Corpus-Paul

["Tony Buglass" <tonybuglass AT fish.co.uk>]

Harold wrote:

There is nothing wrong in people living according to it, but it is not a requirement.

 

I suppose the question which this one would raise for Paul is "But why would anyone *wish* to live under the law?"  Gal.4:1f uses the language of tutelage and slavery, and then (v.9f) talks about the enslaving "stoicheia" - presumably including law?  The whole tenor of the argument in Galatians underlines the temporariness of the law for Paul, how it is there to lead to Christ, and therefore has no further function once we are "in Christ".  Isn't Paul's strength of objection to circumcision of Christian believers that it means entrusting to part of the law, and if to part of the law then necessarily the whole of the law for salvation?  So far from "not being a requirement", living under the law effectively makes it a requirement.  Which impinges on the dependence on Christ, *in whom* the law is already fulfilled.

 

ISTM that the tensions in this argument stem from the fact that Paul's theology was in process of development.  Those who state dogmatically what he meant often miss this, and thos lose an important dynamic in the subject.  As I argue above, Paul's argument in Galatians is pretty thoroughly anti-nomos and pro-Spirit.  The implication would be that Israel should now abandon the (temporary covenant) of the law and embrace the (ultimate covenant) of Christ.  Presumably refusal or failure to do so would imply rejection of Christ and thus of God's offered salvation.  However, in Romans he addresses the continuing relationship of Israel with God, emphasising that God has not abandoned Israel (11:2); the failure is not to do with law itself but the underlying motive: works rather than faith (9:32).  Which may illuminate the issue which Jim and Mark were tussling over a day or two ago - whether law-observance is about "getting in" or "being in".  If observing the law is an attempt to build or earn one's own salvation, it becomes a matter of works and comes under condemnation.  If it is an _expression_ of faith, a living-out of a salvation which already accepted in faith (analogous to his urging in Phil.2:12?), then law itself is faith and therefore acceptable to God.  (And Mark's celebration of Sabbath is a Good Thing - enjoy!)

 

Paul might be a systematic theologian in the making, but I suspect he hadn't quite got there - we can see the trajectories his thinking is taking, but the inconsistencies are not yet resolved.  that might be our job, in terms of developing our own theology, but we should be cautious about saying the final form is Paul's!

 

Cheers,

Rev Tony Buglass
Superintendent Minister
Upper Calder Methodist Circuit
W Yorks