Ba603 Theology And Religious Studies Assessment Answer

Answer:

Introduction

Saint Paul is undoubtedly a man of huge influence by his approaching letters in Christian churches however, is not to say that everybody regards his influence positively. Paul indeed for some church; is the most important figure on perceived the meaning of the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ within the most energetic and well presented message of the gospel. But also for some Paul identified largely responsible for taken Jewish message of Jesus and corrupting it, turning it to a Greek (‘Hellenistic’) type of religion which Jesus would hardly have recognize, let alone approved.(Horrell,2015,2).  Paul’s letter to the Galatians emphasizes foundational principles central to the development of the early Jesus Movement and those principles demands to understand in particularly, how it worked during the early century know something of the grammar of theological concepts, how God language works. Some of the principles are justification by faith, the law of the gospel, the role of works, the moral laws of the gospel, identity, properly recognized authority, and the sole reliance on Christ as the source of salvation. Therefore since the message to Galatians reached various Jewish communities throughout the Roman world, the question obviously raised as many questions in our understanding, for example what they should do about the book of the Laws (Torah)?  Having believed in Messiah Jesus, should they still keep Torah? Furthermore, what should they do about Gentiles who came to believe in Jesus the Messiah and then should they become circumcised and follow Torah?

Body

In the Eritrean Orthodox Church context Paul recognized one of the great heroes of the church doctrine however from my personal point of view His theology today is still the most perplexing exegesis debate that raises questions and issues in relation to the doctrine of the church such as justification by faith, culture, and the work of laws. The Eritrean Orthodox Church having enormous influence from the Jewish world laws and cultures there obviously the church theology today is also shaped and exercising under this circumstance. The reason I mention this personally I can see how the church suffers from early century and continue to the reformation period and then  even today from the Church point of view there is still arguable and make division between the churches, church leaders and believers understood differently the theology of Paul. For example I do remember in certain villages in my country the Church highly valued and exercising the purity of food and this is obviously taken from the Jewish world within the Torah narrative ‘’ the food of law may be considered to be purity of laws, since forbidden food is called ‘impure’ (e.g. Lev. 11.4)’’ (Sanders,1990,24). Farther more for some churches keeping the tradition in infant male circumcision is applicable Law before the baptism takes place.  

Many of the scholars agree the new perspectives of Paul treatment of the work of Law on Galatians are forced in to crisis by the false teachers, caused objection to the community. In this case Paul himself began in the very beginning of his latter to defend and re-established his apostolic authority and claimed his mission source came, "not from men," but directly from God and Christ. (Galatians, 1:1-5). Paul perspective in Galatians 2 and 3, attempted to warn the Judaism not to seek justified salvation by the work of Law instead of trusting of in God who has sent Grace through Jesus Christ to atone for sins.

In this case the concept of Paul during the reformation period from Luther and Calvin are also agreed that since no one fulfilling the law, all people lived in the condition of sin therefore they insisted legalism is a great posed problem that could merit favour with God by doing the work of good and that means legalism could possibly relying in human effort rather than God. In my opinion, the speculation of Pauline theology of Law seems to me very complicated for example in (Gal.3, Rom.7:1-6) some of text claims the law is abolished and no longer necessary in function in the life of Christians, and that means Christians are free from obligation to fulfil the laws. However yet in another text we found completely to the opposite that the Law still required for Christian’s to obey it (1 Cor. 7-19, Rom. 8:4 and Gal. 5:14).  However E.P. Sanders argued that Paul was not attacking Judaism in Galatians; instead, his polemic was against Christian missionaries who said “that Gentiles must accept the law as a condition of or a basic requirement for membership” (Sanders, 1985 19). The works of Law are essential to maintain standing in the covenant of God. According to Sanders (1991, 84) suggests Paul is no mean to unambiguously negative stance towards his heritage that attacks on the traditional understanding of the covenant and election, but faced a challenge to reconcile the old dispensation and the new, both of which he believed in. Paul’s argument is that the Jewish view of relationship with God is that keeping the covenant law is based only on a previous understanding of relationship with God. ‘’The Judaism of Paul’s day is more aptly described as a form of ‘’ covenantal nomism’’ (Schreiner, 1993, 19).

Hence, it can be seen that the primary problem with the Pauline doctrine is its emphasis on the importance of law from a perspective that should be counted as different from his contemporaries. For some, Paul’s instructions were meant for teaching the Jews the importance of the Book of Law, the Torah, while for some others they were means of making the Jews aware of the fact that no Law is greater than the law of the Almighty and that without believing in God no one can actually have faith in any law. In respect of this scepticism enshrouding the Pauline doctrine (the Galatians), Sanders (1985, p.19) has suggested that it would be erroneous for an individual to consider Paul to be attacking Judaism in Galatians; rather, his message was against those Christian missionaries who mandated acceptance of the law as a criteria for the Gentiles wanting to get membership in the Church. Moreover, in his work, “The “Works of the Law” in Romans and Galatians: A New Defense of the Subjective Genitive,” Owen (2007) has suggested that the Pauline expression, “works of the law,” has triggered debates and scepticism among scholars because; for some scholars the expression is meant for denoting ethnic badges of Jewish identity and superiority and for others it is an expression meant for upholding the sense of obligation to Law more generally conceived. But Owen (2007) has also pointed out that there is a third version of the debate. Some scholars do suggest that the work of Law is actually a means for emphasizing the Law’s activity among humankind since the time when the Law was given to Israel.

Moreover, while some scholars are of the opinion that the Pauline letters are actually embodiments of forgery primarily because; Paul never wrote the letters but someone else did; some other scholars are of the opinion that there is nothing deceitful in the letters and if some other individuals would have written the letters under Paul’s name then also the importance of the messages in the letters remain unaltered and religiously effective (Farnell et al., 2015). Hence, Deutero-Pauline letters are quite acceptable because; as Hagner has observed (as cited in Farnell et al., 2015); “the authority and canonicity of the material is in no way affected by books put into final shape by disciples of the prophets.” Quite interestingly, Owen (2007) has opined that the third point of view on the Pauline doctrine should be highlighted considering its historical validity and logical interpretation. Owen (2007) has argued that, “The emphasis in this turn of phrase would then lie not so much on human failure fully to obey the Law (though that is implied) as on the law’s own inability (owing to the gripping of power of sin) to produce in people a righteousness that can survive before the bar of God’s judgment.” What Owen (2007) believes in respect of ascertaining the nature and attributes of the Pauline doctrine is that, there is a possibility that the “third proposal has considerable merit and is based on a more reliable exegetical basis than any of the other options.”

Besides, at the core of the Pauline doctrine reigns complications, and Sanders (1990) has rightly observed that the doctrine itself is insufficient in explaining before the readers that who really do belong to the Almighty – His followers or the people of His land?  Hinting on the definite dilemma ingrained in Pauline doctrine, Sanders (1990) has pointed out that, “If he was the Messiah or Christ of Israel, would he, at his return, save only those who both accepted him and were Jews in good standing? This question brings us to the central and difficult topic in Galatians and Romans, Paul’s so-called ‘doctrine’ of ‘righteousness by faith’. The inverted commas indicate that neither term is entirely appropriate.” Such ambiguities and dilemmas that are to be observed in the very interpretation of the term ‘righteousness’ by Paul should be highlighted in the context of understanding why still now also debates are going on regarding the actual intention behind the composition of the Pauline doctrine. Sanders (1990) has also pointed out that at some phases one might think that Paul’s doctrine is conveying the message that Jesus would save all the Israelites, but in some other phases of the same discourse one might start thinking that Paul is only trying to relate the Savior and His miracles with the lives of true Christians who have shown faith in the religion and in Him. Such contradictions are the issues which have made the Pauline doctrine more complicates with the passage of time. Moreover, triggering more dilemmas out of the existing dilemma, Luther, as suggested by Sanders (1990), adds to the problem even more. The assumption that Pauline doctrine is meant for conveying the message of salvation only to the Christians is evident in Sanders’ statement that reads, “Luther, plagued by guilt, read Paul’s passages on ‘righteousness by faith’ as meaning that God reckoned a Christian to be righteous even though he or she was a sinner.” But one of the pivotal flaws in the Pauline doctrine has been emphasized by Sanders (1990) who argues that the Christian condition is neither blameless or without blame; rather it exemplifies Paul’s version indicating towards the duality within the concept of human nature – the co-existence of righteousness and sin. As Sanders (1990) has opined, the Pauline doctrine has failed to make the readers understand the truth that humans may be ‘righteous’ in God’s sight, “but a ‘sinner’ in everyday experience.”

Debates over the interpretation of the Pauline doctrine’s actual message have also been instigated by the contradictions that are observable in the Pauline doctrine. In this respect Owen (2007) has observed that, though Paul has argued, on the one hand that the Jewish people stand condemned before God, and, on the other hand, Paul declares the Jews to be the most privileged race as the privilege has always been the grace of the Almighty on them. Such self-contradictory claims have put the Pauline doctrine in more controversies over the years. But quite interestingly while some scholarships have condemned Paul for not being able to justify the purpose of the Law, Owen (2007) has pointed out that such condemnations should be refuted. Owen (2007) states that, justifying the purpose of the Law and focusing on its significance, Paul, in 3:19c has stated that, “it has made the whole world accountable to God for sin.” Owen (2007) has also pointed out that supporting his claim Paul in 3:20a states that “The reason that the law has closed every mouth and made everyone accountable before God for their sin (3:19) is that the Law does not make sinful human beings righteous (3:20a) – in fact, it has the opposite effect furthering their condemnation (3:20b).”

