*particularist universalism<*>fanatic global wars?

*

IN
the
following mydistories
I will be considering
the historical effects and reflexes
of both the Pauline discourse of the 'universal'
as well as the rabbinic discourse
of the 'particular'

AND once
more I will emphasize
these are mydistories in which
there are no winners
and losers

BOTH
poles
of this dialectic
the universalist thesis
and
the particularist antithesis
or the particularist thesis
and
the universalist antithesis
present what seem
to me to be both
enormous ethical and political problems
as well as
enormous promise
each for reasons
quite naturally directly
opposite from
the other

~*~
~*~

ROM 11:
'Particularist' "Universalism"


IF the dough
offered as first fruits is holy
so is the whole lump
and if the root is holy so are the branches
but is some of the branches were broken off
and you
a wild olive shoot
were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree:
do not boast over the branches

IF you boast
remember it is not you that support the root
but the root that supports you ...
for if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree
and grafted
contrary to nature
into a cultivated olive tree
how much more will these branches be grafted back
into their own olive tree
[16-24]

ALS een klein deel van het deeg aan G D is gewijd,
is al het andere deeg het ook;
als de wortel aan G D is gewijd, zijn de takken het ook.
En als sommige takken van de edele olijfboom zijn afgebroken
en u,
loten van een wilde olijfboom,
tussen de overgebleven takken bent ge'ent en mag delen in de vruchtbaarheid van de wortel,
dan moet u zich niet boven de takken verheffen.

ALS u dat doet,
moet u goed bedenken dat niet u de wortel draagt,
maar de wortel u.

[Maar nu zult u tegen werpen:
"Die takken zijn toch afgebroken zodat ik ge'ent kon worden?"
Zeker, ze zijn fagebroken vanwege hun ongeloof
en u dankt uw plaats aan uw geloof.
Wees daarom echter niet hoogmoedig,
maar heb ontzag voor G D:
als hij de oorspronkelijke takken al niet heeft gespaard,
zou hij u dan wel sparen?
Houd daarom voor ogen dat G D niet alleen goed is, maar ook streng.
Hij is streng voor wie gevallen zijn, maar goed voor u -
als u tenminste trouw blijft aan zijn goedheid,
want anders wordt ook u afgekapt.
En als de Israelieten niet volharden in hun ongeloof,
zullen ook zij worden ge'ent,
want G D is bij machte om hen
opnieuw te enten.]

IMMERS, als u die van nature een tak van de wilde olijfboom bent,
tegen de natuur
in op de edele olijfboom bent ge'ent,
hoeveel eerder zullen dan zij die er van nature bij horen,
op die boom
worden ge'ent?!

16 ve'IM-hatrumah kodesh
ken gam-haisah
ve'IM-hashoresh kodes
ken gam-ha'anafim;
17 veki nikfu miktsad ha'anafim
ve'atah
zeit haya'ar hurkavta vimkomam
venitchabarta leshoresh hazait uldishno;
18 al-titpaer al-ha'anafim
ve'im-titpaer
da she'eincha nosee et-hashoresh
ki im-hashoresh hu nosee otach;
19 ve'chi tomar
halo nikfu ha'anafim lema'an urkav anochi;
20 ken
hu hemah nikfu al-asher lo he'emunu
ve'atah hincha kayam al-yedei ha'emunah
al-titgaeh ki im-yera;
21 ki ha'elohim im lo-chas al-ha'anafim hagoladim min-ha'ets
ulai lo-yachus gam-aleicha;
22 lachen re'eeh-nah tovat elohim
vezaemo zaemo al-hanoflim
vealeicha tovato im-ta'amod betovato ve'im-ayin
ki-atah gam-atah tigadea;
23 vegam-hemah
im-lo ya'adu bemiryam
yurkavu
ki-yachol ha'elohim lashuv leharkivam
24 KI im-atah
nigzarta me'ets asher hu vetivu zeit ya'ar
vehurkavta shalo cheteva bezait tov
aleh hayotsim mimenu al-achat chamah vechamah
sheyurkevu bezait
shelahem?


THIS
is a passage truly astonishing in its richness which I think has been underused in readings of Paul
on "the Jews!"


It seems to me
to contain
- "contain," in several senses -
ALL of the ambiguity of Paul's understanding of the ratio between the historical, genealogical Israel and the new believers in Christ from the gentiles.


ULTIMATELY,
what we must remember as we read these verses,
clearly intended as a stirring call to gentile Christians not to despise Jews,
is that the Jewish root which supports them has been continued solely in the Jewish Christians.


The branches which have been lopped off
- for all Paul's hope and confidence that they may be rejoined some day -
are those Jews who remain faithful to the ancestral faith and practice and who do not accept Yehoshuah
as the Mashiach.



We thus see the peculiar logic of supersession at work here.


Because
Israel has not been superseded,
therefore most Jews have been superseded.


Let me unpack the paradox some more.


The issue is NOT whether ethnic Jews have been displaced from significance within the Christian community
but whether a community of faith [= grace] has replaced a community of flesh [= genealogy & circumcision]
as Israel!


Precisely because the signifier Israel is and remains central for PAUL,
it has been transformed in its signification into another meaning,
an allegory for which the referent is the new community of the faithful Christians, including both those faithful Jews
who do not accept Christ.


Of course, Paul does not argue that the term Israel refers only to gentile Christians!


How could he have done so, since in so doing he would have left himself,
BarNabas, Pete & even YESH out?


As he himself says,
"I ask then:
'DID G D reject his people?'
By no means!
I am an Israelite myself,
a descendent of Avraham,
from the tribe of Benyamin!"

[ROM 11:1]


THIS,
however,
is not proof
that PAUL's theology
is not supersessionist,
for the historical understanding of Israel
has been entirely superseded
in the new, allegorical
interpretation.
engel
15 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