Corpus-Paul

["rabbisaul" <tim AT rabbisaul.com>]

Dr Nanos writes,

> 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.)

I have in fact dealt with such matters in my essay (as indeed, with the 
matters relating to most of your other points where you interact with the 
quotation John Brand provided).  For Paul, there are two primary usages of 
Torah:  Torah as covenantal administration, and Torah as Scripture.  I argue 
this at more length in my online paper (and give even further attention in a 
much lengthier version which is forthcoming in print).  Thus when Paul 
appeals to Torah here, what does he appeal to?  The Genesis narrative.  He 
is appealing to the biblical witness as a means to undercutting the supposed 
necessity of Gentiles coming under the Torah covenant.

> 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 also Paul's language (Gal 5.1).

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.

But once again:  you take one paragraph and say it's an explanation that 
does not explain.  But the quotation is a summary statement from a paper 
that argues such things at more length.  You can hardly fault a summary 
statement for not explaining, since that explanation has taken place 
elsewhere already.

My basic position is that Paul views "salvation history" in two ages; the 
law belonged to the first age, which is why being yoked to Torah is a bad 
thing.  I do not intend to repeat my arguments here.

For those who care to take the trouble to read the paper, it can be found 
here:

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

My forthcoming version makes some minor adjustments, but on the whole, this 
paper remains an accurate statement of my view on Paul and the law.

> 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.)

Well, in fact, I did say in my post that it led to a resolution - through 
Christ (Romans 11).  On further discussion of the nature of Israel's 
unbelief, see below.

> 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."

Paul says in 3.9 that he has charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all 
under sin.  (He does not include believers in Christ in this, as will become 
clear in Romans 6.)  He isn't talking about a theoretical possibility, nor 
is he talking about an undefined handful.  He knows who he has in mind.

Of course, Paul does not mean *all Israel* - many have in fact believed upon 
Jesus Christ, including himself.  When I said "Israel," I should have been 
clearer that I meant those who remained in unbelief vis-a-vis Israel's 
Messiah, not Israel as a whole.

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).

Ironically, you are apparently positing a radically Protestant antithesis 
which I am not.  Paul's idea of faith just is submission to the Lordship of 
Christ.  The gospel he preaches is unto the obedience of faith (1.5).  The 
saving confession is of Jesus as resurrected Lord (10.9).

Moreover, whenever Paul has a unique element in his salutations, invariably 
that element plays a fundamental role in his subsequent argument.  Uniquely 
in Romans (1.2ff) Paul speaks of the prophets who communicated the promise 
of the gospel concerning God's Son.  Hence, when Paul speaks of "oracles" in 
3.2, it is no stretch at all to think that he has primarily such 
gospel-witness in mind.

> 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!

It is precisely my point that the Jew knows this, or ought to.  As I said, 
Paul is standing in the prophetic tradition.  But I cannot agree that Paul 
is addressing a Gentile (other than, in part, Gentiles who were fully 
incorporated proselytes, and thus were considered Jews anyway).  Paul is 
speaking the language of Jeremiah 9.23-26 (note the alusion to 6.24 in Rom 
2.17), which culminates with the warning that God will punish those who are 
circumcised merely in flesh - including Judah, for "all the house of Israel 
is uncircumcised in heart" (Jer 9.26).

> 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")?

Short answer:  I, like Paul in Galatians, recognize two covenants (Gal 
4.24) - the promissory Abrahamic covenant, and the Mosaic covenant.  (A bit 
more below in my conclusion.)

> 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.

"So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not 
his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?"

Look, Paul uses "Gentiles" in various ways too.  After all, in 1 Cor 12, he 
says to the Corinthians that they *were* Gentiles; he speaks similarly 
elsewhere.  So in that sense, the Gentile must become something else.  And 
yet in another sense, much of his whole point in e.g. Galatians is that 
Gentiles must be saved as Gentiles, not by becoming Jews.  While it is 
difficult to put a fine overly-systematized line upon it, the general point 
is quite straightforward:  the Gentile need not become circumcised and 
Torah-observant in order to be brought into the people of God.  And yet it 
is *one* people of God, which is rooted in *Israel's* promises and 
patriarchs (hence the language of one olive tree in Rom 11).

> 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.)

I apologize.  I should have been clearer on that point.  I am fully 
cognizant of the remnant, and in fact my total view of Romans 11 places a 
great deal of weight upon that remnant.  As I noted above, I should have 
said "unbelieving Israel" - i.e. that part of Israel which does not belong 
to the remnant, but has stumbled at the stumbling stone (cf 9.32ff).

> 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."

Once again:  I suggest that the link to Romans 5 is too strong for your 
minimalization of the issue.  The stumbling of Israel is in parallel to the 
trespass of Adam - same language used.  And Adam's trespass is treated as 
Sin, capital "s."  And Romans 11.22 specifically speaks of the branches as 
"fallen."

> 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.

In other words, you completely ignore e.g. 11.17:  "some of the branches 
were broken off."  These were broken off for the sake of the engrafting of 
Gentiles (11.19-20).  This is strongly parallel to what I commented on 
earlier:  by the very fact that Israel has not en masse turned to her 
Messiah, the end has not come, and therefore there is room for Gentile 
salvation.  (I hasten to add that Paul envisions the restoration of the 
"mass.")

