the law, the veil, the heart & the spirit



~*~


to be sure
paul does not propose
a distinction between the law pursued
in the right spirit
and the law
perverted

in this
as i have said before
i am completely
convinced

but the parallel denial
that there is no distinction in paul
between the letter and the spirit of the law
does not convince

on the other hand
some precisely distinguish
between two interpretations of pauline
antinomy:

[1]
you are not under the law
but nevertheless you are under a law
the law of christ
which commands love of the neighbor
and

[2]
you are not under the law
but nevertheless you should fulfill it
not by being circumcised
but by loving your
neighbor:

THAT is REAL
fulfillment


~*~



S. argues
that the second is
'by far
the more likely meaning'?]/i]

on the other hand
he is unable in my opinion to explain what it MEANS to fulfill the law
without being circumcised

S. is effectively throwing up his exegetical hands
when he writes with regard to 1 corinthians 9:19-21,
'christians both stand in a right relationship to g*d AND
live in accordance with 'his will,'

BUT [this] is no more thought through in a systematic way than
GAL 5:14 & ROM 8:4.'


~*~


to bridge this gap
I submit that only a
hermeneutic approach
will do,
one that understands
that the law is ONE -
"But the readers
would not understand
that Paul intends by 'law'
in 5:14 AND 6:2
a law which is entirely distinct
from the other one" -
but at the same time
finds a way to relate systematically
between that
which is being affirmed
AND that
which is
being denied
about the law
in Paul?


~*~


MY claim is
that there is ample evidence
throughout the corpus
that what is being affirmed
is the spiritual sense -
the universal law of christ,
of love,
of faith -
and what is being denied
is the literal,
carnal sense -
of Jewish Law of circumcision,
kashruth,
and the Shabbath.



~*~



THIS
solution
is explicitly denied by S.,
who claims that Paul
'does not define christian behavior as keeping
the 'spirit' of the law as distinct from
observing it
literally.'

-

But
Paul does
- as S. himself admits -
draw such a distinction at several
prominent
places!


WHY
should Romans 2:29,
which I have interpreted in detail
in previous stories,
NOT be understood as
proposing precisely THAT
distinction,
whereby "TRUE" circumcision
is a matter of the HEART AND THE SPIRIT
and not of
the
penis?


The Jew
who is one inwardly
and not merely outwardly
would be precisely the one
who is characterized by loving his neighbor
as herself and NOT
by watching what
she eats!


Paul's references
to 'circumcision
NOT made with hands'
also strongly support precisely
this interpretation,
that Paul distinguishes
between the physical and the spiritual interpretations of the Law and affirms the latter
while denying the significance
of the former.


ONCE MORE,
the physical observances
correspond to difference, to the particular,
while the spiritual interpretations
are understood by Paul
to correspond to
sameness,
to
the universal!

~verliefd~
engel

19 jun 2005 - bewerkt op 04 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