Corpus-Paul

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

Hi, Tim. Thank-you for taking up the dialogue once again. I felt
guilty over the weekend for seeming to set you up for a quarrel with
Mark. I assure you that this was not my intention although I was
disappointed at the results which surfaced in your dialogue.
Reflecting on the conversation, I realize that the difference between
your perspectives is far greater than I had realized (i.e. Tim in
agreement with Sanders contra Mark). I hope that we can work through
some of the obstacles that were encountered in the course of the
conversation.

We might profit most from keeping it simple (the K.I.S.S. principle)
by continuing where you first connected with Mark: Faith working
through love (Paul/Jewish) versus Love working through faith (Mark:
Protestant; Tim: Medieval RC). To keep to the topic you have raised,
I will attempt to tie this in to Romans. To keep to the original
topic raised by Mark, I will attempt to tie this into the teaching of
James.

From:                   "Tim Gallant" <tim AT timgallant.org>
To:                     "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject:                Re: [Corpus-Paul] Question on 'Paul and Judaism' by
Mark Nanos
Date sent:              Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:06:10 -0700

> John wrote:
> 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.

Tim responds:
> Well, I happen to think that in certain respects Anselm's view is
> one-sided. But it is at least equally one-sided to pit sacrifice
> versus mercy, as you apparently do here.  Paul certainly does not
...

John continues:
Contra your interpretation, this is precisely the point that Mark was
making when he said that Paul affirms the Jewish perspective when he
says 'faith working through love' (Galatians 5:6). In fact, you are
saying 'love working through faith' though you do not appear to be
realize this.

It is a problem of semantics IMO. It is as if I were to say 'that's
nice' to you and you were accustomed to English of Chaucer. You might
think that I was insulting by saying 'that's ignorant' when, rather,
I meant a compliment. You are working from a modified or
particularized Reformed view which is very old in itself. While Mark
is working from an even older Jewish view where spirituality is
defined as Halakhah (ritual) and Kavanah (intentionality or love).

Indeed, your positing that to pit sacrifice against mercy is one-
sided is to disagree with Hosea who said it first 'I desire mercy,
not sacrifice' (6:6) and Jesus who quoted Hosea: 'If you had known
what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not
have condemned the innocent" (Matthew 12:7). Of course, you would
have a way of working this out but that is where the problem starts:
>From a simple statement 'faith working through love,' others who do
not know the language must learn 'your' language in order to
communicate with you while you may renege on learning theirs since
they are in need of moving from the darkness of unbelief into the
light of a modified Protestant faith. I say this not to denigrate you
or your view, Tim; rather, I say to be a mirror for you as to how
these cultural confrontations appear the one to the other.

Tim wrote:
… in
> the very context of employing a prophetic critique, he goes on to
> speak in sacrificial categories - precisely as the revelation of
God's
> righteousness (Rom 3.25; cf 8.1ff).

John responds:
Alright, let's look at Romans 5:3 h thlipsis upomohn katergazetai and
compare this with the Jewish perspective of James 1:3 to dokimion
umwn ths pistews katergasetai upomnhn.  There is an elaborate chain
in James that will connect to dokimion umwn ths pistews (v3) to
peirasmois (v2) which I won't go into but can if you are not
convinced that what Paul is saying in 5:3 is exactly the same as what
James is saying.

James contends that it is not possible to hold to faith in Christ and
show favoritism (2:1) which is a fundamental tenet of the
deuteronomic (prophetic) outlook. Again, I take this to be self-
evident for someone who is familiar with Torah.

You jump from the prophetic perspective of 3:25 (A) to the prophetic
perspective of 8:1 (B). But there is seemingly a world of difference
to what happens as you get from A to B since in the process a
irrevocable 'Abrahamic' covenant has been cut for the Christ-believer
regardless of his default (ouden ara nun katakrima tois en christw
insou) while the Jew who has defaulted on his covenant is not just
suffering for his paraptwma, in the words of Cornelius Van Til, 'you,
with all other men, hate the triune God, the creator-redeemer of men.
God calls you to repentance (Rom 2). You have spurned and continue to
spurn his call. You deserve to go to hell.' (see
http://www.opc.org/OS/html/V6/4d.html)

And, what's more, to stay with the context of Van Til's letter to
Francis Schaeffer, the consistent Protestant is asking the Jew to
believe his whole system of doctrine in order to be saved (i.e. the
Westminster Standards or the Three Forms of Unity of the Reformed
Church). And that is the point of Van Til to Schaeffer, consistency
with the presuppositions requires the consequent of Reformed
Theology. Once a person moves away from the consequent, he must deny
the presupposition.

If the presupposition is modified in order to change the consequent,
then to be consistent there are some Jews who have been faithful to
the Mosaic covenant, they remain on the tree and their covenant is
valid as long as they continue to bring together Halakhah and
kavanah.

Tim writes:

> Sacrifice for Paul, of course, is no longer about the temple, but
> about Christ's self-offering.

John asks:
It is not self-evident, Tim. This is Mark's point, sacrifice is about
the temple for the Jew and it is about Christ's self-offering which
is the telos of the suffering of the Jew (Isaiah 53).

Tim writes:
But he is able to integrate that into a
> covenantal understanding of righteousness.  The righteousness of
God
> is revealed from God's pistis and is directed toward man's pistis.
> That righteousness, as just noted, has to do with Christ's
> self-offering.  Pistis, meanwhile, is operating as the covenantal
> faithfulness from both God's side and man's. The upshot is that
> Christ's sacrificial self-offering is available to the pistic
response
> that God seeks from His covenant partner.  Hence sacrifice and
> covenantal categories are thoroughly integrated.

John agrees:
Exactly, and this is Mark's point: Some of the Jews have responded to
the Mosaic covenant in faith and continue therein as full standing
covenantal partners with the Protestant.

Tim writes:
>
> BTW, in an earlier post you implied that I advocated a covenant of
> works. While I emphatically do believe that God and Adam had a
> covenantal relationship, I think that "covenant of works" is
> unfortunate and misleading terminology.  I certainly do not think
that
> Adam was intended to merit anything from God (and in fact, neither
did
> most historical Reformed theologians, although the notion has
gained a
> lot of currency in some Reformed circles of late).  For some
thoughts
> on factors to consider in God's relationship to Adam, see here:
> http://www.covenantrenewal.com/covworks.htm

John:
Thanks for this … please give me some time to process it. I do hope
that you will stay with the dialogue, Tim.

In Christ,

John