Corpus-Paul

["Tim Gallant" <tim AT rabbisaul.com>]

> Tim Gallant comments:
> > (Note by Tim: Lest one take this out of context, I elsewhere try to
> > make clear that the new covenant is not just some de novo
> > administration, but a glorification and "eschatologicization" of the
> > Mosaic. Thus one is not to take the "abrogated" side of things on its
> > own.)
>
> John asks:
> What I am about to explain is garbled and, therefore, difficult to
> penetrate but it is a sincere attempt to recover what Paul is
> actually saying in his epistles.
>
> If we are to face the confessional interpretation of Paul squarely,
> the understanding of the 'new covenant' is that this covenant is
> written on the heart by those who are 'in Christ.' All others,
> therefore, are outside of the covenant. Thus, in saying it is
> 'eschatologized' the confessions are saying that all other covenants
> (the Noahide, Mosaic, Davidic, etc.) are 'abrogated' (abolished, done
> away with). What this means in very practical terms is that neither
> the Jew nor the Gentile outside of Christ can expect to participate
> in the summing up of all things in Christ. My understanding of this
> is that it eventually comes to mean that no one goes to heaven except
> those who are 'in Christ.' This, then, means that the Jewish religion
> is not a legitimate religion in terms of the eschatology of the
> confessions. Am I confused on this, Tim?

I'm not sure how helpful it is to speak of all Christian confessions 
collectively in most cases, as you are doing. But on this point (if I am 
understanding you correctly), you are largely right (although I don't think 
"legitimate religion" is apt terminology), assuming by "Jewish religion" you 
mean Jewish religion apart from Christ. (Nor am I entirely satisfied with 
describing soteriology in terms of "going to heaven," but that is another 
matter.)

> When one reads a passage such as Romans 2 where both the Jew and the
> Gentile are judged apart from halakah (circumcision or
> uncircumcision), the idea is that a man is justified by what the Jew
> would call kavanah or 'intentionality' (faith working through love).
> The implications of an interpretation which moves in the direction of
> legitimating the Jewish faith would also imply that the Noahide
> covenant legitimates all religions so long as they fulfill the
> injunction 'faith working through love.' Conversely, if we want to
> say that the Noahide covenant is abrogated, we have to say that the
> Mosaic covenant is abrogated.

It seems to me that there are an awful lot of questions begged in that one 
paragraph, not least what "faith" or "intentionality" would be. If it means 
something like people being "saved by sincerity," I don't see that as 
anywhere close to Paul's position. Romans 2 follows Romans 1, and the fall 
of man is depicted first of all in terms of idolatry. Thus Romans 2 cannot 
be talking about a vague intentionality, if that's what you mean. The notion 
that there can be some sort of "faith" which can be filled with whatever 
content one prefers would be foreign to Paul. The "obedience of faith" which 
he proclaims is Christ-specific.

> John continues:
> I am not familiar with Davies but thank-you for the summary. You are
> perhaps missing the assumption that I am seeing in Nanos et al vis a
> vis the Jewish faith was at the writing of the NT considered a
> legitimate vehicle to justification outside of Christ. When the
> confessions talk about Christ as a personal torah, do they not mean
> to focus on Christ's atonement rather than his example?

I don't know of any confessions that talk about Christ as a personal Torah 
at all, so it seems to me an odd question to raise.

In other
> words, while the Jew would interpret Isaiah 53 as a picture of his
> own suffering epitomized in the Messiah (which the NT sees to be
> Jesus) whom he is to follow. The confessions interpret Isaiah 53 as
> the Messiah's propitiatory sacrifice on behalf of the church. This
> appears to be a major difference between Nanos et al and the
> confessionals. Also, the NPP would move in the same direction where
> Isaiah 53 is the epitome of what God calls us to rather than the
> propitiation. Am I missing something here?

