Corpus-Paul

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

Dear folks,
I woke up to a new day after a nice Sabbath rest, the telos
(goal/end/purpose?) of which was to observe a day as commanded in
Torah/covenant of Moses, because the Creator rested on the seventh day (so
we are told in Torah--otherwise, how would I have known this? Naturally? By
loving my neighbor?). Of course I should not have observed this now obsolete
Mosaic legislation, since the purpose of it has been achieved in Jesus
Christ (once and for all, for all humanity; right?). In fact, I should not
have even read about it in Torah, the purpose of which is "ended," "los[ing]
its function" thereafter (citations from posts copied below); and thus, I
suppose, it should no longer be read (with the idea that it has a purpose
yet to serve; right?).

That telos having been accomplished, I suppose, on the logic to which you
have appealed, that I will never make that mistake again!

First, because the telos of observing Sabbath was already accomplished
yesterday when I rested, so it can no longer have that purpose any longer.
Second, because I have learned from you that the Mosaic covenant has been
made obsolete. From that it follows that Judaism (based upon the Mosaic
covenant and its continued interpretation) has been made obsolete. Thanks
for informing me of this!

And all because you discovered it in a verse in Paul; or rather, in the
nuanced meaning of a Greek word in one sentence of Paul (in which, of
course, there is no need to bother with the context of the argument in which
we find the statement)! Great! I suppose you did not have any interested
perspective on this conclusion? that it is not ideological? that there was
no other choice?

This interpretation stuff sure is easy; no context for the language for
which we have to sort out usage (oh, but we can look up words in lexicons),
no complications or need to reconcile paradoxical statements also from the
hand of Paul, indeed, also from within the same letter, such as that "the
gifts and calling of God [which includes "SONSHIP, the GLORY, the COVENANTS,
the giving of THE LAW, the WORSHIP, and the PROMISES" (9:4)] are
irrevocable" (11:29), e.g., or that "by no means" do "we then overthrow the
law by this faith" but "on the contrary, we uphold the law" (3:31).

What was the telos of Paul writing such obsolete things, when the covenant
with Moses had "ended" and "loses its function" several years before the
letter to Rome was penned? Who was he trying to kid?

I wonder too how he thought his argument in Gal 3 made sense about the
certainty of the Abrahamic covenant not having lost its function or ended
with the introduction of the Mosaic covenant (even on prevailing human terms
of covenant making), yet the Mosaic covenant by necessity "ended" and "loses
its function" with the introduction of the new covenant in Jesus. What is
the telos of writing such contradictory things?

Rather than try to figure out how it is (after Paul wrote this) that there
should be Jews around any longer for you to spin your eschatological
theories about their eventual salvation at the end of days, because Judaism
and Jews exist illegitimately (without reason for being) thereafter (ever
wonder why some folks think that this line of thinking could be complicit in
the murder of so many Jewish people in recent memory?), perhaps you could
explain how there will be Jews some two thousand or more years from that
point, except by their defiance of this truth (continuing to preserve
Judaism and thus, e.g., to circumcised and thereby identify this people
generation after generation), for Jesus to save? Or do you suppose that you
are just stating a truth that the consequences of, regardless of whether
they empty of purpose other people and faiths (in this case, without which
yours would not exist, nor common eschatological schemes be possible), do
not need to be logically considered?

If so, I wonder if you could explain to me how that is consistent with the
idea of loving your neighbor as yourself, which I suppose includes some kind
of respect for them and their faith (no?), which we also read from Paul. (I
mean to ask, in addition to how you reconcile these ostensible paradoxes in
Paul's writing, that if you believe that is what Paul meant when he wrote
that statement some two thousand years ago, is that what it means for you
today, so that you can make such statements without considering it important
to add a caveat regarding the continued existence of Jewish people and the
place of Mosaic legislation in Judaism, about which there might be some
implications to consider? Is there no anomaly for you to solve when you come
to such conclusions? Is there no ethical responsibility when stating such
things? Please forgive my bold ignorance of how it should be for a believing
in what you believe, and my admitted self- and group-interest in what such
statements as yours might mean for someone other than your self and group.
Perhaps if you believe something to be true, the consequences for others are
less true? or not be considered important enough to consider modification of
what you believe to be true, or how you state it?)

It is perhaps silly to bring up such personal implications of lofty
truth-statements, or impolite to point out that they make void other
people's identity and religion, which is really beside the point, if they
are truths that cannot be questioned; right? But I console myself, since I
have not made similar statements about the meaning of being a Christian or
practicing Christianity in asking these questions, or in the logic of my
conclusions about what it means for you to exist or practice your religion
in order for me to be Jewish and practice Judaism (such as that is).

PS-One more question. How is it deemed to be respectful of the other for
someone who believes the Mosaic legislations is now obsolete, and thus the
practice of Judaism, to use the word rabbi in their e-mail signature, when
there are Jewish people practicing that religion still, silly them/us, for
whom that title has specific meaning in designating the role of communal
leaders? Is this not supersessionistic in its meanest form, based upon what
has been expressed by the one using that signature?

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


on 1/15/05 12:14 PM, Tony Costa at tmcos AT canada.com wrote:
> 
> I think the answer lies in the meaning of TELOS ("end")
> that is used in Rom.10:4. It certainly carries the
> meaning of reaching the goal. I think Paul is arguing
> that the law reached its goal in Christ, but in
> reaching its goal it has also fulfilled its service and
> has thus ended. The "law" here again I believe is
> reference to the Mosaic law....

And Tim Gallant: rabbisaul at tim AT rabbisaul.com wrote::
...Telos as goal is still a destination. If  Christ is what the law is
pointing at as a goal, the most natural  understanding is that once "the
destination has arrived," the pointer loses  its function....