Corpus-Paul

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

Mark,
it seems that we are in a messier world than Galatians.
Let me try to understand your comments. 

[Moon]
      >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.
[Mark]

      This is what is at stake in Galatia, and thus the rhetoric must be 
      interpreted in this light. It does not mean it was always the issue
      for everyone everywhere, and it was not. Otherwise why would these 
      Jewish people like Paul have become Christ-believers?


      Paul believes the end of the ages has come, that is what modifies 
the
      "right way" of the present age of proselyte conversion. It is not 
      wrong, except in view of the meaning of the death of Christ, which 
      has initiated the age to come community of Israel "and" the Nations
      as One worshipping together as Israel and the Nations the One God of
      all humankind (cf. Rom. 3:29-31). To deny this result for themselves
      (as gentiles) is to deny the foundation of Paul's own self-identity
      in Christ (as a Jew and as an apostle of this Jewish coalition).

      An interesting point may be made here with respect to the "no big 
      deal" you recognize. If the Christ-believing coalition continued the
      traditional practice of proselyte conversion then it seems their new
      "theological" claims in Christ were not necessarily all that 
      objectionable (implied in Gal. 5:11). The rub is when what they 
      believe alters their halakhic lifestyle in such a way as to impose 
      upon the interests of other Jewish groups who do not share their 
view
      of an altered reality/time. Otherwise Jewish believers in Christ 
      would signal a difference that would not be all that divisive, at 
      least no more than a difference of opinion about any number of such
      matters concerning messiah, messiahs, then or now or future, etc.

[Moon]
      >
      >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.
[Mark]

      Yes, as noted above.

Moon: Do you have in mind "their theological claim" that "the death of 
Christ
      has initiated the age to come community of Israel "and" the Nations
      as One worshipping together as Israel and the Nations the One God of
      all humankind (cf. Rom. 3:29-31)."? This claim "altered their 
halakhic
      lifestyle in such a way as to impose  upon the interests of other 
Jewish
      groups who do not share their view of an altered reality/time."

      But you are still saying that their "theological claim" has to do 
with
      the SCOPE of those who can worship the one God legitimately. Paul 
seems to
      claim much more than that. Of course, we are here talking about what 
Paul
      claims, not  whether you and I agree with him.  

[Moon]
      >The issue was that the economy under the Law failed, and God sent
      >Christ to redeem those under the Law from the failed regime.

[Mark]
      I do not understand on what basis you make this comment...

Moon:
      Rom 8:1-5, which says that what the Law could not do, God did by 
sending
      his son and condemning sin in the flesh. 

      What do you think is "what the Law could not do"? 

[Moon]
      > 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?

 

[Mark] 
      No, Was it not God's plan to help humanity until the appointed time?
      Giving of the Law did not create the human problem, it just could 
not
      ultimately solve all of it, 
Moon:
      Yes, God gave the Law to help humanity. But doesn't Paul say that 
      the Law could not achieve what it intended "weakened by flesh", in 
Rom 8:1-5?
      Doesn't this paragraph say that to do what the Law could not do,
      God, sending his Son for sin, CONDEMNED SIN sin in the flesh? If 
there is no
      "condemnation" for those who are in Christ, doesn't it imply that 
there is
      "condemnation" for those who are outside of Christ? 
 

[Mark] as neither has the coming of Jesus 
      Christ, as far as I can see, and thus the expectation of a "return"
      to complete the task 

Moon: 
      But, according to what I understand 
      Paul claims about the "new life in Christ", the death and 
resurrection
      of Christ did what the Law could not do weakened by the flesh. Up 
until now,
      I think this has to do with being empowered by the Spirit, and this 
is
      how I took  Rom 8:1-5:
      
      >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.

Mark:
      This to is situational rhetoric, but to a different situation. I 
take
      this to be addressing the problem of reconciling Jew and gentile, 
      with the gentiles in Rome confused about the situation that has 
      resulted from their new relationship with Christ, and Jewish people
      like Paul struggling with granting full equal standing to these 
      gentiles on the basis of this claim (cf. my argument in appendix one
      of The Mystery of Romans). 
------------
-----------
      I do not see, at least 
      based upon what we have been discussing, any introduction of an 
      ontological claim about human liberation, but a social claim in view
      of the meaning of Christ's death, enabled by the Spirit for those 
who
      make an effort to live in this way; thus the call to resist 
      compliance and instead live freely, not the assumption that it is in
      some way automatic (cf. Gal. 5:1ff.). The enabling of the Spirit is 
a
      Jewish idea that functioned and still functions apart from faith in
      Jesus as Christ. Am I missing your point? Is what you seem to be 
      claiming not the ontological altering of reality that both Jewish 
and
      Christian people still await in the restoration of creation in the 
      age to come, the "wait for the hope of righteousness"?
            
Moon
      Yes, we all stil wait for the hope of righteousness, being empowered
      by the Spirit. But Paul seems to believe that the enabling by the 
Spirit
      is made possible through the death and resurrection  of Christ.

      Overall, I am very much open to "social claim in view of the meaning 
of
      Christ'death" rather than "ontological claim about human 
liberation".
      I may be inclined to read "ontologically" because I do not know the
      original context of the letter. 

Again, I feel very happy about our exchanges on Galatians. It was one of 
the
happiest moments in my life. 

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