Rick Sumner

Though a matter that piques my interest considerably more than the general topic of this thread (if a tangent begins--which I must confess I hope it does--perhaps a mod could split this off). I'm curious as to how you think it is influenced by the teaching of the historical Jesus.

IMO the thread from Jesus to Paul's gospel is only indirect.

1)Jesus preached the eschaton > 2)resurrection experiences > 3)followers preached Jesus died for sin > 4)Paul's "conversion" > 5) Jesus had no reason to die for Jewish sin > from 1, 2, 3 and 5 Paul concludes that Jesus died for Gentile sin, so they could partake in the Messianic Age.

I think Paul's gospel is defined by the final statement. I'm not sure how much of that can be traced back to an historical Jesus. Perhaps you could elaborate on your thoughts?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

andrewcriddle

Hi Rick

I don't agree with your analysis of Paul's gospel.

I don't think it is easy to read passages like 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 as implying that for Paul Jesus died only for Gentile sin.

Nor is 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 easy to interpret as faith in Christ being for Paul relevant only for Gentiles.


This really does take us off-topic.

What I meant in the earlier post was mainly that a good deal of Paul's teaching about the Christian life eg about divorce and forgiveness seems influenced by the teaching of Jesus.

There is also a question as to how far Jesus' attacks on the Pharisees' ideas of Torah observance are involved in a/ Paul's initial hostility to Christianity and b/ His radical attitudes to Torah observance after his conversion.

Andrew Criddle

Rick Sumner

Hi Andrew,

We are off-topic indeed. It might be time for the split I mentioned above--I hope you'll pursue this farther, but if you lack the time or the interest, I'll of course understand. Nonetheless, I of course welcome and encourage others to comment as well.

I'd suggest several reasons to rethink the traditional reading of Rom.3.21-30 (pulled largely from Gager, p 120-121).

1) Paul understood the faith of Jesus Christ to be the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. The promise to Abraham Paul has in mind has nothing to do with Jews.

2) "God's righteousness," (used in 3:21), consistently means the redemption of the Gentiles in Romans and Galatians.

3) "Both here and in Galatians, the phrase "for all who have faith" refers to Gentiles, either exclusively or primarily; in either case, the dominant theme is the redemption of Gentiles

4) "The words of 3.23, 'for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," recapitulate the catalogue and climax of Gentile sins in 1.18-3.20

5) The "human being" (anthropos) in 3.28 who cannot be justified by works of the law, but rather by pistis, must be Gentile, since "works of the Law" is a Pauline tag for Gentiles.

6) "The brief rhetorical dialogue in 3.29 ("Is God the God of Jews only? Not also of the Gentiles? Yes, also of the Gentiles") is an inclusion formula; it cannot be read any other way

7) A similar inclusion formula appears in 3.30, which sums up the theme of divine impartiality and inclusiveness. . .the use of different prepositions (ek and dia) with pistis points to different paths for Jews and Gentiles, while pistis means not faith in Christ, as the traditional view must assume, but the pistis revealed to and embodied in Abraham (ch.4)

"Works of the law" refers to the ambiguous state of Gentiles under the Law (on this, see Gaston, Paul and the Torah, p.76-79, Gager, Reinventing Paul, p.84), not to Judaism. "Works of the Law" does not refer to Torah. Sanders' comments on Galatians 3 are pertinent here as well:

Curiously, but 10 pages later, Sanders seems to forget that he has argued that "one" in this passage refers specifically to Gentiles and their state under the Law, and concludes that Paul has declared Jew and Gentile righteoused by the same thing. The former must be inferred, because it is neither his audience nor his argument--which, as Sanders himself notes, pertains to Gentiles and becoming proselytes. Likewise Dunn begins the argument (recognizes that Paul's statement of righteousness by faith is in accord, not oposition, to Judaism), but follows Sanders in failing to see it through, still finding in Gal.2 an ultimate rejection of Torah.

Gager, IMO, rightly notes that the passage makes the most sense (and maintains the most consistency with other passages in Paul--esp. Romans 9-11) if we view it strictly in that context--Gentiles are righteoused by faith. They are the "one" in question, and that never waivers.

As you might suspect, I'd challenge the existence of both A (I don't think "church of God" means Christianity in any sense we'd understand the term) and B, but I think these might best be left for another time.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Is it correct to think of Paul's Gentile audience as primarily, if not entirely, composed of "God-fearers"?

Are either of you aware of any scholarly works addressing that point?

I've found three articles in BAR but they aren't available online:

The Omnipresence of the God-Fearers (BAR 12:05, Sep/Oct 1986)

The God-Fearers: A Literary and Theological Invention (BAR 12:05, Sep/Oct 1986)

Did Ancient Jews Missionize (BR 19:04, Aug 2003)

Rick Sumner

As an addendum to my above comments, it should also be noted that there is simply no reason for Jesus to die for Jewish sin. For Paul to take such a position, he must presume that the normative means of atonement are ineffective--he must presume that God has flatly rejected the terms of the covenant. Such a position not only flatly contradicts what Paul says elsewhere, but is so thoroughly unJewish that, if true, then any effort to understand Paul in context is wasted.

