on universalism & particularism: women & jews ....

New
allegorical
mydi-interpretations?

~*~

~*~

I am
convinced
that the main point
of Paul's argument
is precisely to persuade gentile Christians
of the invalidity
of a certain notion of supersession,
one found for instance in the gospel of John,
to the effect that G D has rejected the Jews tout court
and that the new Israel is entirely
gentile Christians.


As I have
already argued,
supersession can be understood in two ways.
Although Paul argues against one version of supersession,
I will suggest yet again on the basis of Romans 11
that from a Jewish perspective
his theology is nevertheless
supersessionist.


At
the very site
of Paul's main argument
for tolerance of Jews,
I find the focal point
of his ultimate and unintended devaluation
of the Jewish
difference.


~*~


In
the beginning
of the passage,
Paul writes:


"IF
the dough offered as first fruits is holy,
SO
is the whole lump."



The ceremony
of the dough offering
involves the separation of a small portion of the dough
before baking and offering it to a priest
as holy food.



Paul suggests
that if the portion separated is holy,
then since it is of the same substance as all of the dough,
all the lump must be holy
as well.



"First fruits"
is a commonly used prophetic metaphor
for Israel.



The metaphor,
however, has been transvalued
in Paul.



The relation
of first fruits is
no longer of Israel to humanity
but of Christian Jews to Jews
as a whole.



Now
the crux
of Paul's argument
is for the continuing significance of
the Jewish
People.



IF
the
Christian
part is holy,
SO is the
rest.



Paul,
however,
subtly shifts the ground upon which
he is standing.



On the
other hand,
he argues that the Christian Jews
are merely a saving remnant,
such as the one that the same prophetic texts would speak of
from Elijah to
Yirmeyahu.



HERE,
however,
is where the shift comes in,
for the saving remnant is no langer, as it was in the prophets,
those Jews who are faithful to the commandments,
the works of the Torah,
but is NOW defined
by GRACE
ALONE!



For the
prophets as well,
it was clear that a remnant would persist
through history
that would guarantee
the salvation of all Israel
at the end-time,
so in a sense
Paul has changed nothing,
but for those prophets the remnant was defined
by faithfulness to works
- all works,
circumcision AND charity -
while for PAUL
the ground has explicitly SHIFTED
from works to a new,
arbitrary election of SOME of Israel
who have been CHOSEN
to have FAITH
in Christ
NOW.



A NEW,
if temporary,
election has been added to
the original
one?




Although ultimately
G D has NOT abandoned the original election by grace of Israel,
a NEW ACT of GRACE has taken place
which replaces those who are faithful to the original covenant
with those who have faith in Christ
as the remnant
of Israel!



Surely,
those left behind
will in the end be gathered
into this community of faith,
so G d's honesty
has not been impugned,
but for the moment at least,
Jews who have not accepted Christ
are simply
left by the wayside?



Precisely,
however, as THAT moment
stretched into millennia,
THIS doctrine
became inevitably one of supersession
even without
- indeed, as it may have stood against -
the sectarian formulation
and violence of a community
such as the one
that later would produce
John's gospel!

~*~
verliefdliefdesverdrietverliefd
~*~
engel


16 aug 2005 - bewerkt op 20 mrt 2008 - meld ongepast verhaal
Weet je zeker dat je dit verhaal wilt rapporteren? Ja | Nee
Profielfoto van Asih
Asih, man, 81 jaar
   
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.   vorige volgende