Even more significantly, once again 11.22:  Paul explicitly uses the 
language of "fallen" (pesontas).  Now, you may be trying to distinguish 
these fallen ones from the "they" of 11.11-12, I don't know.  But it seems 
to me that Paul has three categories throughout:  (1) the believing Jewish 
remnant; (2) the "rest" of Israel who have remained in unbelief; and (3) the 
believing Gentiles who have been grafted in.  I think it is pretty clear 
that those who have "fallen" in 11.22 are (2).

I agree with you that Paul's rhetorical point is against Gentile boasting 
against the Jewish branches (whether that be conceived of as referring to 
the severed branches, those remaining in the tree, or both - I tend to 
affirm the latter).  But your notion that the stumble has not resulted in a 
fall simply does not do justice to the cutting off of the branches, to the 
intentional parallels that Paul draws between unbelieving Israel and the 
Gentiles, and between unbelieving Israel and Adam.

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.

But of course, my own position has no problem with the matter of 
restoration, as you well know, since I believe Paul is saying that God's 
promises for Israel hold fast, not only through the present remnant, but 
with regard to a future salvation of "all Israel."

For your position to work, it seems to me, you have to affirm that the 
prophetic warnings against Israel which Paul cites (e.g. Jeremiah 9) are not 
warnings of actual falling; that being "cut off" means mere "discomfort" 
(your words); that if the Gentiles do not stand by faith, the result will 
not be a "fall" (11.22 notwithstanding) but some undefined temporary 
discomfort.  I believe your interpretation of Paul's language is unnatural.

> 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).

But my position maintains this rhetorical intent just as well as yours.

> 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...

But what is "pruning"?  It is still being cut off (Paul's choice of words), 
which likewise Paul terms as a fall (11.22).  (For those who recognize 
John's authority, I also refer you to John 15.  It is serious business to be 
pruned off the tree.)

> 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.

Well, there is a telling admission.

> 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.

That's where we differ.  I think both of Paul's metaphors work just fine. 
Furthermore, I think that this metaphor too stands squarely within the 
prophetic tradition, and can hardly be marginalized.

> > 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?

Well, once again, I do not stand in the pure replacement theology line - 
certainly not, if you mean Gentiles replacing Jews.  If any "replacement" is 
going on, it would be covenant-for-covenant rather than people-for-people.

I believe Paul draws on the promises of Isaiah, where the Gentiles are made 
one people with Israel (see esp Rom 15, as well as the one-tree imagery of 
ch 11).  The Isaianic promises only work, I think, if there is a continuing 
"Israel-identity."  The point of the remnant is in part to guarantee that 
God will finish the work of recovery for His people.

But once again I must draw attention to the various ways that "covenant" is 
used.  "Covenant" in Scripture may simply mean a promise of God.  It can 
also refer to a more comprehensive arrangement, a bonded relationship with a 
certain structure.  In my view, it is the covenantal relationship structure 
made through Moses that is no longer binding in the new age.  That by itself 
says nothing regarding the status of Jews before God.

Second, God has always preserved a remnant of Israel - that is Paul's point 
in Romans 11.1-11 (and some of what follows).  The presence of the remnant 
by no means says that everyone else was relatively okay or in "discomfort"; 
the passage regarding Elijah that Paul cites refers to a time of Baalism. 
So let's not suppose that Paul construes unbelieving Israel as in mere 
discomfort.  He considers the "rest" to be in a state of radical 
covenant-breaking.  But the line of God's covenant with Israel has 
nonetheless been preserved through the remnant.  And that remnant also 
implies ultimate promises for the nation as a whole.  That's the point of 
the restoration in 11.25ff.

Now:  Does my reading promote a "legacy of harm"?  Well, not unless you 
consider all proselytization to be harmful.  But if that is the case, our 
disagreement is much more fundamental than anything we have talked about 
here.

But no:  my reading of Paul most emphatically does not place a stamp of 
approval upon, or in any way lead to, the terrible sort of abuse which has 
often been engendered in the name of Christ.  No one can do serious justice 
to Romans 11 and hate or despise Jews.  I look at Paul's yearning in Romans 
9 - on the point of wishing himself anathema for their sakes.

No, this is not an impulse toward harm.  The new covenant is new, but it is 
squarely built upon the promises made long before, and has reference to 
Israel, as the old covenant did.  The difference on that score is not that 
the Gentiles have replaced Israel, but rather that Gentiles have been 
included in one people with Israel.

And although this overall viewpoint does entail a particular position 
regarding unbelieving Israel - that outside of Christ is no salvation - this 
position is no harsher than the position that always obtained throughout the 
Hebrew Scriptures.  The prophets were every bit as emphatic as Paul that 
Israel had to serve Yahweh or face divine judgment.  That is not 
anti-semitic.  If Paul's gospel is that Jesus is Lord, then the parallels 
are much closer, it seems to me, than you appear comfortable with.  "All 
those who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved," Paul says (10.13), 
quoting Joel, and referring clearly to Jesus (10.9).

So no, I don't think that Paul is so unclear on this point.  He does not 
imply that perhaps there are two tracks of salvation.  There is one Lord 
over all, and the fact that there is no distinction between Jew and Greek 
means that all must call upon Him (10.12).

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