Corpus-Paul

[Bob MacDonald <bobmacdonald AT shaw.ca>]

David wrote

>>... reject out of hand a genuine spiritual explanation of, for example,
Paul's actions.

This word 'spiritual' falls more easily from the tongue in recent Western
thought than  'religious' terms like believing or faith or other sectarian
words. It was a favourite early word from Corinth too. Paul uses it very
positively - implying a reality that is not the work of a delusion or
imagination.

Of particular interest is 1 Corinthians 2:13-15 especially verse 14
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth,
but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with
spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are
spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of
no man.

How can we judge Paul if we do not allow his primary mode of discernment?
This is an epistemological problem - what can we know? Can any of this be
judged by rules of evidence? or by history? or by science?  (Yet science is
not wrong when it recognizes its limitations. Supernatural as used today
does not suggest the thought pattern of Paul. But the awareness of the
presence of God, the gift of the Spirit, is not measurable or visible apart
from faith.)

David's third option: the delusion of Paul, has an understandable appeal
since we want to be able to measure and see what we have. Also in our
psychological age, there are some who take advantage of the power of spirit.
When Paul says, "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, [is it] a great
thing if we shall reap your carnal things," is there a hidden motive to
exploit his hearers?

So can we simply write off the possibility that God spoke to Paul and speaks
to us through him? Is it possible for God to speak to a human in any way
that is not simply self-delusion?

I was struck recently by a comment in Barrett (Black's NT commentaries
Romans by C. K. Barrett 1991, 1962).

On 8:10 the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life ... he says
not "the spirit is alive" as if implying a duality - or a
nature-supernature, but "the spirit is life", implying a new relationship to
reality in those who believe. (This seems to me to be reflected in the
Nicene creed: I believe in the Lord, the giver of life.) This does not make
one any less subject to decay, but it does open the possibility of inner
communication ('chitty-chats') and vision ('prophecy') even within the
bounds of normal temporal existence.

>> For example, to date parts of the NT to after the fall of Jerusalem on
the grounds that prophecies about the fall are 'spiritual'...

It would not have been impossible to see a looming destruction for Jerusalem
given the sectarian disputes, the zeal of the people, and the oppression of
Rome. I still wonder: why did Paul develop such a full doctrine of the body
as temple long before this destruction took place? I think this is more
striking than the predictions of the gospels. This also relates to the
question on Passover and the Eucharist - a replacement of sacrifice before
the destruction of the temple.

Paul doesn't mention angels as consulting or talking with him - only the
Lord. How did he 'receive from the Lord'?

Bob

mailto::BobMacDonald AT shaw.ca
+ + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

Catch the foxes for us,
   the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
for our vineyards are in flower.   (Song 2.15)
http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca