Mike Cline ("Sniper") and I have been meeting this semester to banter about Paul and the law, seeing if we might send off an article somewhere at the end of the game. This is generally what Kevin Wright and I did last year and the current form of that work sits with Catholic Biblical Quarterly being evaluated.
I want to dedicate the next couple of weeks to the seeds of an article I hope to submit this summer. I say seeds because 1) publishers are hesistant to publish things already put in the public eye elsewhere, and the web does count for something and 2) I am embarrassingly behind in my reading on this subject. Having studied under James Dunn you would think I would breathe this stuff. I know a bit but feel like I'm more on oxygen than breathing the stuff.
Paul and the law is an immense subject with a massive literature, everyone at least claiming to make fine distinctions from all the other people. Paul's key verses on the topic all individually have given rise to massively different positions and interpretations. I'm a big picture person, which means that until I can map all this stuff in relation to all the other stuff, I feel like I don't know anything except that my head is going in a thousand different directions.
So let the games begin. Mike and I have decided to focus on Paul's comment in Romans 3:31: "Do we then nullify law through the faith? May it not be! But we establish law."
What law does Paul have in mind here? And how does it relate to Paul's other references to law in his writings? These are our questions...
Next entry: places in Paul's writings where he might be said to "establish law."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
What little I thought I understood about Paul and the law has come under immense doubt this semester. This is not because my time with you has been of little value...quite the contrary. It is simply because Paul is a deep thinking man, with a writing/thinking style that is not easy to follow. Some preliminary thoughts:
(1) Paul is still holding on to his Jewishness in the midst of witnessing to the Gentiles. He does this usually by refering to his opinion that the Law (Jewish) is not void but indeed fruitful.
(2) This Law, however, does not seem to be the same Law that many jews grew up putting their trust in. For instance, circumcision is no longer a huge necessity to Paul (otherwise, Gentiles wouldn't make the "cut." Pun intended). Any law that seems to separate Jew from Gentile is a little less important to Paul that to most Jews of the time.
(3) Paul seems to view a new law, a law of Christ, or a law of Love as the fulfillment of the OT Law. Therefore, he doesn't have to throw out the OT law alltogether, he just seems to amend it a bit. This allows for both Jew and Gentile to still be relevant to the law. The Jews have established the OT law (and this is ok), but there is something more. Whereas the Gentile, having never established any grip in the OT Law have to answer to a new law, a higher law (which the Jews are accountable for also.)
(4) In this logic, it seems that to Paul, a Jew has much more responsibility now. It's almost like he is saying at times: "Ok, you started the Jewish law, so keep at it. But on top of that, check out this new law of Christ. Stop telling the Gentiles they need your old stuff, they can get in with the new law. But you, you have to keep both."
This would be the time that the rest of the world reads this blog and tells me how off I am.
wow, that's an interesting point of view. Ain't ne'er heard that one afore.
my previous comment is not showing up. I am thoroughly confused
You mean the one above?
yeah, nevermind. What are you doing writing? I hear you are in bad shape man. Take a break, we can do this later.
Post a Comment