Moreover, there are scholars who suggest that Paul had continued with the ambiguities by continuing to claim that the Law could not save anyone because no one could possibly keep the law perfectly (1985). But such a view has been refuted by Schreiner (1985), who, referring to Sanders, has stated that “Paul did not, according to Sanders, say that the works of the law could not save because no one could possibly keep the law perfectly; there is no convincing evidence that Paul ever though it was impossible to observe the law.” What Schreiner has tried to establish, following the footstep of Sanders, is that; “Paul was hostile to a Torah-centered righteousness only because such an orientation created and preserved a breach between Jews and Gentiles, and it supported the idea that Jews were superior to Gentiles.” Schreiner (1985) has also argued that Paul did not attack the Law but he did attack the Jewish notion of election of justification by law, and this he did to put emphasis on the equality of both the Jews and the Gentiles who are to be equally saved by their faith in Jesus Christ.

Quite interestingly, all the ambiguities related to the Galatian letter can be resolved if only it can be interpreted under the lights of different perspectives. If Sanders’ (1990) argument has to be considered the basis of refuting every opposition to the Pauline doctrine then it must be noted that Paul’s purpose in the Galatians was not to attack Jews or Judaism; rather, he wanted to wage a war against those Christian missionaries, through the work, who made the Law a condition or a mandate that had to be followed by the Gentiles if they wanted to become members of the Church (Schreiner, 1985). As Schreiner (1985) has pointed out; “Paul’s main objection to the position of the Christian missionaries was that they insisted on the observance of circumcision and the Mosaic law for membership in the covenant community. In other words, the letter to the Galatians is first and foremost a discussion on the entry requirement into the people of God.” What must actually be taken into account is the fact that, it is not the Law but the faith in God and not only in the Torah that can pave the way for the entrance of the Gentiles into the world of God (Schreiner, 1985). Moreover, even though it has been argued that Paul has made the Mosaic Law seems inferior by pointing out the inefficiency of humankind in restoring or maintaining the Law; the fact remains that Paul did never condemned or made the Law look inferior; rather, what Paul did try to prove before his readers is that; the Gentiles never required the acceptance of the Law because they were the heir of Abraham and by the dint of their righteousness they were provided with the privilege of entering the world of God (Schreiner, 1985). As Schreiner (1985) has pointed out; “Paul selects certain OT passages for his argument in Galatians 3 because they contain the terms which sustain his view that Gentiles are heirs of Abraham by faith.” It is this faith and not the Law that, according to Paul, would be paving the way for the Gentiles’ entrance to the world of God, but nowhere did Paul mention anything that embodies his alleged intention of making the Law look inferior.

Conclusion

Paul’s letter to the Galatians emphasizes foundational principles central to the development of the early Jesus Movement and those principles demands to understand in particularly, how it worked during the early century know something of the grammar of theological concepts, how God language works. Some of the principles are justification by faith, the law of the gospel, the role of works, the moral laws of the gospel, identity, properly recognized authority, and the sole reliance on Christ as the source of salvation. The primary problem with the Pauline doctrine is its emphasis on the importance of law. For some, Paul’s instructions were meant for teaching the Jews the importance of the Book of Law, the Torah, while for some others they were means of making the Jews aware of the fact that no Law is greater than the law of the Almighty and that without believing in God no one can actually have faith in any law. one of the pivotal flaws in the Pauline doctrine has been emphasized by Sanders (1990) who argues that the Christian condition is neither blameless or without blame; rather it exemplifies Paul’s version indicating towards the duality within the concept of human nature – the co-existence of righteousness and sin. But Schreiner (1985) argued that Paul did not attack the Law but he did attack the Jewish notion of election of justification by law, and this he did to put emphasis on the equality of both the Jews and the Gentiles who are to be equally saved by their faith in Jesus Christ. Hence, it can be argued that, it is this faith and not the Law that, according to Paul, would be paving the way for the Gentiles’ entrance to the world of God, but nowhere did Paul mention anything that embodies his alleged intention of making the Law look inferior.

References

Farnell, F.D., Geisler, N.L., Holden, J.M., Roach, W.C., & Fernandes, P. (Eds.). (2015). Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate.  Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

Owen, P.L. (2007). The “Works of the Law” in Romans and Galatians: A New Defense of the Subjective Genitive. JBL, 126(3), 553-577.

Sanders, E.P. (1990). Paul. New York: Oxford University Press.

Schreiner, T.R. (1985). Paul and Perfect Obedience to the Law: An Evaluation of the View of E. P. Sanders. WTJ, 47(2), 247-279.