Covenantal Nomism Research Articles

Seon Yong Kim. Curse Motifs in Galatians

Seon Yong Kim. <i>Curse Motifs in Galatians</i>

A Discourse Analysis of Galatians and the New Perspective on Paul by David I. Yoon

Reviewed by: A Discourse Analysis of Galatians and the New Perspective on Paul by David I. Yoon Jermo van Nes david i. yoon, A Discourse Analysis of Galatians and the New Perspective on Paul (Linguistic Biblical Studies 17; Leiden: Brill, 2019). Pp. xiii + 312. $203. A revised version of Yoon’s doctoral dissertation supervised by Stanley E. Porter and accepted in 2018 by McMaster Divinity College, this monograph offers “both an outline of SFL [Systemic Functional Linguistics] discourse analysis, including theory and methodology, and an application of that theory to identify the context of situation in Galatians in view of [the] New Perspective on Paul [NPP]” (p. viii). The book is equally divided into two parts, theory and analysis, closed by a summary and conclusion, and is supplemented by three appendixes providing supportive linguistic data, a bibliography, and two indexes. The first part of Y.’s study serves as the framework for his SFL discourse analysis of Galatians. Chapter 1 traces the origin of the New Perspective on Paul, discussing contributions of its leading proponents as well as responses by sympathizers, dissenters, and mediators. Y. concludes that all sides of the debate describe the Jewish soteriological system in terms of either legalism (Old Perspective) or covenantal nomism (New Perspective). In chap. 2, Y. surveys approaches to discourse analysis in both modern linguistics and NT studies, [End Page 353] arguing that SFL discourse analysis “is far more comprehensive and heuristically beneficial” (p. 63) than other approaches as it describes “more than simply the textual meaning” (p. 63). Chapter 3 outlines the systemic and functional components of SFL discourse analysis in general and the concept of register in particular. Y. explains that the context of the situation determines register, which can be described in terms of field, tenor, and mode. He argues that the field of discourse is realized by the ideational metafunction of language, referring to the main ideas of a text as determined by the transitivity network (i.e., the processes, participants, and circumstances of a primary clause) and lexis; the tenor of discourse is realized by the interpersonal metafunction of language, denoting the social dynamics among the participants in a text as determined by speech functions and social roles; and the mode of discourse is realized by the textual metafunction of language, reflecting the structure and organization of a text as determined by cohesion, thematization, and prominence. In the second part of his study, Y. applies the criteria set for mood, field, and tenor analysis to Galatians. His mood analysis in chap. 4 reveals that 2:14b–21 addresses hypocritical more than improper behavior; that justification is not thematized; and that 3:15–25 on the promise and the law is the letter’s “prominent peak” (p. 189). Analyzing the field of Galatians in chap. 5, Y. concludes that justification is not a major subject of the letter. He also finds that Paul often contrasts faith with the law, writing positively about the former and negatively about the latter. This is supported by a lexico-semantic excursus on the phrase “works of the law” (erga nomou). With regard to tenor, Y. in chap. 6 concludes that Galatians “reflects a dire and grave situation . . . that demanded immediate reaction” (p. 260). For Y., all of this is to suggest that the context of the situation in Galatians seems to indicate that Paul feels threatened by a form of legalism more than covenantal nomism. This is not to say that Paul is addressing petty legalism, nor that the law can never serve as a set of boundary markers. As the first monograph-length study that approaches the New Perspective on Paul from a merely linguistic point of view, Y.’s dissertation is a welcome contribution. Y. is to be commended for providing accessible surveys of such complex issues as are the New Perspective on Paul and (SFL) discourse analysis. Introducing linguistic criteria that realize the mode, field, and tenor of discourse, which Y. applies to Galatians, is particularly helpful. These criteria warrant his conclusions, of which some are new in Pauline studies. It is to be expected that not everyone will agree with these conclusions, but, unlike many other scholars, Y. at...

