Chapter 6 Paul, Israel and the Jewish Law by Moon Yan Ngai 24-Feb-2009.

Chapter 6Paul, Israel and the Jewish Law

by Moon Yan Ngai24-Feb-2009

The Tension

Paul’s theology is profoundly Jewish

Yet it claims Israel’s identity, blessings, and salvation for both Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ

The tension of continuity and discontinuity

Two Aspects with Attention

Paul’s attitude to the Jewish Law

Paul’s views on the continuing status of Israel

Paul & the Jewish LawPaul seems to say both positive & negative things

‘For no human being will be justified in his sight by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin’ (Rom 3.20)

‘So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good’ (Rom 7.20)

What underlying convictions motivate Paul’s varied statements?

Paul’s DilemmaGod gave the law

God has now acted in Christ for the salvation, not through law

God made a mistake? God was unable to bring the plans to fruition? God had a change of mind?

If God is the all-powerful sovereign creator, and foresaw all that would happen, then how can God not bear responsibility for sin?

Traditional PerspectivePaul’s conversion brought about his liberation from this enslavement to a legalistic religion

From that point on, he realized that salvation came through grace alone (Jews were mistaken)

Paul thus criticizes the law because obeying laws can never earn a person’s salvation

God’s purpose in giving the law had been to make human beings conscious of their sin, and ultimately, to make them aware of their need for salvation

Traditional (con’t)Martin Luther’s interpretation of Paul in the context of his own personal and religious struggles

Problem: there is something profoundly disturbing about the negative portrayal of Judaism... anti-Semitism and Holocaust (Daniel Boyarin)

New Perspective (Sanders)The “legalistic-works-righteousness” view was a Christian caricature

Proposed ‘covenantal nomism’ view

Judaism’s self-understanding was ‘Covenant’, which is God’s grace

Obedience to the law was not for earning one’s salvation but as a response to the gracious act of God, a condition for remaining ‘in’ God’s people

Present Judaism of Paul’s time fairly

1977

New Perspective (Sanders)Then what was Paul criticizing?

God had act in Christ to save the world, Jewish law is not the way

Paul gives different answers to different questions

How does someone join the people of God? Not by works of the law but by faith in Christ (Rom 3.28; Gal 2.16)

What behaviour is appropriate for those who are members of God’s people, and wish to remain so? Law’s demands must be fulfilled, not in all its particular requirements, but in its basic demand of love for one’s neighbor (Rom 8.4; 13.8-10; Gal 5.14)

New Perspective (Dunn)Accepted Sanders’ portrait of Judaism

But Sanders’ Paul do not have substantive reason for his criticism of his former position or any real sense of continuity with his Jewish faith.

Paul objects to the way Judaism used the law as a boundary maker, defining a particular racial and cultural group as inside the covenant and others as ‘out’. 1990

[1983]

New Perspective

Highly controversial in some circles

Perceived as challenging the Reformation-based

Lutheran Perspective (Westerholm)

Agreed Jewish attitudes to the law cannot simply be read off from Paul’s letters

Law means Mosaic law => Life Thus, obedience to the law was seen as essential for salvation

Paul is more pessimistic than Judaism about the possibility that people could embody the kind of obedience necessary to maintain God’s favour towards them

2004[1988]

Lutheran Perspective (Westerholm)Salvation can come only by God’s underserved grace in Christ

Law was given such that the need for salvation in Christ might become apparent

Paul’s theology is what Luther saw

Does not mean Jews at Paul’s time would have understood their covenantal responsibilities similarly

Which Perspective?

Vigorous debate continues...

Considerable diversity of interpretations on both sides

Prominent versions of both ‘old’ and ‘new’ perspectives share a structurally similar analysis of Paul’s theology in relation to Judaism

Discussion

Do you think our interpretation of ‘Faith in Christ’ would lead to something like Judaism (i.e. a boundary to God’s grace) as presented by Dunn?

Paul’s Claims about JewsCommunity of believers in Christ has a distinct identity that it inherits the blessing and status promised to Abraham and his seed (i.e. Christ) (Gal 3:16)

Abraham’s descendants are not those who are circumcised but all who have faith in Christ (Rom 4.11-12)

Dilemma: How can God offer salvation in Christ to Jew and Gentile without distinction (Rom 10.12), yet also remain faithful to the promises made to Israel?

What has become of Israel?If unbelieving Jews are outside the promised blessings to Abraham, does that mean God has been unfaithful to his word? (Rom 3.3-4)

To Paul, this question is a source both of personal anguish (Rom 9.1-5) and of intense theological deliberation (Rom 9-11)

Paul’s ArgumentsOnly some are ‘true’ Israelites due to the election of God (Rom 9.7-13)

Whether God is being unjust? God can do whatever God chooses. (Rom 9.14-29)

Only faithful remnant of Israel (Rom 11.1-10)

Israel missed the way due to her attempt to establish her righteousness based on works and not faith (Rom 9.30-10.21)

Permanent Fall Away?Israel’s rejection of the gospel led to its proclamation among the Gentiles (Rom 11.11-12)

Gentile’s salvation will make Israel jealous such that some Israelites will be saved (Rom 11.14)

The hardening of Israel has been allowed for a time, in order for ‘the full number of the Gentiles’ to come in. But then ‘all Israel will be saved’ (Rom 11.26)

Israel will finally come to have faith in Christ?

~ The End ~