Corpus-Paul

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

Dear Loren,
nice to hear from you on the list. I certainly expected you to join
the discussion. Thanks for joining.

As a scientist/engineer, I believe in the paradigm of
hypothesis-refutation:
Put forth a hypothesis and then try to refute it. As long as you fail
to refute it, it should be believed to be a plausible theory.

The three elements of my experimental reading of Paul are:
(1) Romans is a letter addressing a particular problem of the Roman church
    as is Galatians. 
(2) That particular problem was the identity crisis of Gentile believers 
    with respect to being under the government of the Law, in particular,
    circumcision, namely with respect to whether they should obtain Jewish
    identity to become God's people. Saying No to this Jewish identity
    requirement raises several questions. The most important one seem 
    how the Gentiles should behave without the Law as their guidelines. 
    Addressing the first problem without this second problem would 
    have confused the Gentiles. So, I believe Paul addresses both issues 
    in Romans (as well as in Galatians). This is what Mark Nanos suggests.
    I take it as my hypothesis.
(3) The Jewish life characterized by hUPO NOMON is looked upon  
    not negatively except that it requires the Gentiles to get 
    circumcision to get into God's covenant. The problem was that 
    they did not see what God was doing at eschaton through Christ. But
    it does not mean that the Jewish life hUPO NOMON was misguided
    and should be put away with in and of itself.  The life hUPO NOMON
    was what God requested the Jewish people to have, and was good in and
    of itself. 


Now I need to see if this hypothesis can stand by the data of Romans and
Galatians and other letters. But so far so good.

So far I could make a good sense of the relevant passages without taking 
hUPO NOMOS so negatively. It seems the neutral meaning of hUPO NOMOS is
obvious, and it can be demonstrated by its occurrence in 1 Cor 9:20.

 
TOIS hUPO NOMON hWS hUPO NOMON MH hWN AUTOS hUPO NOMON, iHNA TOUS hUPO
NOMON KERDHSW.

Here TOUS hUPO NOMON refers to those whose life is governed by 
the Law in its details. They must refer to Jewish people or proselytes. 
We tend to ignore the importance of the distinction between hUPO NOMON 
and non- hUPO NOMON. But without recognizing the utmost importance of 
that distinction, it would be easy to universalize the Paul's
statements on the Law.
       
Even Gal 5:18 can be interpreted wel along this line. 

EI DE PNEUMATI AGESQE, OUK ESTE hUPO NOMON.

If you are lead by the Spirit (and so are already God's people on this
basi),
it means that you are not under the Law, that is, not required to be
governed by the Law of Moses (thereby not need to get circumcision to
be God's people).

The Law of Moses was the Law of the nation, not just ethical requirements.
For them be to under it means that they were the citizens of the nation.
Because the Law had such a meaning, the requirement of circumcision
could be interpreted so that God was the God of the Jewish nation only.
(Rom 3:29).

I think that Paul's fight was so difficult because he needed to start from
the base of Israel, its Law, and its Prophets but he needed to overcome
the restrictions that the Jewish people of his time had.
Even though the Scripture saw the time when all such restrictions 
would go away, the people did not believe that the time had arrived.


See bleow for my comments on your comments.

> > I wan t to paraphrase Rom 6:14-15 as follows:
> 
> > 14(a) Sin will not be the master of you.
> > 14(b) It is because  you are not under the Law,
> > i.e.not under the obligation to keep the Law
> > as a Law-people,but you are under grace [which 
> > motivates you not to sin].
> 
> > 15    What then? Shall we sin because we are 
> > not under the obligation to keep the Law as
> > a Law-people, but under grace?
> 
> > In this paraphrase, the fact that "you are 
> > not under the Law" has nothing to do with the
> > declaration "sin will not be the master
> > of you", but the fact that "you are under 
> > grace" has. 
> 
> 
> [Loren]
> 
> If “you are not under the law” has nothing to do with
> “sin will not be the master of you”, then why did Paul
> go to such lengths to clarify the relationship between
> the two in 7:7-25 -- where they turn out to have a lot
> to do with each other, after all?
> 
> Moon, is it your contention that Rom. 6:14-15 -- and
> Rom. 5-8 in general -- focus as much on the
> Jew-Gentile question as on the eschatological one
> relating to a believer’s dying at baptism (ch 6) and
> rising at the end of all things (ch 8)? 

[Moon]
The Jew-Gentile question was an eschatological one as well.
Believer's dying at baptism and rising at the end of all
things point to the fact that the righteousness of God
has been revealed apart from the Law, and Gentiles
can receive God's grace without becoming Jews.
So I see both are closely related. Paul has to establish
that the righteousness has been revealed without Gentiles
becoming the people of the Law, in order to say any blessings
of the Gentiles in Christ. 

  
[Loren]
Your emphasis
> on “keeping the law as Law People” gives me the
> impression that you’re leaning in this direction
> (somewhat like Dunn). 

[Yes]
But I am different from Dunn in that I do not connect 
"being under the Law, under covenantal nomism" to 
sin's dominion over them. Dunn says that by sticking to 
the particularism of the Law, e.g. circumcision, foot,
days, the Jewish people somehow became victims to sin.


[Loren]
But I see nothing in the
> language of this section which indicates that the law
> is being discussed apropos the Gentile issue. Rom. 5-8
> seems concerned with the question of how well
> commandments can be kept in light of an eschatological
> tension and interim period (between dying and rising),
> not with the question of how well Torah can be kept by
> Gentiles (which is dealt with in chs 2-4).
> 

See my comments above.

In sum, I need more evidence to accept that the life under the Law
was and is inherently connected to the life under sin and flesh.

Hoping for further clarification and fruitful discussions.

Yours,

Moon
Moon-Ryul Jung
Associate Professor
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/