Den kloge godsforvalter (Luk 16,1-8a)

The parable of the prudent manager in Luke 16:1–8a constitutes an exegetical puzzle. The present article understands the parable in light of early Jewish covenantal nomism (E.P. Sanders). The parable is not a theological replica of “The Prodigal Son” (pace J.R. Donahue) but a sequel to that story. Whereas “The Prodigal Son” tells a story to outsiders of getting in, “The Prudent Manager” narrates to insiders a story about staying in. The manager first foolishly squanders his master’s possessions (v. 1b–3); but in the face of crisis, he acts generously in the interest ofothers (vv. 4–7) and is praised for being prudent (v. 8a). The manager thus personifies “the faithful and prudent manager” mentioned in Luke 12:43. He is an example for disciples to follow. Occasioned by the 75th anniversary of academic theology at Aarhus University, the article begins with a review of 20th century dialectical-theological applications of the parable in the works of Professors K.E. Løgstrup, Regin Prenter, P.G. Lindhardt, and Johannes Sløk.

Getting In and Staying In: Another Look at 4QMMT and Galatians

E. P. Sanders criticized the previous New Testament scholarship’s stereotypical portrait of Second Temple Judaism as a legalistic religion, proposing that it can be typically described in what he calls ‘covenantal nomism’, that is, one ‘gets in’ the covenant by God’s gracious election and ‘stays in’ the covenant by obedience to the law. However, this does not describe the Qumran sectarian group who required the works of the law and their particular halakhoth not only to ‘stay in’ but also to ‘get in’ the sectarian covenant. Comparison between 4QMMT and Galatians, and a mirror reading of Galatians suggest that Paul’s opponents persuaded the Galatians to do the works of the law not only to ‘stay in’ but also to ‘get in’ the true covenant of God, to become full members of God’s covenant people, for one is justified by the works of the law, in addition to faith in Christ.

COVENANTAL NOMISM AS A 'SYMBOLIC UNIVERSE'

It is explored how Sanders’ notion of covenantal nomism can be adapted to explain the Judean “symbolic universe”. This article throughout approaches Judeanism as an ethnic identity. At first covenantal nomism is adapted to function as an ethnic descriptor. Ethnicity theory is then utilized to explain what ethnicity is and how it is formed and maintained. Duling’s Socio-Cultural Model of Ethnicity is then adapted to model first century Judean ethnic identity. The proposed model is termed covenantal nomism. Lastly, it is explained that the proposed model also functions as a pictorial representation of the Judean symbolic universe.

The kingdom of God: Utopian or existential?

The kingdom of God was a central theme in Jesus’ vision. Was it meant to be understood as utopian as Mary Ann Beavis views it, or existential? In 1st century CE Palestine, kingdom of God was a political term meaning theocracy suggesting God’s patronage. Jesus used the term metaphorically to construct a new symbolic universe to legitimate a radical new way of living with God in opposition to the temple ideology of exclusivist covenantal nomism. The analogies of father and king served as the root metaphors for this symbolic universe. They are existential root metaphors underpinning the contextual symbolic universe of God’s patronage in reaction to the collapse of the patronage system which left peasants destitute. Jesus’ paradoxical use of the metaphor kingdom of God had a therapeutic value and gave the concept new meaning. The initial motivation for proclaiming God’s patronage originated in Jesus’ primary identity formation by Mary as single parent and was reinforced in his secondary identity formation by John the Baptist. From these results can be concluded that kingdom of God was not meant to be understood as utopian, but existential. In order to clarify the meaning of kingdom of God and God’s patronage for the 21st century, emythologisation and deconstruction can be helpful especially by highlighting the existential meaning of the kingdom of God.

“내가 무엇을 하여야 영생을 얻으리이까”의 번역 문제(마 19:16; 막 10:17; 눅 18:18; 10:25)

