Rick Sumner

Ex.29.33, 36, 37; 30.10, 15-16, 32.30 and so on. There are hundreds of such passages--the writing of the Law fairly demands a means of atonement for sin to pay for them.

"For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance." (Rom.11.29)

Among others.

Yet Paul never speaks of Jesus in terms of Jewish salvation--as I noted above, when he speaks of Israel's salvation the deliverer is God, not Jesus.

Perhaps I overstated my case with "wasted." He's substantially mroe difficult to account for, however.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Paul himself expressed his awareness that his words might be misconstrued, otherwise there is no need for his litany of rhetorical questions (What is the value of circumcision? Has God rejected his people? Israel has not stumbled as to fall.).

I have not.

You are, but probably because I wasn't clear. "Israelites" are those who do not explicitly or implicitly reject the covenant.

I have to run, at the moment, but will get to your other comments later.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

TedM

Sorry, I don't get it. Why then does Paul talk about the 'elect' of Israel in 11:7(which I assume were the Jewish believers in Christ), and in verse 13-14 "..I magnify my ministry (to the Gentiles) in order to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them...what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead"

And what do you think Paul is saying in 1 Cor 5:7

Why would any Jew need to believe in Christ as Paul did if it wasn't for salvation? What good would that do? Paul calls Christ "OUR" Passover Lamb. He doesn't say "YOUR" Passover lamb. I just don't see the dichotomy you are talking about.

ted

Rick Sumner

The "elect" are those who accept the Gentiles as part of God's plan (or perhaps those who accept Jesus as the Messiah--those whose hearts God didn't harden until the later revelation), not those who think Jesus died for Jewish sin. George Moore provides an eloquent observation:

There is not a single word in the Pauline epistles about the normative Jewish methods of repentence, atonement and forgiveness--the cornerstones of the Judaism of his contemporaries. This silence is defeaning. To suggest that he is ignorant of it--that these concepts are alien to him--defies explanation. To suggest that he has rejected a cardinal rule of Judaism, but neglected to say so, is equally astonishing. The most sensible conclusion is that he doesn't mention it because he takes it for granted--atonement is effective, just not for Gentiles.

What need would Paul see for Jesus to die for Jewish sin? Where would he see a defiiciency that required that? Why would a divine act be necessary to usher such a thing in? Atonement and forgiveness occurred every year at the Day of Atonement, every day in the temple. Sin was perpetually being expiated, just not Gentile sin.

For Gentile salvation. So that Gentiles could be ushered in, and reach their "fullness," thus ushering in the Messianic Age.

Paul is speaking rhetorically. He also calls himself a Gentile, though he isn't one (and is keen to point that out elsewhere). He's speaking as a Gentile--all things to all people, remember.

Andrew I'm not forgetting you--as I've noted previously, a great many of my books are currently packed for a July 1 move, I'm trying to decide if I need to get some out for my response to you.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

By "in Romans," I meant "in the Pauline corpus." Probably a typo. The keys are like right next to each other.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

TedM

Interesting observation (though I'd have to go back to see if I agree), but isn't is also a deafening silence for him to write about forgiveness through Christ and salvation through Christ for ALL men, Greek and Jew, and yet never indicate that the Jews didn't need him?

ted

andrewcriddle

These ideas seem more developed in the Talmuds and other later works than in the Mishnah.

In these later works the freely bestowed forgiveness of a loving God is very clear. In the Mishnah the passages on repentance atonement and forgiveness eg Yoma chapter 8 could be interpreted as being the means by which humans earn God's forgiveness.


Rick for family reasons I'll be away from my computer till next week. So its fine to take your time over your reply.

I'll try and respond on Tuesday.

Andrew Criddle

James Madison

Okay...I am aware of such verses I just wanted to ensure we were talking the same language.

Paul devotes a considerable amount of time in the NT asserting the law did not bring about righteousness or redemtion but condemnation. Paul holds that no one can be declared righteous (justified) by keeping the Law (see Rom 3:20; 8:3; Gal 2:15-16; 2:21; 3:10-11; 3:21; Eph 2:8-9)

Rom 3:20because (A)by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for (B)through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.


Gal 2:15-16"We are (A)Jews by nature and not (B)sinners from among the Gentiles;

16nevertheless knowing that (C)a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by (D)faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since (E)by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.


Gal 2:21 "I do not nullify the grace of God, for (A)if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."


Gal 3:21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? (A)May it never be! For (B)if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.


Now part of this law Paul talks about is, as you and I have agreed, the animal sacrifice for atonement of sin. Yet, Paul makes it clear the law, which includes those animal sacrifices for atonement of sin, is not sufficient to confer righteousness or life! In these verses Paul makes it unequivocally clear this ritual is now insufficient for the attainment of righteousness and life.

Now Paul composes these remarks as a Jew! Paul also makes these assertions as a previous Pharasaic Jew. It seems to me these passages suggest Paul, as a Jew, believed Jesus died for the remission of the sins of Jews, especially since he was after all Jewish with sin! Paul is not asserting his atonement for sin as a Jew is predicated upon the Jewish law or the rite of animal sacrifice.

