Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Rom 7, Pauline eschatology, and other questions

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT mailhost.chi.ameritech.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Rom 7, Pauline eschatology, and other questions
  • Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:48:11 -0600

C-P Members,

I am at the preliminary stages of writing an article on the context of the theology of Romans - more specifically on the idea that Rom. 7 and the discussion of the "wretched I" within that chapter have to do with Paul expounding upon how the tradition of Zeal which he was following before his "call" warped his idea of obedience to God and led him not so much to experience death as to deal it out to others.

I have a hunch that within Romans 7 (and for that matter, the rest of the epistle) there is as much of a critique of the "politics of holiness" as that found in the teaching of Jesus, and that Paul's critique was being carried out for the same reasons that Jesus undertook it.  But to my knowledge, no one has emphasized this theme --- or at least tried to locate Paul's sense of mission and his discussion of the Law within the context of religious/political conflict which Jesus himself tried to address. In other words, what I am now exploring is the idea that Romans and indeed all of Paul's activity is carried out within the same horizon as that which, following Tom Wright, Marcus Borg, and George Caird,  informed Jesus' mission, namely, that if Jew Gentile relations did not change, or if there was not a new ideal taken up by the people of God regarding what being Israel entailed, then Israel was doomed vis a vis Rome.

What has led me to explore this question is (a) Caird's insistence that the arguments carried out by both Jesus and Paul were arguments from Jews with Jews on the true meaning of Judaism, (b) Caird's and Wright's discussion of the meaning and use of apocalyptic language, and (c) Borg's  work on the non-eschatological Jesus. It seems to me that Paul's consciousness of what he has been "sent" to do is in all ways an extension of Jesus' mission. But while the political context of the ground of eschatological judgment material and sayings on "end times" (namely, a perception of how continuing to emphasize "holiness" will lead inevitably to a clash with Rome) is now often acknowledged and taken into account when dealing with Jesus' teaching, it seems not to be considered as a background, let alone a motivating element, in the teaching of Paul and his claims about the return of Jesus or how near the end is.

I guess, then, what I am asking List Members  to comment upon are the questions of (a) how much Pauline eschatology is rooted in and mirrors Jesus', (b) how much the crisis language of Paul is a reflection of Jesus own sense of political reality, and (c) how much of Jesus' own sense of what might lead to Israel's doom informs Paul's missionary activity. I want to make the case that Paul's eschatology is that of Jesus as Caird, Wright, and Borg  have outlined what Jesus' was. Or in other words, I want to argue for a  non-apocalyptic eschatological Paul, and to explore the 1st cent. Palestinian conflict with Rome brought on by the "politics of Holiness" as the context of Paul's view of the Law, Sin, and his "doctrine" of Justification. I have the feeling that such an exploration would have ramifications, too, for the PISTIS XRISTOU debate.

So I would be grateful for any comments List Members might have on these musings. Has any work been done on this by anyone else?

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000 AT ameritech.net
 



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page