Jesus ’ conversation with the rich man in the synoptic gospels could not be correctly understood and translated until one realizes the Jewish and Christian soteriological questions in the Hellenistic Judaism that was under debate. The question “what good thing must I do to obtain/get eternal life?” in Matthew 19:16 brings up a fundamental debate: for whom is such a question qualified? The questioner is a Jew. This is also the case of Jesus’ conversation with a scribe in Luke 10:25-28. The premise of his question is not how he becomes God’s chosen people (Israel), but how he lives as the people of God. God’s promise to Israel is maintained and depends upon the observance of the commandments of the Torah. At the same time, however, the whole inheritance of eternal life remains at the final judgment also for Israel. Matthew 19:16 eliminates the term ‘inherit’ (‘κληρονομ?σω’) in the question of the rich, young man, and substitutes it with ‘σχ?’(have). Instead he adds that term to the eschatological statement on 19:29 given to Jesus’ disciples who have left everything to follow him.<BR> It means that early Christianity shared the heritage of Jewish soteriology from the perspective of so-called ‘covenantal nomism’, but just with a changed point of view in the understanding of eschatological salvation: God’s promise is now given to the disciples of Jesus as delegates to Israel, and furthermore, its new prospect will be extended to the Gentiles. However, at the same time, it is clear that the Gentiles also can never forsake the commandments of the Torah (Mt 5:17-19) because they are also supposed to face the final judgement. The Jews and Gentiles seek the will of God revealed in the law and “should live by doing it”(το?το πο??ικα? ζ?οη Lk 10:28). The first-century Judaism and Christianity were standing on this common ground.<BR> Without missing such a complex theological meaning, it will be suggested that the current Korean translation “obtain/get the eternal life”(Mk 10:17; Lk 18:17; Mt 19:16; Lk 10:25) should be revised to “inherit the eternal life” in Mark and Luke as well as to “have the eternal life” in Matthew respectively.

Paulus und seine neue Perspektive

Abstract Despite its age, the perspective on is likely to remain a matter of historical and theological debate. Although it has found wide acceptance, it bears fundamental problems. The categories of grace and covenantal nomism that it employs are inadequate to address the question of Paul's relationship to early Judaism, because they are equivocal. In contrast to current views, there was a properly unresolved tension within early Judaism concerning the relationship between grace and works, that was resolved in Christ's cross and resurrection. Nor is it proper to describe early Judaism as nationalistic, since it, too, showed itself welcoming to Gentiles, and ready to accept proselytes. Paul himself came to a new perspective about grace and works, and about the fallen state of the world through the crucified and risen Lord, in whom alone he found salvation. The entrance of Gentiles into the communities of believers forced the same clarification of the nature and locus of salvation ...

4QMMT and Paradigms of Second Temple Jewish Nomism

AbstractThe article reconsiders 4QMMT's perspective on Torah and justification in view of the recent debate about paradigms of covenantal nomism (E. P. Sanders) and of justification and variegated nomism (D. A. Carson, P. T. O'Brien, M. A. Seifrid). The hortatory part, in particular 4QMMT C 23–32, takes into account divine grace through forgiveness and search for the Torah as normative direction. Human works and divine justification are thereby not conflated in MMT's understanding of Torah. e notion of covenant theology reflected in 4QMMT comes closer to that of the Damascus Document than to the more polarized notion of covenant in the Community Rule.

Hoe om in te kom en hoe om binne te bly – die “groot sendingopdrag” aan die kerk vandag volgens Matteus 28:16-20

Getting in and staying in – the “great commission” to the present-day church according to Matthew 28:16-20 In this article the phrases “getting in” and “staying in” relate to the technical term “covenantal nomism”. The article’s aim is to argue that this concept is radically redefined in the so-called “great commission” in Matthew 28:16-20. Inclusivity replaces ethnic exclusivism. This redefinition is applied to the well-being of the church and its spirituality in the present-day postmodern context. The article is specifically addressed to the members of the Nederduitsch Hervormde Church in South Africa. It challenges the traditional dichotomy between “insiders” and “outsiders” in missionary work. It advocates a way of thinking in terms of which “non-conformists” in so-called “churchless Christianity” are considered as being part of the “church on the other side”.

A socio-cultural model of Judean ethnicity: A proposal

This article focuses on the matter of Judean (“Jewish”) ethnic identity during the first century CE. New Testament scholarship lacks an overall interpretive framework by which Judean identity can be understood. Appreciation of what informed the entire process of Judean ethnic identity formation in the first century, or at any period for that matter, is lacking. This lack of interpretive framework is rather acute in scholarship on the historical Jesus, where the issue of Judeanness (“Jewishness”) is most strongly debated. A Socio-Cultural Model of Judean Ethnicity is developed, as being a synthesis of (1) Sanders’ notion of covenantal nomism, but reappropriated to serve as an ethnic descriptor, (2) Berger and Luckmann’s theories on the sociology of knowledge, (3) Dunn’s “four pillars of Second Temple ‘Judaism’” and his “new perspec-tive” on Paul, (4) cultural anthropology in the form of modern ethnicity theory, and lastly, (5) Duling’s Socio-Cultural Model of Ethnicity. The proposed model is termed covenantal nomism. It is a pictorial representation of the Judean “symbolic universe” which, as an ethnic identity, is proposed to be essentially primordialist.

Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994-2004)

The amount of biblical scholarship on covenant over the past decade is not great; however, significant work on the definition and taxonomy of covenant has helped to overcome certain reductionistic tendencies of older scholarship, which has contributed, in turn, to a better grasp of the canonical function of the term in the Old and New Testaments. In Old Testament scholarship, the idea that covenant simply means ‘obligation’ and is essentially one-sided (Kutsch, Perlitt) has been largely abandoned in favor of the view that covenants establish kinship bonds (relations and obligations) between covenanting parties (Cross, Hugenberger). There is also broad recognition that the richness of the concept cannot be exhausted merely by analyses of occurrences of berith or certain related phrases. In New Testament scholarship, some small strides have been made in assessing the significance of covenant in the Gospels; whereas discussion of covenant in Paul has been dominated by the ‘New Perspective’ debate over ‘covenantal nomism’. Finally, some light has been shed on the meaning and significance of diatheke in two highly controverted texts (Gal. 3.15-16; Heb. 9.16-17).

Early Judaism and Covenantal Nomism: A Review Article

Early Judaism and Covenantal Nomism: A Review Article

The Law, the Covenant and God's Plan, Volume 1, Paul's Polemical Treatment of the Law in Galatians

The Law, Covenant and God's Plan, Volume 1, Paul's Polemical Treatment of Law Galatians, by Kari Kuula. Publications of Finnish Exegetical Society 72. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Pp. vi + 231. DM 78.00. Kari Kuula focuses this monograph on problem of salvation-historical continuity, that is, paradox that shows his righteousness and fidelity to his promises by sending Messiah as savior not only to his elected but also to all nations of earth. However, God's good news to nations is at same time bad news to his own for it implies that Jews as such are no longer God's people (p. 1; original emphasis). The three foci for Kuula's investigation, then, are (a) Jewishness of Paul (the question of continuity, here defined on basis of his continued acceptance or rejection of covenantal nomism); (b) dynamics of Paul's thought concerning Mosaic Law, i.e., why he criticized it; and (c) coherence or inconsistency of Paul's thinking concerning Law (pp. 2-3). This first volume deals with these issues relation to letter to Galatians, while second volume address them relation to Romans. The discussion begins with methodological considerations (ch. 1) and an exposition of background of letter, both historical and Paul's theological framework (ch. 2). The ensuing argument is divided into four stages, with following questions taken up turn four succeeding chapters: How did Paul treat figure of Abraham, and why? To what extent does Paul separate and God? How is connected with sin? What is positive function of God's plan? The final chapter draws preliminary conclusions on basis of this letter to Galatians. Kuula sets stage for his analysis of Galatians by introducing E. P. Sanders's thesis that Palestinian Judaism of Paul's time was characterized by covenantal nomism: has chosen Israel (covenant) and given it his for guidance and for providing means of atonement (nomism) (p. 10). Hence, it is divine grace that allows one to get in to covenant and human effort that is required to stay in. Whether Paul maintains this paradigm or whether his axiom extra Christus nulla sales indicates a radical break with it, must be assessed by careful contextual analysis of his statements concerning Galatians (and later, Romans), especially through social-historical and rhetorical analyses. The language of participation Christ and Spirit is cognitive domain for understanding Paul's soteriology, including question of role of (p. 40). Apocalyptic thinking was worldview that provided frame of reference for Paul's interpretation (p. 41). In Galatians, his initial use of refers to Mosaic Law per se, but then comes to denote a more universal force that imprisons not only Jews but Gentiles as well. Paul's stretching of meaning of term betrays his abandonment of salvation-historical interpretation of favor of apocalyptic dualism, where is left to forces opposite to divine will (p. 56). Paul distances himself from covenantal nomism by dual assertion that (a) not only Gentiles but also Jews must have faith Christ order to be saved, and (b) the works of law cannot justify anyone (p. 59). The only explicit reason Paul gives for latter is essentially a restatement of former: it is faith Christ that justifies (p. 60). In short, for God is incompatible with living within law (p. 62). Kuula argues that, his discussion of Abraham, Paul insists that true children of Abraham are all those who have faith (in Christ) as Abraham himself did. Kuula states: In fact, only children that Abraham has are Christians, since belonging to his progeny can be realized only when faith Christ has become a possibility. …

