Corpus-Paul

["Jon Peter" <jnp AT home.com>]

Hi Liz
>
> >
> > A 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.

Paul clearly viewed them as separate. He repudiates one in favor of the
other. I would be interested in hearing how the circumcision covenants are
understood to be the same or identical or whatever, in some systematic way.

Incidentally, the DSS Habakkuk pesher reflects questions about the
pre-Sinaitic, non-Torah era of Abraham similar to Paul's ruminations.

> I don't agree that the Hebrew Bible presents them as two separate ones.

Let's define "separate" as being distinctly different in content, timeframe,
context, locale, and just about everything else including even the name of
the deity involved. (El Shaddai for Abraham, YHWH's name only appears for
the first time on Sinai with Moses). In all these ways, they're very
distinct. Even the one common element, circumcision, is defined as carrying
quite different significance.

> I'm not sure that Paul does either.
>

O I'm very sure.

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

'Torah' means 'teaching, instruction' and is often translated 'law.' By
convention, 'Torah' has come to mean the Law and related interpretation. No
Torahnic elements are given to Abraham -- just a promise from Most High,
with no obligation to obey except circumcision.


> 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.

You might want to re-read Gen. 17 and see if you can find any Mosaic law.
Paul even made a point in his letter noting that hundreds of years elapsed
between the first covenant and the Lawgiving.

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.
>

Paul's letters are quite clear in seeing a "Promise" and a "Bondage"
involving 2 distinct covenants.

> 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.
>

It was covenant between Most High and Abraham + Sarah, *applicable to all of
Abraham's future innumerable seed* forever, as well as for "many nations,"
specifically any converts willing to be circumcised.

> >
> > 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 say this is an "allegory" (allegoreo). Then he makes a crucial point in
redefining Jewishness as not a matter of flesh and blood lineage but of
spirituality. "It's been this way all along, too," he says. He even says
that Gentiles are 'the real Jews' when they show their circumcision of
hearts and spirits (Rom 2.29). (The same discrediting of Jewish blood
importance is in GJohn.)

Obviousy Paul was flattering Gentiles with such exegesis. He was cavalier to
an extreme about Jewish sensibilities -- which led unfortunately to a mutual
Birkat and schism.

> >
> > 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.
>

On the whole I'd say Paul's position was an unmitigated disaster for both --
'the Jew first, and also the Gentile' as he might say.

Regards,

Jon