Oertijden volkeren leiders/lijders & we in myDiLJ?

~*~


INDEED,
"The law,
for Paul,
is not only
the 'will of "G*D"',
IT IS
'the will of G*D' as revealed
in Jewish Scripture,"
but only,
as S. notes by implication,
AFTER
the veil has been
removed?!


THIS veil
is the carnal veil
that occludes precisely
the spiritual,
INNER
meaning!


In THIS way,
we understand Paul's excision
from the Law
of precisely
THAT
which was particularly Jewish
and thereby
problematic for his project
of the NEW universal
Israel,
without necessitating
an assumption
of either inconsistency or,
worse,
expediency,
as S. is forced to
by his insistence
that "Paul himself offered
no theoretical basis
for the de facto reduction
of the law".


THE
SAME POINT
has been made
in somewhat different terms by W.
S. argues
that Paul's point in Romans 10:5-8 is
that "Moshe was incorrect".
W. is absolutely accurate
in asserting,
"But Moshe could not be
'incorrect'
for Paul!"


THEREFORE,
there must be
a rationally explicable theoretical basis
for his approach
to the Law.


~*~


I hold
that he DID offer
such a basis
and did so, moreover,
over and over again
in his dyads of
spirit/flesh,
spirit/letter and
inner/outer.


S. agrees
that 1 Corinthins 7:19 -
'NEITHER circumcision
NOR uncircumcision,
BUT keeping the commandments
of "G*D"' - is 'one of the most amazing sentences
that he ever
wrote!"


But he
seems to think
that it is possible to interpret Paul without accounting
for that amazing sentence:
"He seems to have 'held together' his native view
that the law is ONE and
given by G*D
and his new conviction
that Gentiles and Jews
stand on
equal footing,
which requires the deletion
of SOME of the law,
by asserting them
both
without theoretical
explanation."


I will
not propose
that everything in Paul
MUST
hang together
OR
that different circumstances
may not EVER
have provoked
somewhat different and partially contradictory
responses,
BUT
I believe that
HERE we CAN supply
a theoretical explanation
that precisely
eliminates SUCH
a gross
contradiction.

~*~


THE POINT
that Paul wishes to make here
is that Christian freedom must not be interpreted as permission
to do EVERYTHING &
ANYTHING.


Paul
already anticipates
the sort of 'misunderstanding' of his gospel
with which he would have to deal in 1 Corinthians.
It would have been easy to misunderstand Paul's railing against the Law
as a claim that there is no Law AT ALL,
but THIS is NOT what Paul
ever meant.


WHAT
he meant is
that there is an outer aspect to the Law,
the 'doing' of the Law,
which was special to the Jewish People alone
and which has been abrogated in "CHRIST",
AND an inner, spiritual aspect of the Law which is for EVERYONE and
which has been fulfilled in Christ and is THUS entirely
appropriately styled as 'the Law of Christ'
[6:2].


THE
'Law of Christ' is
the allegorical, spiritual fulfillment
of the letter of the Law of Moshe,
the Law according to
the flesh.


"FLESH"
has two seemingly opposite
but paradoxically coordinated meanings for Paul;
it is commitment to the literal, outward doing of the Law on the one hand,
and it is sinning through the flesh
on the other.


THESE two
are NOT, of course,
identical, but they are related.
BOTH of them are opposed in some sense to the spirit
which ALONE provides assurance of fulfilling the Law
(THAT is the spiritual referent of the Law,
which is love).


THE
apparent contradictions in Paul
remarked by various commentators are, on THIS interpretation,
entirely illusory!


PAUL's expression HERE
is THUS no more contradictory of itself or of anything else in Paul than
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision NOR uncircumcision is
of ANY avail,
BUT faith
working through
love"

{GAL 5:6}.


PAUL has
in effect taken common sentiments of Judaism
to the effect that the purpose of the whole Torah and its Laws
can be summed up in ONE ethical/spiritual principle
and drawn the logical conclusion
suggested by his allegorical scheme,
namely,
that the spiritual signified CAN replace its literal signifier
COMPLETELY!


THIS, then,
counts for him as fulfilling the Law
while the outward observances are the doing of the Law
also referred to as being
"UNDER the Law."


~*~


GAL 5:14 & 19
are THUS in perfect consequence.
The Christians are not 'without Law',
nor 'under the Law'.
INSTEAD,
they are 'IN the Law of Christ
(1 Corinthians 9:20-21),
which also proves 'under the Law' is in opposition to
"IN the Law of Christ".
THEY are
NOT lawless,
NOR under the Law
{GAL 5:19},
but subject to the Law of Christ,
which ALONE counts as
fulfilling the Law

{GAL 5:14}.


THIS
perspective
helps us solve, as well,
another outstanding problem in Pauline interpretation,
the NATURE of the
"Law of Christ."


IS
the Law of Christ
a reference to Yeshua's ACTUAL teachings
OR NOT?


DOES
"LOGOS" here
mean "law" at all,
OR perhaps only "principle"?
In my view, these questions are obviated,
because the Law of Christ refers to the Law according to the spirit,
the Law of faith working through love,
which enjoins THOSE practices
of agape which Yeshu
ALSO
in his person
taught.


The Law of Christ
IS thus the Law transformed by Christ's crucifixion and exemplified
by his behavior.


Faith and love
without 'doing' are
fulfillment,
while doing without faith and love
is nothing
at all!


Paul
is thus completely
CONSISTENT.


It is THUS
that Paul can say:
"Neither circumcision counts for anything
nor uncircumcision is anything
but keeping
the commandments
of G*D"

(1 Corinthians 7:19).


Rabbinic Jews,
understandably,
reacted quite negatively
to SUCH sentiments?


In
the
following
days & weeks {months?}
I will try to continue close reading of Galatians
with a view to answering the question
of whether Paul's discourse
on the so-called
"curse of the Law"
IS really as anti-Judaic
as it has often been claimed to
by both
Jewish AND Christian
readers.

~verliefd~
engel

19 jun 2005 - bewerkt op 05 mrt 2008 - meld ongepast verhaal
Weet je zeker dat je dit verhaal wilt rapporteren? Ja | Nee
Profielfoto van Asih
Asih, man, 81 jaar
   
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.   vorige volgende