Paul, Predestination and "Covenantal Nomism"-Re-Assessing Paul and Palestinian Judaism

Paul, Predestination and "Covenantal Nomism"-Re-Assessing Paul and Palestinian Judaism

Paul, Predestination and "Covenantal Nomism"—Re-Assessing Paul and Palestinian Judaism

La theologie de Paul est une construction imposante ou il essaie de repondre aux questions brulantes de son temps. Le Christ apparait comme la solution au probleme de la theodicee. Ceci aboutit au concept d'une forte predestination ou aucun homme sur la terre ne peut etre sauve sans le Fils de Dieu. La Loi, la justification et la reconciliation trouvent leur place naturelle dans cette structure soteriologique. C'est une interpretation imaginee de la soteriologie juive messianique. Le nomisme developpe par Paul au sujet de l'alliance identifie par Sanders semble etre finalement a l'oppose de sa soteriologie

Blind Alleys in the Controversy over the Paul of History

E.P. Sanders’ reading of Paul against the backdrop of ‘covenantal nomism’ is badly flawed, since it obscures Paul’s coming to understand the cross as working the justification of the ungodly. Two important extensions of Sanders’ paradigm also fail to illumine Paul in his context. ‘Works of the Law’ are not simply ethnic boundaries, as J.D.G. Dunn claims, but marks of piety as well. N.T. Wright’s proposal that Christ provided the solution to Paul’s experience of exile reverses the manner in which exilic language appears in Paul’s letters. Contrary to the common assumption, Luther’s theology of the cross and justification is not barren or irrelevant, and more closely accords with Paul than recent attempts to understand him.

Sacred Violence and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.13): The Death of Christ as a Sacrificial Travesty

The death of Christ has not been prominent in the significant recent debate about the centre of Paul's theology, between E. P. Sanders and H. Hübner. Sanders characterizes Paul's pattern of religion as a ‘participationist eschatology’ as compared to the ‘covenantal nomism’ of the contemporary Judaism. H. Hübner champions the centrality of ‘justification by faith’, over against a ‘mystical identification with the crucified and risen Christ’. The former comes from Luther, and the latter from Albert Schweitzer. Hübner says of Sanders' book that in several passages it sounds as if Schweitzerredivivuswere speaking. Sanders tends to make Paul's religion too intellectual — a change of world view, rather than a response to experience. Hübner does not take seriously enough the convincing evidence that Paul's problem with the Mosaic law was not the same as Luther's, namely that it promoted a ‘works righteousness’ which caused pride, but rather that in its social role as the guardian of the boundaries of the Jewish community, it excluded the Gentiles. Both, however, do not take the Cross seriously enough.

Pauli brytning med Israels förbund

In the Tanach and in early Judaism the Torah belongs together with the covenant. It is also regarded as the order of creation. Palestinian Jewish piety has been described as “covenantal nomism”. The law is not a means of getting into a right relationship to God. It is rather the means of staying within the covenant. The role of the Torah in Judaism is comparable to the place of apostolic paraenesis rather than that of Jesus Christ in early Christianity. Paul explicitly and consciously denied Jewish covenantal nomism. What he found wrong with Judaism was that “it is not Christianity”&&the law “does not provide for God’s ultimate purpose, that of saving the entire world through faith in Christ”. Paul tries desperately to be loyal both to his sacred tradition and to his overwhelming new experience. But in fact the covenant of Israel is rejected, for even a Jew is expected to convert, to undergo a new initiation rite. Above all, even a Jew has to believe in Jesus as the Messiah in order to be saved. This presupposes that the old covenant with the possibility offered by it for repentance and atonement is insufficient. The break was a logical necessity as soon as the claim was first raised that faith in Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Galatians 2.16 and Paul's Break with Judaism

In his Manson Memorial Lecture for 19821 James Dunn credits E. P. Sanders2 with ‘breaking the mould of Pauline studies’ and giving us ‘what amounts to a new perspective on Paul’, not least by showing that the traditional Christian picture of Judaism is ‘fundamentally mistaken’.3 Dunn agrees with Sanders' characterization of ancient Palestinian Judaism as ‘covenantal nomism’, in the framework of which ‘Israel's covenant relation with God was basic’.