Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Question on 'Paul and Judaism' by Mark Nanos

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tim Gallant" <tim AT rabbisaul.com>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Question on 'Paul and Judaism' by Mark Nanos
  • Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:01:29 -0700

Sorry I'm so late getting to this, but I just returned from vacation. Needless to say, now I'm swamped, so cannot respond in detail.
 
>I happen to be up late tonight reading the dialog between yourself and Mark Nanos. What really sparked my interest was when you wrote: "The difference on that score is not that the Gentiles have replaced Israel, but rather that Gentiles have been included in one people with Israel." I find this very valuable because i know that Mark himself dissagress that Gentiles are grafted into Israel through my own dialog with him. Where I differ with you (I am assuming) is that the Torah is still to be observed under the New Covenant (Matthew 5:17; Jeremiah 31:31ff; Hebrews 8:7-13). Notice here in the verses cited from Hebrews that in the Greek of those verses, the word "covenant" is missing (vs. 7, 13). They have been supplied by the translators which the writter did not place there. It actually changes the meaning of the verses for the writer to the Hebrews has the sacrificial system and the priesthood in view not the entire Mosaic Covenant. Jesus (Yeshua Messiah) said that he did not come to "abolish" the Torah or the Prophets. Not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Torah until all has been fulfilled.
 
On Matthew 5, I suggest this as a starting-point:
 
 
Hebrews 7.12 speaks of a change *of* (not "in") the law.
 
>Of course, Protestant theology says that Jesus fulfilled the Law there it is no longer to be obeyed, such as an order that is placed and then "fulfilled" where afterwards you can discard the original order. But that is exactly what Jesus said he didn't come to do. That is essentially abolishing the Torah! And how are we to fulfill something that is abolished (Romans 8:4)? And does faith abolish the Torah (see Romans 3:31)?
 
This has all been dealt with elsewhere. I don't know anyone who thinks that "fulfillment = abolition" - but neither does it mean "confirmation" or anything of the sort (see the Matthew article above). The fulfillment of the law does not do away with norms; rather, it presupposes that Torah's goal was Christ (Rom 10.4), and Christ certainly issues norms which penetrate to Torah's deepest concerns.
 
Romans 3.31 is probably not referring to nomos as the Mosaic covenant at all, but to nomos as Scripture (compare verse 21; cf the interplay of Gal 4.24).
 
>All of this in view, including Paul's lifestyle of Torah observance as well as other believing Jews (Acts 21:20-24), would it not make sense that Gentiles who are grafted into Israel be called to keep the same Torah as Israel keeps?
 
Yes, that is what the teachers in Galatia thought too. However, Paul's "Torah observance" was carried out as one self-consciously not under Torah, but as a condescension to serve others (1 Cor 9.19-21). The two spheres, "in Torah" and "in Christ" are mutually exclusive for Paul; the Christian believer is not "under Torah" (e.g. Rom 6.14).
 
>Could we look at Acts 15 as saying that a Gentile doesn't have to come under the ritual of proselyte conversion (i.e. circumcision) and be oblidged to observe the whole Torah (Gal. 5:3) which would include both the Written and Oral Torahs, but keep some minimal requirements to maintain table fellowship with the Jewish People, while continuing to come to synagogue on Shabbat to hear and learn and might me say do more Torah (Acts 15:21)?
 
No, that would not be adequate. Paul is opposed to the circumcision of Gentiles for any religious reason (Timothy is circumcised precisely because 1) he has a Jewish mother, and 2) he is going to be engaged in the context of a mission). That's very clear from Gal 5.3: if the Galatians become circumcised they are placed into a debt to keep the whole law, which Paul is arguing against throughout the entire context.
 
>It would seem to be what Jesus had in mind for the Gentiles when he commissioned his apostles to disciple them and to teach them to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded the 11 apostles (the 12 minus Judas). Let me know what you think.
 
Of course He had the Gentiles in mind. But He had His own teaching in mind, not observance of the Mosaic covenant as such. Your argument hinges upon your reading of Matthew 5, which I regard as incorrect.
 
I regret that I cannot expand further here. I have done so in this article:
 
 
tim



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page