of them [Jews]"; not about "Israel." Moreover, the question is about
"unbelief" in the sense of "unfaithfulness," at least that would make most
sense of the question, since the matter raised in 3:1 and preceding it was
not about "believing" but about "intention" in one's "doing," whether it is
to gain the commendation of peers or of God, that is, whether it is
"faithful" to who one is or claims to be (belonging to the One God).

I do not see that you have begun with a basis for moving the argument on,
however, you write:
> 
> 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.

I will skip much of this part for now, since discussion involves too many
issues of rhetorical context, on which we disagree (not because you have
named my view and disagreed, but because I disagree with both your view and
the one you named). But I will just say that I do not see what you deduce is
what Paul deduces. 

(OK, a little context; here is but one option for reading the text (see also
S. Stowers. On 2:17ff., I draw here to some degree from R. Thorsteinsson
[Paul's Interlocutor in Romans 2; ConBibNTS 40; Stockholm: Almqvist &
Wiksell, 2003], and I am exploring other approaches too...):

On my reading, the question here is not whether a Jew will be reckoned a
Gentile or not, no matter how they believe or behave. The question is
whether a Gentile will be reckoned a Gentile or not, when calling themselves
a Jew (i.e., a proselyte is in view), but not behaving like one (2:17-24).
That is, there is no point in proselyte conversion if not intending to guard
the whole Torah, as Paul puts it elsewhere (Gal 5:3 = Rom 2:25). Paul is not
telling a Jew what a Jew already knows (about the role of intention and
action because of who they are; "the circumcision of the heart being more
important" is a common theme for prophetic speech among Jews/Israelites who
are circ. and continue to circ. their sons and proselytes; cf. the Torah!
Deut 10:16; and Jer 4:4; 9:24-25; 1QPHab 11:13; Jub 1:23; Philo Spec.
1.304-6, to name a few). He is telling a non-Jew from birth what proselyte
conversion means, and explaining how it can mean something very different
from what is supposed ("if you call yourself a Jew"). The only real Jew is a
Jew who really behaves as one should, with a heart for God to go with
inscribed flesh marking them as set apart for God. There is no such thing as
a non-Jew being a "visible Jew" or of "the heart"; that is not at issue. The
point is that they (non-Jews) can receive (apart from proselyte conversion)
the same praise from God as can a Jew who really behaves as a Jew should (in
heart and action).

By the way, if grace has been withdrawn from the covenant with Israel
(citation from your article provided above), why do you here suggest the
continuing role for that covenant, albeit reversing the participants
("reversal of covenant roles")? Who would want to get into a covenant that
no longer has grace? I think this is the kind of language that betrays the
double standard of replacement theology. You don't just deny to Israel a
continued relationship with God in covenant grace as if inferior and
obsolete (without grace), you also co-opt it. Why would you want to be a
heart-right Jew or Israelite, even supposedly "counted as circumcised"? I do
not follow the logic.

On another level, I think your approach does not make sense of Paul's point
about God being the God of non-Jews as well as Jews. Christ-believing
non-Jews cannot become Jews of any sort, or God is not one, because he is
then only the God of Jews (however defined); cf. Rom. 3:29-30.

> 
> 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.

To this point you have offered an alternative that works with your reading,
but not a denial of the alternative that works with mine (I do not hold to
the Prot. view you note anymore than to yours). In other words, either one
of us, on this point, would have to argue in a circle, and no resolution is
possible on the basis of lexicography. Right?

> 
> 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).

So this is how you know that Israel has fallen, right? Besides making Paul's
point in v. 11 that this is not the purpose/result, so that one wonders why
he did not answer "yes" instead of "certainly not," there are a few other
problems to address.

Where does Paul indicate that the "their" here is "Israel"? Paul has divided
Israel in v. 7 into the elect and the rest. So here the question is not
about Israel, but about "some" of Israel. This is no small point, for this
matter, and many others which are made to hang upon it. For Paul's argument,
the covenant with Israel is irrevocable and being fulfilled in the remnant
of Israelites, albeit some other Israelites are in a state of stumbling. The
question is whether they are stumbling "for the purpose of falling" or "with
the result of falling." You hold they are not stumbling for the purpose of
falling, but that they did fall nevertheless; the alternative is that they
are not stumbling with the result of falling. Right? You do not select the
latter because Paul denies it has resulted, and you think it has happened.

Your argument is that Paul then follows the denial with an implicit
admission they have "indeed fallen: 'But through their fall....'" Right? So
thus it was not the purpose, but it happened nevertheless; right?

First, the context preceding the question in v. 11, and following it, is
about the role of the remnant to preserve the whole which is going through a
state of alienation/suffering/stumbling/discomfort. (I do not see where you
have accounted for the remnant idea that Paul is making explicit.) The point
seems to be whether this is in order to bring their role (the some
suffering, not the whole) to an end (fall down), and the answer is
"certainly not." That is not the purpose or result.

