Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] God's Elusive Judgment

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <mark AT marknanos.com>
  • To: "Nanos, Mark" <Mark.Nanos AT rockhurst.edu>, Corpus Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] God's Elusive Judgment
  • Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:00:17 -0500

Loren,
This kind of language and the concepts it seeks to articulate seem basically
misguided to me.

Rather, the concepts at work are dynamic. God does what is right, he is
righteous (The Righteous One), and those who align with God, and God with
them, are among the righteous ones (the righteous ones). (To this point, I
remember Esler holding a view along this line too; yes?)

Both God and these people are in a covenant relationship, they believe
(trust, are loyal to) each other to be and to do what is right (first,
Abraham and his line through Isaac and Jacob/Israel; later, through Christ
too, for the other nations to join alongside Israelites). They choose to do
right as defined by God (God speaks or acts and they listen and respond
rightly), and when they do not do right, they apologize, make restitution,
and intentionally return to the course of doing right.

If someone or group chooses not to do right as a matter of course, they do
not belong among the righteous ones by definition, they do not choose to be
affiliated with the God who does right (for Paul, that includes choosing
rightly to understand Jesus to be Christ). They will be judged to be
unrighteous, to be not among the righteous ones. Thus there are apostate
Jews, just as there are apostate Christians. And there are sinners among the
righteous ones, but not sinners as a chosen coarse of life (Sinners). (Jews
who do not "yet" choose Jesus are for Paul in a temporary state until "the
fullness of the Gentiles begins," and thus not "yet" judged to be "Sinners"
in that sense, but vicarious sufferers, for whom the right thing for
Christ-believers to do is show kindness--hence not only the language in Rom
11, but also in ch. 8, to which you refer.)

If Paul seems to be saying something else, I would suggest the first task is
to ask whether he is engaged in a rhetorical argument that might lead him to
emphasize one aspect over another, making for odd universal statements if
separated from their original context (which remains but historical
guesswork for us--but that should not be ignored, or illogical universals
will result).

Best,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
Soebbing Visiting Scholar, Rockhurst University
Lecturer, University of Kansas
Co-Moderator, Corpus Paulinum
http://www.marknanos.com



on 6/11/07 2:30 PM, Loren Rosson wrote:

> List-members --
>
> Did Paul believe that God would judge the righteous?
> That Christians, while guaranteed salvation, might
> still be punished for bad deeds? Or did he believe
> that God would judge only the wicked? That Christians
> would appear before God at the judgment and give an
> account of themselves, but would be waived through
> after receiving their reward?
>
> Not an easy question to answer, but I think the latter
> is correct, with a qualification. The key texts in
> question would be Rom 2, Rom 8:33-34, Rom 14:10-12, I
> Cor 3:10-15, I Cor 4:1-5, II Cor 5:10, and Philip
> 2:12b-13.
>
> Of those texts, I Cor 3:10-15 makes the strongest case
> for a judgment on the righteous: Paul speaks of those
> being "saved, but "only as through fire". But this
> passage is really about church founders, not believers
> in general. Paul seems to be saying that churches
> founded by rival apostles leave much to be desired,
> and are subject to judgment. The "builders" of these
> churches may be saved in the end, but will suffer
> serious punishment for leading others astray. Paul
> apparently held pastors like himself to a higher
> standard than "lay believers" who would not be judged.
>
>
> For, as Philip Esler points out, Rom 8:33-34 implies
> that no charge will be brought against God's elect.
> And when we appreciate what Paul meant by DIKAIOSYNE,
> this is easy to understand. Righteousness, for him,
> was a form of ascribed honor, or privileged/blessed
> identity. It had nothing to do with
> forensic/declaratory categories, nor
> behavioral/ethical ones. The righteous were acceptable
> to God, period. Their righteousness was gifted to them
> not because they'd done anything to deserve it, but
> because God had chosen them (Rom 4, 9). They would not
> be charged at the judgment: they would give an account
> of themselves, and then be waived on after receiving
> their reward. (See Conflict and Identity in Romans, pp
> 162, 265-266, as well as Esler's section on the
> meaning of righteousness.) For better or worse, that
> seems to be what Paul believed.
>
> Esler doesn't comment on I Cor 3:10-15, but I would
> reconcile it with his interpretation of Rom 8:33-34 as
> follows. It was competition and rivalry which brought
> out nuance in Paul's theology of the judgment -- much
> indeed as we might expect of a Mediterranean macho
> man. His belief that God would (naturally) not judge
> the elect whom He had righteoused was tempered by
> growing convictions that the deity might very well
> make certain apostles "pay the price" for misleading
> people in ways that were not pleasing to Paul.
>
> What do list-members think of this?







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page