Corpus-Paul

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

Tim,
You have proven to be a competent dialogue partner, and it has been
productive. I do not have time right no to go on, or interest, but I will
tackle a few things briefly, cutting others, on which you are welcome to the
last word. 

on 11/14/04 3:14 PM, rabbisaul at tim AT rabbisaul.com wrote:
>> 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).

This is not in any versions I have. I see yoke of slavery, but not yoke of
Torah; it is the interpreter who must argue to what the slavery refers, and
what the image they conjure up meant and means.

> 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.)

Once again, Paul does not tell us that the two covenants which are the two
woman in his allegorical language are those to which you refer; it is the
interpreter who fills that in as they decide on the basis of other prior
decisions made. There is a separation between Paul and you (and any of us
interpreters) that your appeals don't recognize.

> 
>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).

Paul does not communicate that they "need not," he communicates that they
"can not." He provides non-Israelites who believe in Jesus as Israel's
Messiah no choice: they must remain outside Israel; otherwise, they will be
cut off from that grace they received from God in Christ (Gal 5).

In another post already sent before reading this one, I have clarified my
reaction to 11:22, including why I think too much is made of the tree
metaphor, and how too many mistakes are made from it. It is a metaphor after
all, and it mixes elements of another one or more within it, and goes
against the grain of those mixed into it. I do not see anything substantial
raised in your remarks here to address the matter further presently.

> 
> 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.

This is still contradictory to me. If the Mosaic covenant is no longer
binding in the new age, then why does Paul argue for covenants to be binding
in Gal 3, and have to find a way to qualify instead of abrogate prior ones?
More important, if the covenant is no longer binding, on what basis is "the
'rest' to be in a state of radical covenant-breaking." Is there a Mosaic
covenant with Israel to break, or is it obsolete? If it is obsolete (no
longer binding): 1) how can the "rest" be breaking it; and 2) why does Paul
argue that non-Israelites putting themselves under it by becoming proselytes
would have a negative effect compared to their present state as
non-Israelites in Christ?

> 
> 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.

I do think "missionizing" (not sure if "all," but that would take some
additional defining of terms and situations, but I do think Christian
missionizing toward Jewish people is wrong today), and yes, it [our
disagreement] is [more fundamental]. I am Jewish, after all.

But the legacy of harm is much more than just proselytization, it is the
denial of another person/group's faith claims, and has often involved the
denial of a person/group's rights to property, and even life. One who acts
based upon "faith" in something should not deny the right to another to act
based upon "faith," unless of course the actions are harmful to someone or
thing besides themselves. Otherwise, one proceeds on the basis not of faith
claims, but certainty that no human in the present age should responsibly
claim (in my view). You make several other comments about which I disagree,
not least to appeal to justification of disrespect of another person/group's
faith claims by way of pointing to it in the history of Israel; it is there,
I think it is unworthy of the people of the God Israel otherwise promotes
faith in, and continued wrongs based on that ideology don't make it any more
right today. We should know and do better than that.

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