Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Morna Hooker on the Law

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terence Donaldson <terry.donaldson AT utoronto.ca>
  • To: M.S.Goodacre AT bham.ac.uk, Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Morna Hooker on the Law
  • Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:49:43 -0400

Mark,

The argument that Morna Hooker presents has been developed in more detail by others (e.g., Jimmy Dunn in his "A Light to the Gentiles," in The Glory of Christ in the NT). One form of the argument (this is actually part of Dunn's argument but is not essential to it; also W. D. Davies, Ben Meyer and others) builds on Deut 21:22-23: since the Torah pronounces a curse on anyone hung on a cross, Christ died accursed and outside the law.

I am in agreement with the general attempt to see Paul's apostolic convictions about the law and the Gentiles as the result of the tensive interaction between his native convictions as a "zealot for the traditions of his ancestors" and his new convictions about Jesus. But I too have difficulties seeing how this particular construal can work.

What is needed is a tension or conflict between "Torah" and "Christ" (as crucified Messiah, or whatever) that continues to be fundamentally unresolvable even after Paul has come to belief in the resurrection of Jesus. One can imagine all sorts of ways in which a "zealot" would have seen the early Christian movement as a threat to Torah religion. But one would expect that, once such a person came to believe that Jesus had been raised -- and thus vindicated -- by God, he would be eager to find some way to align his new belief about Jesus with his old commitment to the Torah. The example of James and of other even more Torah-centred Jerusalem Christians indicates that such re-alignment could readily be achieved. Surely the mere fact of crucifixion itself is not enough to put someone outside the law -- especially when the crucifixion was carried out by the Romans. One could just as easily construe such a death as a martyrdom. Alternatively, the use of the righteous sufferer Psalms indicates another kind of alignment -- Jesus seen as one who is faithful to God and righteous with respect to the Torah (properly understood), who because of his faithfulness in an evil age was persecuted but then was vindicated by God. Or one could see Jesus in representative terms, his death as a means of identifying with Israel in the punishment legitimately meted out by the law to a people who had broken the covenant. But even if we were to leave such alternatives out of the picture, I find it hard to imagine how -- even if one wanted to -- one could construe the circumstances of Jesus' death in such a way that he would be so at odds with the law that for God to vindicate him would at the same time be to set aside the law.

I think it is right that we try to account for Paul's Christ-Torah antithesis as an apostle by seeing it as a continuation in altered form of an antithesis that he perceived between the two prior to "Damascus." But I don't think this particular attempt will work.

Pax,
Terry Donaldson
Wycliffe College
Toronto

The approach, then, is problematic. But



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page