Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

Tim wrote:

>My apologies to Loren - I accidentally hit
>"Reply" instead of "Reply All" 
>yesterday, so it only went to Loren
>rather than the list. Loren, please feel 
>free to repost your response to the list.

Here it is...

[Tim]
>>>Even more damaging is 14.6ff, which speak
>>>of living and dying to the Lord,

[Loren]
>> 14:6ff is precisely what points to unbelieving 
>> Israel, since "weakness" has nothing to
>> do with the Torah's
>> works. "Let all be convinced in their minds
>> what is right [on the subject of works]..."
>> 4:19-21 actually explains what
>> "weakness/strength" is about: belief in
>> God's ability to give life to
>> death (Isaac~Jesus).

[Tim]
>That sidesteps the question,

No, it answers the question: Paul defines weakness in
Rom 4, and he shows what it isn't in Rom 14-15 (as I
explained to Justin this morning). It is failing to
believe in the resurrection (4:18-25), not about
living by works (14-15). In other words, it is about
being non-Christian, not about being Judean (Jewish). 

>which is simply this: does Paul see 
>unbelieving Jews as "living to
>the Lord"? Clearly not.

Clearly so. God, the Lord, are terms inclusive of
non-Christian faith (in this case, anyway), and this
shouldn't befuddle you. In Romans, Paul applies many
terms to Christians in one place and then unbelieving
Israel in the next, and both in others. See Nanos'
long list, for instance, on p 112 of Mystery of
Romans. Christians are the "beloved" of God in one
place (1:7), but unbelieving Israel is the "beloved"
in another (11:28); God "foreknew" the Christian elect
(8:29), just as he "foreknew" unbelieving Israel
(11:2); etc. 

>In ch 11, he speaks of regrafting.
>There is no hint of an alteration of 
>status here.

This begs the question. Nanos' argument is that Rom
14-15 is all about the "weak/stumbling" being accepted
so that they will be regrafted back into the olive
tree. (They have stumbled but not fallen.) I think
Mark is entirely correct here.

>The strong are the primary addressees,
>I'll agree. But it doesn't follow 
>from that, that the weak are not also
>being addressed.

The weak are only addressed rhetorically, in
counterpart. This is another reason why the above
issue ("honor of the Lord") is no real difficulty.

I should add a note of clarification here. In one of
my posts yesterday, I may have given the misleading
impression that Nanos believes the non-Christian
Judeans were part of the letter's addressees, whereas
I do not. In fact Mark doesn't believe this to be the
case anymore than I do. (Where he and I do differ is
in the precise relationship of the house churches to
the synagogue.)

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com