Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Flesh and Spirit

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Bob MacDonald <bobmacdonald AT shaw.ca>
  • To: 'Corpus-paul' <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Flesh and Spirit
  • Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:35:53 -0700


Hmmm ... you all give one much to ponder.

Personally, I have never been happy with the 'sinful nature' of many modern
translations and I am glad to hear Mark's viewpoint since I am about to dive
into both his Romans and Galatians books. Nor was I happy with the tendency
to equate human body with evil which I assume is a tension in all human
cultures but which seems to me to be contradicted by much in the NT besides
Paul. Particularly, why would God become incarnate if flesh=body were not a
worthy vessel or the life thereof not of value. (Admittedly I am shoring up
the weakness I might tend to read in a poor Pauline understanding with
Johanine words - tendencies common among all unlettered readers of the Bible
but unavoidable.)

I am not surprised at Dr Elliott's claim though I think it is too stark to
hold up the whole creative force of our language. The force of the
circumcision metaphor of the crucifixion and the sign of the covenant itself
would support her claim to a non-trivial extent - but I cannot imagine the
whole of the male member being condemned. Such might be read into a phrase
'life guided by the flesh (as a known circumlocution understandable to both
Jew and Greek)'. Is it possible to be whole as a man in the context of such
a condemnation? For even after our baptism, though dead with Christ, we
still retain our form. Besides, women are also of the flesh or of the
spirit - unless this is a modern reading only.

Part of this question came up for me from reading the Horsley seminar
notes - which I am way behind on. The issue (dialogue with Ray Pickett)
seemed to be that Paul could not escape his tradition's (understandable)
opposition to idolatry and porneia. I immediately thought of the Acts 15
prohibitions (minimal comfort level) in contrast to Paul's apparent
reputation as almost without rules (whoa Paul - that's too much) in parts of
Corinthians (nothing is forbidden) - and I wondered at the choice of flesh
and spirit as metaphor and what its appeal would be to the gentiles -
especially Greeks - who, it was implied, would have learned their morality
from philosophy rather than pagan religious practice.

So Paul is stuck for words - and comes up with this contrasting pair which
evolve in his thinking to the Romans 8 passage. Earlier commentaries (such
as Barrett)really seem to be purely moralistic in their interpretation. This
does not resonate for me with Paul's reputation for stimulating response to
God and the resulting freedom in the Spirit. It resonates rather with a
framework of the legal code which although fine as guideline may not result
in the second Adam's gift of the breath of life into our mortal bodies.

I am quite prepared to be 'out to lunch' here - this is difficult to
express. Too many words (at least in Mark's books he won't be trying to put
the whole message into one email!)

thanks all for the responses.

Bob

mailto::BobMacDonald AT shaw.ca
+ + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

Catch the foxes for us,
the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page