I must confess, after rereading some passages yesterday, to less enthusiasm for Gager than I initially had. In particular, I struggle with the two paths to salvation alluded to above. I'm not sure that I have an alternative suggestion, however, as I could piece together an argument suggesting Paul saw Torah as a universal path (with some modifications for Gentiles), or I could piece one together (a la Sanders) where Paul ultimately rejects Torah (and I'm sure I could find much scholarly support for either--Nanos, to my understanding, argues the former, though I haven't yet read either of his books on Romans and Galatians).

Amaleq13: That is, ostensibly, the "major thesis" of Crossan and Reed's last work, "In Search of Paul," (I say ostensibly because throughout the work it is treated more as a premise than a thesis).

I think it's simply prima facie probable that at least portions of Paul's audience were God-fearers.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

TedM

Sorry to come in late, but where does Paul say that the old covenant of atonement is still necessary for Jewish sins to be removed, and eternal salvation? Doesn't Romans talk about Israel rejecting Jesus but coming to him after the Gentiles do? Why would they need to if salvation has nothing to do with Jesus?

Also, in this thread I attempted to show possible influences of Jesus' teachings on Paul, looking at the hypothetical Q1 teachings only:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=136035

You may or may not find it to be helpful.

ted

James Madison

My apologies for coming in late as well. After you answer TedM's question I have one I would like answered.

Rick, where in the bible are the, as you phrase it, "?

If they do exist, where and did the law create them?

What NT Pauline verses do you believe creates this contradiction?

When you use the word "covenant" are you talking about the Jewish law as established in the Torah? This would include remission of sin by animal sacrifice and it is this practice which you think Paul did not construe as ineffective? If so, is it not possible some part of the covenant was merely "temporary" and would be rendered ineffective at some future time? In this instance the animal sacrifice for the remission of sin was temporary until the Son of God came and fulfilled this requisite in perpetuity.

Not if this part of the Jewish law/covenant was rendered moot by Jesus' actions. I fail to see how Paul in context is wasted with this view.

James Madison

TedM:

Yes and Jesus himself is quoted in one of the Gospels as telling a gentile woman, "

andrewcriddle

Although there are obvious reasons for modern scholars to seek to recover a Paul who is more or less within the limits of Jewish teaching at the time, this does seem to require that Paul be misunderstood and misinterpreted from very early on. Not only by orthodox Christians but by Gnostics and followers of Marcion on the one hand and Jewish-Christian groups who rejected Paul for what they saw as his attacks on Torah observance.

The debate is complicated by the problematic nature of Sanders' views of what the Judaism of Paul's day actually believed and taught. (Have you read Neusner's various criticisms of Sanders ?) I may be misinterpreting what you said in an earlier thread about Sanders' views, but IMO it is wrong to interpret Sanhedrin 10:1 as meaning that Israelites are guaranteed a share in the world to come on the basis of their descent from the Patriarchs. I'm pretty certain from the local and wider context that Israelites here are those who remain true to Torah. Note how those who question the divine status of the Torah are explicitly excluded. (In its original context the pasage may seek to give (re)assurance to those who stood firm for their Jewish identity in the persecution under Hadrian.)

I'm not suggesting that the Judaism of Paul's time stood for "works-righteousness" a/ this is an anachronistic and polemical term in any case and b/ it is not IMO the real issue. For Paul IMO the problem with the Covenant of Law is not the problem of doing enough righteous deeds to meet God's requirements. It is the problem of following the Law in the right spirit wholeheartedly without hypocrisy or self-interested ness.

Both rabbinic Pharisaic Judaism with its stress on intentionality and the teaching of Jesus could have encouraged Paul in this emphasis. What Paul did IMO is to push the logic of this approach to the limit where it stops being a source of encouragement towards a truly committed life and instead faces people with a demand for a humanly unachievable whole hearted self-offering to God.

Paul solved this problem (which although it may arguably be a legitimate development of the logic of Jesus' teaching and/or the logic of Pharisaic Judaism is not as such part of the teaching of either), by claiming that although people can't achieve this whole hearted self offering, they don't have to. Jesus did it on their behalf.

These ideas become relevant in Paul's controversies about the status of Gentiles in Christianity but IMO their origin is more fundamental to Paul's thinking than that specific issue.

Andrew Criddle

Rick Sumner

Where does he say it doesn't, might be a more apt question--it would seem to be the default position to assume that he does. While Paul does speak of Jews "believing" ("turning to Jesus" overstates his words somewhat--Rom.11 runs its entirety without a mention of Jesus (in fact, Jesus hasn't been mentioned since 10.17), and concludes with the only theological, rather than christological, doxology in Romans. This points to the "deliverer" of Israel being God, not Jesus.

Regards,
Rick Sumner