Second, the dative "paraptwmati" is not well translated as "to fall." It
fits well into the metaphor as "to misstep," "to stray," "to err"; and even
"to sin" or "to trespass," although these last two do not carry the metaphor
along as well. It keeps in view a certain element of stumbling, an active
sense, but does not indicate culmination, as the translation "to fall"
indicates. It is not the same word as Paul's question at the start of the
verse, where he used the subjunctive aorist verb "peswsin": "they [would]
fall down." 

What is it that these some have not done? They have not been faithful to
what Paul has been faithful to, which can be variously defined in the
context as believing in Jesus as Messiah and/or believing in the mission to
the non-Israelites in which Paul is engaged. In other words, not believing
in the sense of being disobedient to their calling, or being unfaithful, but
not in the sense of a non-Israelite who is without faith in the One God.
There is a particular matter at hand that is metaphorically like a stone on
the path that causes some to stumble, but not all, but it has not led and
will not necessarily lead to falling down.

V. 12 then makes a claim about the results of their "misstep" (paraptwma)
and [the] "discomfort"/"weakening" [that results in] (hHTTHMA; this might
carry the sense of "yielding" the right of way to non-Israelites or to those
Israelites who represent the remnant, or of the "discomfort" of the state of
stumbling, with the sense of becoming "weakened," which fits with my view of
the "weak/stumbling" of Rom 14 as Paul's valuation of Jewish people without
faith in/of Christ as having "weaker faith" than those who do, but having
faith nevertheless; cf. 4:18-21), but again, these statements about the
condition of "some" Israelites are not based on their having fall down
(yet). Which brings up the issue of rhetorical intent.

Why is Paul describing this state of division among Israelites? In order to
persuade the non-Israelites to whom he writes not to contribute to the
stumbling so that they fall (don't boast, v. 18; do not become proud, but
fear God, v. 20; fearing the same, v. 21; don't be conceited, v. 25). That
would be wrong, in view of the grace that their suffering has provided them
(vicarious suffering of these Israelites for non-Israelites), and it would
be wrong for the results they wish for themselves too (the culmination Paul
details in v. 12-16). Even the "some" of Israel stumbling have not yet
fallen, and the non-Israelites have a role to play in seeing that they do
not do so. The distinction is maintained in Paul's language choices and
argument. God has not rejected his people: 11:1. All Israel will be
restored: 11:25. The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable: 11:29.

In other words, you have not made your point.


>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."

Here you are correct, to a degree, that this sounds like a fall, but yet I
think you are mistaken as to Paul's intent, and thus do overstate the case.
I have meant for some time to write an essay on this point. I believe that
this metaphorical point has been given far to much of a place in the
conversation, for as with any metaphor, it can be used to mean something
other than the argumentative intent. Paul's argues before it against a final
act like breaking off, and even the metaphors he begins but does not develop
in v. 16 (like the stumbling metaphor) indicate the remnant preserving the
place of the whole in the meantime (first fruits of dough preserve the whole
batch of dough, and root preserves branches). His argument moves toward the
restoration of "all Israel," the restoration of that part stumbling with
that part not (the remnant, the existence of which verifies that the rest
have not fallen, not been cut out). So why the breaking off?

Caveat: better would be the translation "pruned," since we are talking about
an action on a tree and splicing other branches in. Pruned helps keep the
focus on the temporariness in view, of dealing with a live tree where growth
continues. But still...

I think Paul made a bad choice here, and of course I recognize that is a
circular point based upon what I believe he is trying to do. He is trying to
persuade the non-Israelites he addresses that they are not to be smugly
secure (wise in your own conceits), they too could err or misstep, to change
back to the earlier metaphor, and be the ones stumbling if they contribute
to the falling of those Israelites stumbling presently, instead of being the
ones who help them come out of the stumble before falling. The branches
metaphor is not as flexible as the stumbling one. I wish Paul had stayed
that course instead of climbing out on this limb.

Just remember, by nature, we make analogies by what we bring into the
metaphor, so that any interpretation suffers from circularity. One cannot
persuade others who do not agree on the assumptions going in.

> 
> 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.

I think the comments above are sufficient to indicate that this conclusion
(esp. the claim that the fate of "Israel" is of having fallen instead of
some temporarily stumbling; instead, the covenant [of grace] with Israel is
still in effect, exemplified in the remnant on behalf of the whole) is built
on missteps, at least a different stumbling through the text than that of my
own stumbling. If Paul remained an Israelite representative, then why would
he write from a vantage point that denied the covenant with Israel any
longer applied? 

So what has either of us proved?

I believe that while no interpretation can be proved, at least it is time
for those of us who are not content with the replacement theology reading of
Paul (and the legacy of harm that it has been used to legitimate) to make
clear that it is not the only reading of Paul that is viable, and it is not
the most likely reading in many places. It holds hope for a level of mutual
respect (for the nobility of the faith choices of the other who disagrees)
that the traditional readings have not held in terms of both the
interpretation of the historical text and the hermeneutical moves for today
which can be based upon the patterns its interpreters observe.

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