Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: Galatian situation

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dieter Mitternacht" <dieter.mitternacht AT teol.lu.se>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Galatian situation
  • Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:31:52 +0200


Dear Loren.
I am afraid I can only repeat myself. The actual decision at the Council with
regard to circumcision nobody disagreed upon. Thus, why use it as a trump
card? Disagreement occured over the interpretation of the decision, i.e.:
'need not' versus 'must not'!
Let me use an analogy, that comes right off the top of my head: a seminary
board decides, that professors do not have to teach more than 7 hours a week,
and everybody is happy. However, the situation arises, where one professor
sees that his students need more tutoring and decides to teach 10 hours, just
as they do at other seminaries. Some will like it, because they understand
the reason, others will hate it, because the fear the loss of an important
priviledge. Now, the decision of the board is clear: 'you do not have to...'
But since nobody was coerced, claiming submission to the decision would be
nonsense. However, if one professor could convince the others, that the board
commissioned him with the correct interpretation of the decision, it would be
a different story.
So much I can say, and thus I see 2.6-10 functioning for the whole letter.
My reply to Mark Nanos with regard to the identification of the 'advisors'
may also apply to some aspect of your question.

regards
Dieter





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page