Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

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 ( MM)
  • Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:00:44 -0800



> 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).

"What do you mean by Israel then? Not Jews, I take it."
********************************************************************

I think to Paul, and to the other disciples judging from NT evidence
anyway, Israel was (in God's view) what it had been in the
beginning: all "12 tribes." One nation. The prophets often
distinguished Israel from Judah of course, but "in the beginning it
was not so", as it were.



> 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.

"Your description of Paul makes sense to me. What is curious is
your assignment of non-Jewish Israel to the Gentiles. That is indeed
peculiar. When Jesus referred to the "lost sheep of the house of
Israel" was he including the Samaritans? I don't think he was. Yet,
Paul didn't preach to Samaritans, did he? Maybe a better
distinction than the Jew/Gentile distinction is the circumcised -
uncircumcised distinction. Paul was the apostle to the
uncircumcised."
****************************************************************

I think Jesus (or those who put these words into his mouth) was
refering to all the scattered 'seed of Jacob' - as he or they might
have understood it - including those among the Samaritans, but not
only them. As a result of the Assyrian conquest and the Exile, most
of the nation had been scattered of course, as I said before. This
is history. "Israel" can be understood in many ways but surely the
most obvious would be as a moniker for the descendants of Jacob,
which is how they are understood in Torah, after all. I'm convinced
the early movement leaders meant by Israel: the scattered children
of Jacob.

Most of these became lost to history, and would of course be
"Gentiles" in 1CE, to the Jews anyway. So it's not peculiar to ME to
so designate them, altho I'm aware it sounds odd to those who
haven't really thought about it in this way. I'm firmly convinced
this is how the 1CE Jesus movement brass viewed them tho. Lots and
lots of evidence of that, IMHO.

Paul was indeed the apostle to the uncircumcised. He referred to
himself by both titles. That may be a more accurate designation.



You wrote:

GJohn 1:1 suggests an incorporeal god. I thought there were other
references, but I couldn't find them.
**************************************************************

I'm one of those who believes that the prologue to 4G might well be
a late interpolation, but in any case, I don't think the text itself
suggests an incorporeal God really. Orthodox Christian theologians
eventually read it as signifying the hypostasis of the Son, who
becomes incarnate in Jesus Christ. But that's another issue.

Mike


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

<mmyers AT helium.biomol.uci.edu>
06/02/1999
20:00:44




  • RE: Gal 2:16 ( MM), Liz Fried, 06/02/1999
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • RE: Gal 2:16 ( MM), Mike Myers, 06/02/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page