Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Gal 2:16 (Liz)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mike Myers <mmyers AT helium.biomol.uci.edu>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Gal 2:16 (Liz)
  • Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:10:33 -0800


Dear Mike,
I see what you're getting at now. You suggest that Paul was a Jew
who believed that the law was valid for a time and now with the
advent of Jesus no longer valid. By valid I guess we mean "desired
by God."
****************************************************************

Liz, A quick answer is all I have time for at the moment.

Yes and no. The NT throughout makes clear that one of the primary
goals of the gospel, and of y'shua's mission, is to gather Israel
(Matt 15:24, Mark 7:27, Paul throughout, James 1:1, Revelations
throughout, among other pericopes that elude me at the moment).
Strategy concerns were key to Paul; he is nothing if not a
strategist. To him, the overriding issue was faith in Christ as
Shiloh (Gen 49:10). This objective always trumped the relative
importance of controverted points of law-keeping. These interminable
squabbles (and worse) appear to be something that he had to deal
with constantly. He did seem to get pretty cranky about it
occasionally.

Circumcision was an exemplary case. To most non-Jews in 1CE, oc,
this was simply asking too much. Dietary regulations, too, were
divisive. So Paul seems to have given in here, for strategic
reasons. And according to Acts anyway, James allowed him to do this.
Shabbat he reinterpreted somewhat, evidently -- this is a somewhat
gray area, unlike circumcision and the dietary legislation.
But again, since these were all tokens of separateness, they were
problematic. God's will was now to gather Israel: some (most?) of
scattered Israel was not in synch with these tokens. Therefore,
since the gathering is the main thing, the tokens of separateness
are now devalued -- to Paul. Strategy of the apostle to the
"Gentiles" -- or, in other and more precise words, to the scattered
of Jacob and the strangers.

(Incidentally, in some places, when he refers to the law, he is
talking about the "10 commandments" -- as does y'shua, tho less
often, in the gospel reports of his teaching. In other places, he is
refering to Torah in the larger sense. Y'shua does the same.)

To Paul, charity was foremost. This seems to be the gist of y'shuas
teaching also. Peter and James and John (or whoever wrote the books
attributed to them) seem to agree. It is a common thread in NT. Zeal
for good works (many of them, certainly, the same as those
prescribed in Torah) is the Way, the new, streamlined halichah.


[points snipped, responded to later...]

Liz wrote:

"The Jews who opposed Paul did not do so because they had the Greek
Aristotelian view of a god who never changed. This notion of
Maimonides has still not found acceptance in Judaism. If the
Aristotelian view of God had any influence in first century Levant,
it would not be among the Palestinian Jews. This view is completely
opposed to the view of God expressed in the OT."
******************************************************************
Well, I'm not sure how much this is true of the Orthodox. They seem
to hold to an unchanging REVELATION of God, de facto anyway, if not
to the unchanging God -- the latter, I certainly agree, being very
hard to reconcile with Tenach.


You wrote:

"The Greek notion of a god without a physical body, who was perfect,
might have influenced Paul's followers tho. In GJohn I think the
view is expressed that God is spiritual, non-corporeal. That is a
Greek, non-Semitic notion. Was this Paul's notion?"
*****************************************************************

Spiritual, to Paul, evidently did not rule out corporeal per se.
They weren't mutually exclusive qualifiers. You will have to cite
specific pericopes in the NT which refer to a 'non-corporeal' God. I
don't think this notion is there, or at least I can't think of any
places where it is suggested. God IS qualified in many places as
Spirit rather than flesh, of course, but that's not the same thing.

You've raised many interesting points in your last few posts that I
want to get to in some detail when I have time. Sorry for this
outline and threadbare response.

Mike



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael D. A. Myers
University of California, Irvine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<mmyers AT helium.biomol.uci.edu>
06/02/1999
17:10:33





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page