Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Romans 13:1-7

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: RSBrenchley AT aol.com
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Romans 13:1-7
  • Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 17:24:15 EDT


> Consequently, your argument that we should start with the assumption that
> Romans 13:1-7 ought to be interpreted within the framework of Judaism, is,
> from my perspective, starting from a false premise. When you refer to Paul
> as "a 1st Century Jew," this is not the Paul who wrote the epistles; it is
> the man prior to that, and whom he now repudiated. Romans 13:1-7 was
written
> by a Roman and a Christian, not by any kind of Jew, except a former Jew.
>
> Eric Zuesse
> cettel AT shoreham.net

I don't actually accept your premises, but never mind. Even if Paul had
consciously abandoned Judaism, he would still have been a man brought up
within it, steeped in Judaism to the very core of his being. You can't change
something like that to more than a limited extent; even if he changed the way
he thought to something anti-Jewish - as a convert to another faith will
sometimes turn violently against his former faith - that would still have
only a limited effect on the way he felt and reacted to situations. I think
the person who reacts strongly against a former faith probably does so
because of an internal conflict; it still influences them. So Paul would
still respond, at least partly, as a Jew. I wouldn't have thought it likely,
for instance, that he would just abandon the idea of a single, ethical, God -
and of course his letters abundantly show that he did not.

My single greatest objection to your position is that in a couple of
places, as you point out - Galatians and Philippians - Paul tells us
something of his history; in 1 Cor 15 he tells of the message he received -
but neither there nor anywhere else does he say unequivocally, 'I ceased to
be a Jew'. I don't see what he says in Philippians as being incompatible with
what I believe to have been his position, that God through Christ had opened
the way for Gentiles to come in, on an equal basis, without the requirements
of the Law, which had after all been given to Jews not to Gentiles. Thus, it
is no longer an advantage to be a Jew, and Paul can say so without in fact
ceasing to be one. I realise that this is to some extent an argument from
silence, but if it is important to Paul or his hearers to talk about his past
as a persecutor, it seems odd that the new, non-Jewish Paul doesn't
accentuate the break with that past a bit more by telling his audience
clearly that he is no longer a member of that faith, if that is indeed how he
sees it. Other Jews, of course, may well have seen it differently.

Regards,

Robert Brenchley
RSBrenchley AT aol.com
Birmingham UK




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page