Corpus-Paul

["moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>]

Mark, 
Let me clarify the last question in my previous message.

> >Then, for Paul, "Those under the Law" are not simply the Jewish people,
> >the people of the Law, but those who were under the dominion of sin as
> >well.
> >
> 
According to your system, "being under the Law" would have
no problem if they are Jews. But if they are Gentile believers, 
it would cause all vices of the flesh. Why the difference?
In fact, that seems to the most difficult problem in your approach?


[Moon]

It means that I am not satisfied with your explanation as to 
why Galatians' attempt to "be under the Law" is so bad. Yes, Galatians were 
under pressure to get circumcision, to be under the Law.  They
did not have to. Moreover, it was the desire of the flesh to "be
under the Law" and thereby to get acceptance from the mainstream
community. It amounted to not understanding and going AGAINST 
what God was doing at the age to come. It was bad enough. Paul had to
fight, both for the Gentiles and the Jews as well. For the Jews, 
because his losing in the fight meant that God failed to "redeem those 
under the Law", and failed to bring the salvation that the Jews had been
waiting for generation after generation.

But what I wonder is whether what was at stake was only that 
Gentiles could be included into people of God without becoming people
 of the Law, which was good in itself. If so, it means that God sent 
Christ and Christ died at the cross only to make God's salvation available
to Gentiles as well.  But it does not seem to be a big deal, because
there was a way for Gentiles to become people of the Law and thereby
people of God. Then Paul fought so that Gentiles might become
people of God via his way. 

But Paul's letter indicates that there were more to it. The issue was
more than Gentiles could be God's people without becoming people of the
Law. The issue was that the economy under the Law failed, and God sent 
Christ to redeem those under the Law from the failed regime. It failed not 
because the Law was bad, it failed because humans are flesh. The issue was
the transfer or liberation from the realm of sin and death, which the 
economy under the Law could not overcome. Doesn't Rom 8:1-5 point to that?

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ. For the 
law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from
the law of sin and death. For God has done WAHT the LAW, weakend by
the flesh, COULD NOT DO: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that 
the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who walk not
according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

So, by "flesh" Paul seems to refer not just human weakness likely to
surrender social pressure to conform the mainstream norm, but also
the fundamental weakness that caused the economy of the Law have failed.
Though I cannot claim that I have experienced the empowering of the
Spririt which Paul assumes for the recipients of this letters (
cf. James Dunn), receiving the Spirit and being empowered by it
is one of the main thrusts of his gospel and theology. 
So, the liberation through Christ has some ontological dimension,
if not psychological, as well as sociological dimension.  

Waiting for your comments.

Moon
Moon R. Jung
Associate Professor
Sogang University
Seoul, Korea