As one site phrased Paul's position:Although the ostensive purpose of the Law was as a means of obtaining life (Lev 18:5), Paul came to believe that the Law had another, true salvation-historical purpose. In his view, God knew that human beings could not be declared righteous by obedience to the Law (even though theoretically this was possible). God had, it seems, an ulterior motive in giving the Law, because the Law's real purpose was to bring Jews and other human beings to a knowledge of their sinfulness.
H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 149-53; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament [2 vols.; New York: Charles Schribner’s Sons, 1951, 1955] 1.259-69; B. Eastman, The Significance of Grace in the Letters of Paul (SBL 11; New York: Lang, 1999) 117-22.

Close The Law was even to function to increase sin in the world. The Law, in other words, would prepare for Christ, and once it had fulfilled this purpose it would become salvation-historically obsolete.

Which of course they rely, in part, on those verses previously mentioned. Rom 3:19-20; 5:12-13; 7:7-8; Gal 3:19

Paul explains that the giving of the Law creates the possibility of sin, defined as violation of an commandment; as such it serves to make disobedient human beings into "sinners." This was God's purpose in giving the Law, because there must first be an well defined problem for which Christ could be the solution. Without the Law, human beings would not know what sin was and so in the strict sense would not be sinners, even though they would still be disobedient to God. In Rom 3:19-20, Paul explains that the purpose of all scripture is for Jews to conclude that no one can "be declared righteous from the works of the Law" (3:19). Rather, all that the Law accomplishes is to define sin and bring its violators into a state in which they know themselves as sinners: "For through the Law is a knowledge of sin" (dia gar nomou epignôsis hamartias) (3:20). In other words, with the Law sin defined as transgression becomes possible and therefore a knowledge of oneself as sinner arises. Similarly, in Rom 5:13, Paul says that, "Sin is not taken into account without Law" (hamartia de ouk ellogeitai mê ontos nomou). His point is that, in a strict sense, sin presupposes Law: in the absence of Law, there is no sin in the sense of a violation of a commandment, although there may be disobedience. The same idea is expressed in Rom 7:7-8: "'I' do not know sin except through the Law" (tên hamartian ouk egnon ei mê dia nomou). Paul explains how a personified “sin” used the commandment to trap “me.” In his view, sin remains inactive without the Law (see 7:8b-9). The result was that with the historical introduction of the Law ironically what was intended to bring (eternal) life (eis zôên) brought (eternal) death. When presented with the Law for the first time, a human being naively assumes that he can obey it; the unexpected result, however, is bondage to sin, so that the Law is passively complicit in producing violations of itself. (The use of the phrase “Sin . . . deceived me” in Rom 7:11 is probably an echo of Gen 3:13: “The serpent deceived me”; see 2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:14.) This was the Jewish experience of the Law. As soon as he became aware of God’s requirements in the Law, an Israelite's latent tendency to sin—defined as the violation of a commandment—came to life: “Sin sprang to life” (7:9). Paul envisions sin as a potential power ruling over human beings that becomes actual in the presence of the Law. Sin requires an external object in order to become actualized and the Law serves this purpose. (In Rom 7:7, Paul gives the example of coveting: when the Law defines obedience to God as not coveting, then the act of coveting becomes clearly defined as such.) This also appears to be the meaning of Gal 3:19a: "What of the Law? It was added because of transgressions" (Ti oun ho nomos; tôn parabaseôn charin prosetethê). He means that the Law was added by because human beings were sinners. Paul uses a divine passive in this verse, so that God is the one who gave the Law because of transgressions. Paul does not explain in which sense the Law was added because of transgressions, but what he writes in 3:19b "until the seed comes to whom it is promised" implies that the reason that the Law was added was in order to prepare for the coming of Christ, the "seed' (see Gal 3:16). Why the existence of transgressions required the Law is not stated. No doubt, Paul intends that the Law functioned to bring sin to light, so that human beings would see the need of being declared righteous apart from all human effort (see Gal 3:22, 23; Rom 3:20; 4:15; 5:13, 20; 7:7-8).
H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater [14 ed.; MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971] 152-53; F. Mußner, Der Galaterbrief (HTKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 245-46; Hong, The Law In Galatians, chap. 6.

It is probable that the Law was added for the purpose of defining sin as sin and thereby functioned to bring the sinner under condemnation and so prepared him to receive "the righteousness of God." But it is also possible that Paul means that the Law was added in order to produce transgressions. This would also have the effect of preparing a Jew to receive "the righteousness of God" insofar as the more transgressions a Jews has to the less inclined he will be to deny his need of "the righteousness of God." Although without the Law there would still be conscience (what Paul referred to as the "law" written on the heart [Rom 2:15]), conscience does not function in the same way as the Law, because conscience is susceptible of being defiled and even "seared" (see 1 Cor 8:7, 1 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:15). In other words, the dictums of conscience are liable to being rendered ineffectual, in part or wholly. Unlike conscience, the Law is experienced as existing independently of the one who is subject to it and not susceptible to perversion. The introduction of the Law results in the coming into existence of sin defined as violation of a divinely-given commandment.


