Corpus-Paul

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

From:                   "rabbisaul" <tim AT rabbisaul.com>
To:                     "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject:                Re: [Corpus-Paul] 'Faith working through love'
Jewish
        versusProtestant view
Date sent:              Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:07:04 -0700


> John, I have much to do, so cannot respond point by point to your
> post.  I appreciate that you are attempting to understand my
position.

John responds:
As you have time and thank-you for helping me understand your
position. I will be away for the weekend and just wanted to squeeze
in a couple of thoughts in case you have another moment to respond.
No problem with the response to only parts of what I am writing.

Tim wrote:
> 1. After the fall of Adam, God renewed a covenantal relationship
with
> Adam and Eve.  That is why God could "establish" (or confirm) His
> covenant with Noah later.
>
> 2. It is less accurate to identify this renewed covenant as being
made
> with "all men," however.  It is true that at the time of the fall
and
> the time of the flood, all living humans at the time were included
in
> the covenant.  But as the case of Cain shows, it was also possible
to
> be disinherited and no longer have covenantal standing.  This lies
> behind the strong antithesis we find between the lines of Seth and
> Cain in Genesis 4-5.  Thus here we do not speak of abrogation, but
of
> defaulting from the covenantal relationship through rebellion.

John responds:
What I see happening in the numerous covenants that are struck in the
OT, is that the covenant is only established with the
descendants/participants who are faithful to the terms of the
covenant. Thus, the covenant with Adam is established with the
descendants who are righteous and abrogated with those who are
wicked. I understand the defaulting idea but the part that I would
need further clarification on is the idea expressed in the Heidelberg
Catechism Q/A 4-8 which is fundamental to my understanding (and
rejection) of the doctrine of natural inability. It seems to me that
the righteousness that the grace of God deems worthy is an intrinsic
righteousness rather than extrinsic (i.e. iustitia  Christi aliena in
Reformation language): 'Noah was a righteous man, and perfect in his
generations' (v9).

Please understand the context of this discussion: We are looking at
the relationship between paraptwma as a fall from which the Adamic
race 'cannot' recover because of total depravity and the paraptwma of
Israel as a fall from which she cannot recover because of her
default.

Tim:
> 3. In my reading of Paul, the case of the Mosaic and Abrahamic
> covenants is quite different.  In Gal 3.15ff, Paul describes the
> Mosaic covenant as a temporary measure introduced until the coming
of
> the Christ.  Unlike the Adam/Noah scenario, with Christ there is a
new
> eschatological epoch, and this is what underlies the removal of
> benefits from the Mosaic covenant. The promise has arrived, and
> therefore there is now no looking back.

John:
Here I am unclear on where you have gone. Although it does not do
justice to Mark's thesis in 'Paul and Judaism,' He is saying that
Paul 'is a Jewish person by birth, one who has, in keeping with his
teaching, remained in that circumcised state in which he was called
(1 Cor 7:17-24; 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:4-7).' He is the remnant with
whom the Mosaic covenant has been established because of their
faithfulness to the covenant. Thus, I would need to see clear proof
that the remnant had abrogated the covenant. Also, since Christ makes
the new covenant in his blood with his Jewish disciples, it appears
that the New Covenant is working in conjunction with the Old rather
than replacing the Old.

My view in brief is that the covenant with Adam/Noah is an umbrella
covenant which includes the heaven and the earth. The Abrahamic
covenant is designed to fulfill the terms of the Adamic/Noahic so
that it can continue to be established viz a vis the goyim have the
opportunity to be righteous as had Noah since they have a covenant
with the creator/redeemer. Each of the covenants is designed to
fulfill the Adamic/Noahic. Thus, in Paul's language of Romans 11, the
Jewish/Gentile remnant is to bring in the rest of the paraptwma of
Israel through their love. God's justice is satisfied by the
participation of the remnant in the suffering of Christ.

To get back to your view of how Paul is approaching the covenant
idea: On what basis is 'the case of the Mosaic and Abrahamic
covenants … quite different'? If the prophets are calling Israel back
to the deuteronomic covenant, and Paul is standing in the prophetic
tradition, how can Paul be giving any kind of reading to the covenant
idea other than that already present in Judaism?

Tim:
>
> 4. The substitutionary and participationist aspects of sacrifice
are
> intended to be complementary rather than alternatives.

John:
I am in agreement with this statement. This concurs with the
prophetic perspective. Isaiah 53 from the Jewish perspective is about
Israel suffering (participationist) and about the Messiah who suffers
(substitutionary). Where I am confused is how their suffering becomes
a paraptwma from which they cannot recover and, therefore, need to
come out from under the 'yoke of bondage' which you have equivocated
with Torah.

I think that I am reflecting Mark's objections accurately and, of
course, you are welcome to correct or challenge anything that I have
misrepresented or misunderstood, Mark.