Yes, a great deal. For one thing, I am not sure why you are isolating Isaiah 
53. In my reading, the Christian tradition generally refers Is 53 to 
Christ-as-substitute and not much, if at all, to Christ-as-example. But on 
the whole, the Christian tradition very rarely, if ever, pits Christ's 
substitionary work over against His "exemplary" character. As for the NPP, 
N. T. Wright (one of the three primary representatives) certainly argues 
very explicitly that Christ saw Himself as the suffering Servant of Is 53 
(see e.g. Jesus and the Victory of God 588ff), as well as for the 
propitiatory character of His work (see e.g. Wright's commentary on Rom 3). 
So I don't particularly find either of these generalizations all that 
accurate or to the point.

> John:
> I am trying to reflect back to you the confessional interpretation of
> the 'fall' of Israel (Romans 11:11 'they did not stumble so as to
> fall'). In the deuteronomic system a Jew is justified so long as he
> is allowing torah to be his guide. Thus, if Christ replaces the
> Torah, it would follow that those who follow Christ (i.e. are
> disciples) are justified rather than those who have entered into a
> covenant with Christ.

This is rather obscure to me. Please explain how you mean to differentiate 
between "following Christ" and "entering into covenant with Christ." I 
frankly cannot see how you can build a "rather than" out of that. The 
disciple is inducted into Christ by baptism, and that just is the covenantal 
rite of initiation (cf 1 Cor 10).

> In this view, if the Jew  continues to follow
> Torah as guide while he is in Christ, the confessionals would say
> that he is 'in bondage' to Torah. Nanos et al would contend that this
> is a misinterpretation of what Paul is saying.

"Follow Torah as guide" is too ambiguous to be at all helpful. As I have 
said (repeatedly!) in this thread, Paul never says he condemns Jews for 
following Torah, except in those (rare) instances where it would entail 
blockage of full and equal fellowship with Gentiles.

Moreover, who are the "confessionals"? All orthodox Christians? Where do you 
find statements such as this in the ecumenical creeds?

> > Let me clarify a term I used above. I believe that for Paul, Jewish
> > Christians are no longer *de jure* under the Mosaic covenant. But
> > parallel with that, I don't believe either that he encourages Jewish
> > Christians to violate the Mosaic law either. Precisely because it has
> > been relativized along with the rest of "this age," Jews are free and
> > even encouraged to remain in the place where they were called (cf 1
> > Cor 7).
>
> John responds:
> Mark Nanos treats 1 Corinthians 7 as a key passage to support the
> view that the Jewish way of life was not changed by their coming into
> Christ. (see his "Paul and Judaism" on his website)

Good!

> Tim continues:
> And I think Acts is right on the money when it portrays Paul's
> > response to James's report (James tells Paul that people are saying he
> > is telling Jews not to observe the law; Paul's response indicates that
> > he is saying no such thing). The only place where Paul would tell Jews
> > not to observe the law would be regarding possible issues where
> > fellowship with Gentiles on an equal footing would be impossible, and
> > those issues are relatively few, in my reading of the law. Thus the
> > fact that Jews observe Torah and Gentiles do not is not a matter of
> > "unfairness" (as someone suggested earlier). Far from it; unfairness
> > would be requiring Jews to live like Gentiles. Living like Jews is
> > what they always have done, and following the law's prescriptions as
> > "lifestyle" is presumably not onerous. (As a friend of mine says:
> > perhaps for the first generation, avoiding pork was difficult, but in
> > a culture that hasn't eaten pork for generations, it simply isn't a
> > temptation, just as for most of us, eating some strange meat is not
> > all that appealing. Changes in habit are always more difficult than
> > retention.)
>
> John responds:
> I think I understand where you are going here; again where there is a
> conflict is in the legitimacy of the Jewish religion as it is outside
> of Christ. This appears to be the crux of the issue that Mark is
> raising (i.e. the deleterious affects of the confessions).

But as Dr Nanos has now clarified for me, his point there is not exegetical 
but hermeneutical. But I continue to prefer a different word than 
"legitimacy," although I recognize that it is convenient shorthand.

Thanks for your discussion.

tim

Tim Gallant
Pastor, Conrad Christian Reformed Church

http://www.timgallant.org
tim | gallant site group