Paul does not reflect any understanding, from any verses I have read, that atonement for sin, righteousness and life, can be obtained by ANY part of the law, much less the animal sacrifices. I think the excerpts above are the best partial explanations of what Paul is asserting in those verses.

From this perspective God never rejected the terms of the covenant but actually fulfilled it with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Which perhaps explains why Jesus said he came to, "fulfill the law.

Well I do not see how this verse creates the type of contradiction you noted: he must presume that God has flatly rejected the terms of the covenant. Such a position not only flatly contradicts what Paul says elsewhere I do not see how the verse above creates a contradiction in which Paul asserts the covenant is rejected but not rejected. The verse above says nothing about viable or deceased covenants.

Well actually I think he does. First of all if the law is not capable of providing life or righteousness and is no longer operative, this includes animal sacrifice for atonement of sin, then the Jewish adherence to this null and void ritual does not avail salvation, righteousness, or life. It makes no sense for Paul to exclusively make these remarks when it comes to the Gentiles because as history already demonstrates, the Gentilean Christians were already predisposed to not adhering to the Jewish law and in fact were not following the law.

Paul writes these verses to undermine and contravene the early Jewish church's attempt to make Gentiles adhere to the Jewish law. Paul's response is NO ONE, not even the Jew, is made righteous or granted life by adherence to the law, and this would include animal sacrifice.

Furthermore, the following verse is dispositive and I do not believe you sufficiently refuted its applicability to the Jews. Galatians 2:15-16 We ourselves who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ .

Then there is Romans 3:22-24 For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Now you did not adequately refute the applicability of this verse to Jews but instead made unsubstantiated claims to do so.

Here is what you said: This is nothing more than unsupported conjecture and does not render the Romans verses inapplicable to Jews. At any rate I disagree and found the following persuasive: Gal 3:15-22 Paul elaborates on the purpose of the Law. He argues that the Law was given 430 years after the covenant (diathêkê) made with Abraham, and does not nullify this covenant (3:17) (see Exod 12:40).
See H.-J. Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Gal 2,15-4,7 (WUNT 86; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996) 171-225; S. Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988) 172, 174-97; Eskola, Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology, 189-220; 250-52.

Acknowledging that he is making a comparison with common human experience ("I speak according to man"), Paul says that when a man makes a covenant (diathêkê) no one can nullify it or change it. By the word "covenant," he means a last will and testament. (In Greek the word diathêkê means last will and testament, but is also the word used in the LXX to translate berith; the author of Hebrews likewise exploits this semantic duality [Heb 9:16-17].) In effect, he is comparing the covenant made with Abraham, which is God's promise to him, with a human last will and testament; what they have in common is that both are inviolable. Paul alternatively refers to the promise and the promises given to Abraham. Gal 3:16 = plural; Gal 3:17 = singular; Gal 3:19 = singular; Gal 3:21 = plural.

(In Genesis, Abraham is promised land, progeny and that all nations would be blessed in him.) In Gal 3:8 he refers to the promise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed through him. Paul probably spiritualizes the promise of land to Abraham, so that it becomes the promise of the reception of the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:14) and being declared righteous by faith (Gal 3:22), both of which he identifies as promises to Abraham. In other words, the promise of land has become the promise of salvation, because salvation comes as a result of being declared righteous and being indwelt by the Holy Spirit (see Rom 8:11). Perhaps Paul is implicitly typologizing the promise of land or, as his contemporaries would have done, is extending the promise of prosperity in the land through obedience to the Law to include the promise of life after death, as most Jews did in the second-Temple period (except the Sadducees). I.-G. Hong argues that the promise of land to Abraham is fulfilled in the giving of the Spirit (The Law In Galatians [JSNTSup 81; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993] 132). The evidence for such an interpretation, however, seems meager.

This is suggested by the fact that Paul refers to Abraham's "inheritance" (klêronomia) in Gal 3:18 and in the LXX the cognate verb klêronomein is used when referring to the land that Abraham and his descendents would inherit (LXX Gen 15:7, 18; 21:10; 22:17). (See the references to heirs in 3:29; 4:1, 7.) At any rate, Paul's point is that the promise of eternal life was unconditional, and was so in the time of Abraham. It does not, therefore, become conditional when the Law is given 430 years later. As Paul puts it, the inheritance is not "from Law" (ek nomou), but "from promise" (ex apaggelias). He presents Law and promise as two mutually exclusive means of receiving the inheritance. The Law only has a function in the realization of the promise. See C. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification (Leister, UK: Apollos, 1996) 89-96.


While you may be correct, what are you basing these claims on? At this time you have not provided any good reason to accept these claims as true while reading the Romans verse. How do you know this is what Paul is saying and how do you know Paul is using these words and phrases in the manner and way you assert here?