Ten/twenty years after ...

~*~

Conference
in Yerushalayim:
confrontation in Antioch
{GAL 2:1-2:14} ...
-
The famous
& notoriously difficult reports
of Paul's two face-to-face confrontations with the leaders
of "Jewish Christianity"
must be understood in the light of an overall construction
of Pauline thinking.
-
The CRUX
of the matter,
to my mind, is the question of when {or indeed whether}
Paul argued that circumcision and observance of such commandments
as the laws of kashruth were abrogated not only for ethnic gentiles
but for ethnic Jews
as well.
-
I suggest
that for the logic of Paul's theology,
which was complete in its entirety from the first moment of his revelation,
there was not the slightest importance to the observance of such rites
for Jews or gentiles.
-
This does not mean,
however, that such observances and their historical meanings are coded by Paul as "BAD."
They are simply lower on the hierarchy of values and THUS sacrificeable to
a higher cause.
-
My interpretation
is somewhat different in nuance from that of others,
who write f.i.: 'Nevertheless, although the universalism that we have noticed was implicit in the depth of Paul's experience of "G*D" in Mashiach
from the first, its explicit formulation in thought was a slow process,
and its strict logical expression in life
was never achieved.'
-
THEY
further regard
the "inconsistencies" of Paul as engendered by
unresolved personal conflict: 'In fact, both in life & thought,
the Book of Acts & the Epistles of paul reveal a conflict between the claims
of the old Israel after the flesh and the new Israel after the spirit,
between his "nationalism" & his christianity.
IT IS, indeed, from this tension that there arose most of the inconsistencies that have puzzled interpreters of Paul;
and it is only in the light
of the Judaism of the first century A.D.
that this is to be
understood."
-
I would argue
that Paul's "universalism" was complete from the first moment, and that Galatians, one of the earliest of his letters, demonstrates this.
On the other hand, his dual valorization of both spirit and body did not allow him to discount entirely the claims of the literal, physical Israel according to the body?
-
I will make
a similar case again vis-a-vis gender also.
In my view, the tension is not a rsidue of unresolved inner conflict in Paul
so much as a necessary tension of his ontology, hermeneutics, and
anthropology - even his christology - which are, for me,
strongly parallel.
-
OWING, therefore, to Paul's conviction
that literal observance was merely irrelevant, being only in the flesh
(i.e., it was not sinful striving for works-righteousness a la Lutheran tradition), he was willing to allow Jews to continue observing such commandments if they chose to, until such observance conflicted with the fundamental meaning and message of the gospel as Paul understood it, namely, the constitution of all of the Peoples of the world
as the NEW Israel!
-
Paul says as much
when he writes in 1 Corinthians 7:19
that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything?!
The practices themselves are adiaphora; it is their interference
with the one-ness of the NEW Israel
that disturbs the apostle.
-
The two most obvious such conflicts possible
would be any attempt to suggegst to gentiles that in order to be full members of the People of "G*D" they MUST OBSERVE the commandments of the Law, such as circumcision and the rules of kashruth,
or any observance on the part of Jewish Christians which would lead
to a social split and hierarchal structure for the relations between
ethnic Jews and gentiles within the Church, THUS defeating
Paul's whole purpose.
-
In the light of this consideration
I think we can read the accounts of Yerushalayim & Antioch confrontations
with Pete & his associates.
-
AT STAKE
at the Yerushalayim conference
was the first of the two possible threats
to the integrity of Paul's gospel, namely, the claim of the Jewish Christians
that gentiles MUST be circumcised (which alone counts as conversion to Judaism) in order to join
the People of "G*D".
-
YIELDING or losing
THIS point would, indeed,
have resulted in his having run in vain,
just as losing the analogous point now with the Galatians
would also result in his and their having run in vain (cf. 3:4),
because the whole content of Paul's gospel,
as I have understood it,
is that physical observances
that constitute the physical Israel as the People of "G*D"
have been transmuted AND
fulfilled in the allegorical signification in the spirit,
thereby constituting the faithful gentiles
as Israel in the spirit.
-
THIS is why
it is absolutely vital for Paul
that he prove that he has not given in on the question of circumcision
as a conversion ritual and requirement, and the ocular proof of Titus's
uncircumcision makes that point as no other could:
"YET not even Titus who was with me
was compelled to be
circumcised!"
(GAL 2:3).
-
What they WERE
makes no difference to me,
"G*D" does not show
partiality!
#
verliefd
engel
09 jun 2005 - bewerkt op 03 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