Corpus-Paul

["Liz Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>]

> From: Jon Peter

>
> An key point about Paul's views on Torah in Galatians is perhaps being
> overlooked in the current discussions, and it is that the Hebrew Bible
> presents two incompatible and contradictory covenants. It is this
> dichotomy
> that Paul is resolving here with his exegesis.
Of course, you understand that the Jew certainly doesn't view these as two
separate covenants.
I don't agree that the Hebrew Bible presents them as two separate ones.
I'm not sure that Paul does either.

>
> The Abrahamic covenant described in Gen. 17 is lacking, of course, in any
> Torah.
What does this mean?? Genesis is part of the torah.

It permits easy conversion by any male solely on the condition of
> becoming circumcised (v 10, 14).
But this was the problem. It didn't.  Paul said that if you circumcise
yourself you are responsible for the whole of the Mosaic law.
This implies to me that Paul viewed them as one covenant.

It is so inclusive, in fact, that it is
> described as intended for "many nations" (Gen 17.4,6 and Gal 3.8)

>  In direct
> contrast, the Sinaitic covenant introduces laws as an obligation signified
> by circumcision.  (A similar distinction on covenants is in GJohn 7.22)
I'm confused here. Abraham circumcised himself. It was a sign of his own
covenant with God, the Abrahamic covenant.

>
> Paul refers to this split of two covenants explicitly by saying
> that Gen. 17
> is for "free" people of "Jerusalem" and is personified in or by
> Christ. The
> 2nd, Torahnic covenant is for the children of the "slave" (douleuo) in
> Arabia (Gal 4.21-31).

Yes. Paul argues for a split, in which the free people are descended from
Isaac and the slave from Ishmael. Then he says that the Jews, being under
the law,  are offspring of *Ishmael.* But then is Christ a descendent of
Ishmael too?  Needless to say, he was not out to gain *Jewish* converts with
this one.

>
> Paul concludes his exegesis of Genesis 17ff by saying that now the legally
> liberated must "cast out (ekballo) the [slave] handmade and her son"
> (Gal.4.30 = Gen 21.10).

Yes. He's not out to gain Jewish adherents here either. Not great for
Jewish-Gentile relations.

>
> Not only is Paul saying that Law-keeping is unnecessary for Jew
> or Gentile,
> but those who would cling to it must be expelled in accord with
> the Promise!
Yes, it seems to me to be what he is saying all right.
Probably Mark Nanos wouldn't agree tho.

Liz

>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
Lisbeth S. Fried
Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies
New York University
51 Washington Sq. S.
New York, NY 10012
lqf9256 AT is3.nyu.edu
lizfried AT umich.edu