Lancaster on Galatians 2:15-18?

I've always struggled to make sense of Paul's statements in Galatians 2:15-18, particularly the last statement: "For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor."  What was being torn down and then rebuilt?  The following quote from D. Thomas Lancaster's recent book The Holy Epistle to the Galatians (which I discovered via a post from James at Morning Meditations) immediately brought clarity to this long-time question for me:

“We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that [whether Jewish nor Gentile] a person is not justified by the works of the law [i.e., conversion, circumcision, etc.] but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we [the Jewish believers] also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. But if, in our endeavour to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners [by eating and fellowshipping with Gentiles], is Christ then a servant of sin? [In other words, does becoming a believer mean we forsake Torah? Is eating and fellowshipping with Gentiles really a sin against Torah?] Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. -Galatians 2:15-18

That is to say to Peter, “If you of all people, Peter, rebuild a sharp division between Jew and Gentile by removing yourself from table fellowship with Gentiles, you are rebuilding the barrier that you originally tore down. If you refuse to eat and worship with them, you rebuild the barrier that you originally tore down. You yourself were the first of the apostles to tear that separation down. If now you are putting it back up, then you are admitting that you were wrong in the first place, and you are proving yourself to have been living in sin and transgression.”

Anybody else find this interpretation convincing?  Has anyone else read it somewhere else before, or come to similar conclusions from reading the letter?  If so, please comment--I'm curious.

Robert Alter on continuity in Genesis

In response to scholarly descriptions of the story of Judah and Tamar as "a completely independent unit...[having] no connection with the drama of Joseph, which it interrupts...", Robert Alter employs literary analysis to craft a compelling argument for a strong connection between the two stories. Among numerous points made in the opening chapter to his The Art of Biblical Narrative, I found the following:

It is instructive that the two verbal cues indicating the connection between the story of the selling of Joseph and the story of Tamar and Judah were duly noted more than 1500 years ago in the Midrash: "The Holy One Praised be He said to Judah, 'You deceived your faith with a kid. By your life, Tamar will deceive you with a kid.' . . . The Holy One Praised be He said to Judah, 'You said to your father, haker-na.  By your life, Tamar will say to you, haker-na' " (Bereshit Rabba 84:11,12).

Nice.

Paula Frederiksen on sacrifice and sin

In a recent video shared at the Rosh Pina Project blog, N.T. Wright muses out loud about a need for  more study of sacrifice actually meant.

I thought I'd also point out that Paula Frederiksen's 3-part lecture series on the concept of sin in the ancient world is really excellent--and quite relevant, I think, to Wright's point.

HT: Carl Kinbar of Midrash, Etc for telling me about these lectures last fall.

It's coming...

My new favorite t-shirt:

Find out more here or here.

Dual Covenant theology?

Recently a friend asked me about dual covenant theology.  As I see it, dual covenant theology starts with two Scriptural premises:

1) That God's covenants with the Jewish people are enduring/eternal.
2) That God has acted to benefit the world through Yeshua of Nazareth and the new covenant he instituted.

The first premise is generally understood as the revelation preserved in the Jewish tradition, while the second premise has been preserved within the Christian tradition.

Dual covenant theology is an attempt to simultaneously affirm both of the above premises.  Specifically, it does so by asserting that the "new covenant" established by Yeshua was and is specifically for the Gentile nations (who, until then, had been without a covenant relationship with God), while, for the Jews, the way of salvation is by remaining faithful to God's revelation in Judaism (i.e. the Torah, Moses, etc).  In other words, Dual Covenant theology says that Jewish people have no need for the gospel of Yeshua since they already have a relationship with God.

While it seems to me that Dual Covenant theology has received most of its attention due to the Jewish-Christian dialogues of the past 50 years, many see its antecedent in the views of the medieval Jewish sage Maimonides, who affirmed the possibility that both Christianity and Islam were being used by God to bring the Gentile nations to monotheism.

However, dual covenant theology is hardly a unanimously affirmed position among participants in Jewish/Christian ecumenical relations.  Other Jewish and Christian scholars recognize that the original message of Yeshua and his apostles was directed to both Jews and Gentiles and that to frame it as "God's message only to the Gentile nations" is to distort the original message of the New Testament authors.

That last sentence sums up my position--at least according to how I've defined Dual Covenant theology.  However, this is one of those topics that can be confusing to talk about and requires a lot of defining of terms.  (This is usually the case with discussions about "covenants".)  I see Dual Covenant theology as a flawed attempt to harmonize the two Scriptural ideas above.  Messianic Judaism encompasses an alternative approach.

Unfortunately, many Christians mistakenly see any affirmation of the Torah's enduring covenantal significance for the Jewish people as necessarily a form of Dual Covenant theology.  This is, in my opinion, a miscategorization (probably stemming from the mistaken conviction that the only proper Christian perspective towards the Law is one of supercession/abrogation.)

However, if Yeshua of Nazareth lived as a Jew faithful to the Torah of God and taught his apostles to do the same (Matt 5:17-20), then it seems today's followers of Yeshua ought to also affirm the continued place of the Torah as "the inheritance of the assembly of Jacob." (Deut. 33:4) And if the apostle Paul was able to say, about unbelieving Israel, "to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever" (Rom 9:4-5), then today's adherents to Paul's gospel ought to also strive to affirm the enduring nature of God's covenants with the Jewish people.

A song for Sefirah

I find this song by Ari Goldwag, based on a text from Eikha (Lamentations) particularly appropriate for this season of counting the omer.



From Ari Goldwag's website:

07/26/2009 Years ago I composed a song whose words come out of the kinnos of … moreTisha B'av. They are עד אנה בכיה בציון ומספד בירושלים תרחם ציון ותבנה חומות ירושלים - How long will there be crying in Tzion and eulogy in Jerusalem? Have mercy on Tzion and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. When I have had difficulty getting emotional on Tisha B'av, I will inevitably turn to these words and this song, and the tears come. I hope it will inspire you too. The song is A capella - there are no instruments, just voices.

A friendly question to anyone from Chosen People

I hope everyone is having a wonderful Pesach with family, friends, and community. I was just reading an article emailed to me from Chosen People Ministries, "Frequently Asked Questions About Passover."  Under the question "Is it appropriate for Gentile Christians to celebrate Passover?", I read:

"...after many Gentiles had come to faith in Jesus the Messiah (Acts 11:19-26), the issue of Gentile believers' obligation to the Jewish Old Testament law became a major concern (Acts 15:5). The disciples gathered at what became known as the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6ff) and determined that the Gentiles should not feel obligated to observe the law (with a few requests, nonetheless). They further noted that the teachings of the law and its benefits would be available in the synagogues every Sabbath."

 The article rightly observes that the issue at hand at the Council of Jerusalem was whether the Gentile Yeshua-believers were to become circumcised and keep the law.  My question is this: does this passage [edit: i.e. Acts 15] assume continued observance of the Torah for Jewish believers in Yeshua?

Any takers?

Disclaimer: I'm going out on a limb by posting this question in hopes of having a friendly discussion...perhaps something different than the usual polemical tones from both sides.  I'm not trying to trap anyone into debating me; I'm simply interested in learning how others read this passage and what they think about my question.  I'd like to think that in that regard I might even learn something new.  So share your answer to my question in your friendliest tone, but no fighting!