Corpus-Paul

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

Date sent:              Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:15:41 -0600
Subject:                Re: [Corpus-Paul] Question on 'Paul and Judaism' by
Mark Nanos
From:                   "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
To:                     Corpus Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>

> on 11/14/04 11:42 AM, lejeune AT comcast.net at lejeune AT comcast.net
> wrote:
>
> > Gallant wrote:
> > Moreover, Paul speaks in 11.19ff of the breaking off of branches;
> > surely it is not overstating the case to call this a "fall."
> >
> > Billy:
> > It seems to me that he makes this expicit in 11.22 "indeed on the
> > ones having-fallen, severity." Here, it is the same root as in
> > 11.11.
>
Mark responds:
> Good point. This is an interesting case. Does it mean that the some
of
> v. 11 have fallen, contrary to how Paul answered the rhetorical
> question in v. 11? Here we have an anomaly. Can the way the verb is
> used in v. 22 help sort this out in the direction for which I have
> argued? Or is there some other way to understand what Paul is doing
> that resolves the matter in that direction?

John responds:
Might I suggest an alternate approach? An axiom that Tim is working
from and which is assumed in exegesis is the Satisfaction Theory of
the Atonement elucidated by Anselm of Canterbury. In other words,
God's justice has been satisfied for the elect only (TULIP). I find
it intriguing that Tim posits that 'Paul is standing in the prophetic
tradition' (14 Nov 2004, 14:14). The prophet's view of the divine
justice is not Anselmic in any way shape or form. In fact, there is a
recurring critique of mercy being substituted by sacrifice. To return
to Hodge:

'In determining the degree of the knowledge by the ancient people of
God, we are not to be governed by our own capacity of discovering
from the OT Scriptures the doctrines of grace […] It is, principally,
from the assertions of the NT writers and from their expositions of
the ancient Scriptures, that we learn the amount of truth revealed to
those who lived before the coming of Christ' (Sys Theo.II).

Of course, it is not Jewish perspective of the prophets or 'Jewish
Christianity' that is meant since, as you point out in 'Paul and
Judaism,' 'Pauline Christianity' and its 'so-called Law-free [supply,
also, deuteronomic free] Gospel, standing for a Judaism-free way of
living because of faith in Jesus Christ.'

And, I would suggest, this rejection of the deuteronomistic view
foster a confusion regarding Romans 11. First, 'Jacob have I loved
and Esau have I hated' is not to be taken in the sense that Augustine
developed the matter. Esau was destined to become a great nation.
Whatever, lapse (lapsarianism) we are talking about is a failure in
degree of faith required to apprehend the promise since it is faith
that is deemed to be the righteousness ('[faith] is reckoned as
righteousness'). And, according to the deuteronomic perspective
salvation is a function of one's righteousness (see Isaiah 59).

This turns the argument back upon the head of the Augustinian. In
rejecting the Jew or misunderstanding the nature of his lapse, they
have misunderstood their own 'election' or opportunity. You have
called it a 'legacy of harm' while others would call it a 'legacy of
hate' ('Esau have I hated'). The purpose of the election of Abraham
was that he might become a blessing. When Israel failed to become a
blessing and instead became a source for blaspheming the name of God
(Romans 2), the Gentile became the source for the blessing which was
intended to work the same way as the promise to Abraham. The Gentile
was to arouse the Jew to his elected status so that both the Jew and
the Gentile could fulfill the original intent of the creator.

Since, the church left the prodigal Jew in the proverbial pig pen
rather than longing for his return, the church followed along in the
same path as the Israel of old: Substituting justice for sacrifice.
The church has not only alienated the Jew. She has alienated every
race of mankind when she was destined to be a blessing to these
nations. Ironically, she has alienated the families of the earth by
positing a renunciation of their heritage and a submission to her
'yoke of bondage' or her own circumcision: the sacrament of the
church (Roman Catholic) or fideism (Protestant).

Is this making any sense? Or, am I being to brief?