Elijah

Hi,

Could you expand a little on this or throw me a link to someone who does.

Rick Sumner

The contrast is perhaps best summed up by loosely paraphrasing E P Sanders. In Galatians one walks away with the impression that Paul's problem with Judaism is that, well, it is Judaism. I don't think that best represents Paul's thoughts, but it is certainly a justifiable impression to draw from Galatians.

In Romans Paul's problem with Judaism isn't that Judaism is bad, it's that it's not Christianity. Judaism has been supersceded.

For perhaps the best example, Paul's stance on the benefits of circumcision has been somewhat softened in Romans. He still doesn't want the convert circumcised. But in Galatians Paul's position is that there is no real need for circumcision at all anymore. For anyone. God's promise is carried out through Christ equally to the circumcised and uncircumcised.

In Romans that position has changed somewhat. He answers the obvious response to his Galatians argument: Why have the circumcision in the first place? The benefit is "much in every way," and the entire thing is all part of God's very intricate plan. God will keep his promise to the circumcised, because they are circumcised.

In Galatians Paul goes so far as to liken following the Law to Paganism (4.8-10). Do you think he could send that church an epistle like Romans on the heels of that? Do you think a church who had a copy of Galatians in their hands would be able to reconcile Romans, esp. Rom.9-11, with his epistle to Galatia?

For the record, I do not actually think Paul fully rejects the Law at all. He ultimately rejects Judaism because it is not Christianity, but I suspect Paul thinks Judaism will inevitably lead to Christianity, when God so wills it. I suspect Galatians is probably more Paul the rhetor than Paul the theologian, but whether his devices are rhetorical or literal, the fact remains that he is giving a much different message.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Elijah

I’m sorry, I’m not sure what this actually means. Maybe you could give me the specific examples/scripture used to show the differing ideology? His problem with Judaism is that it’s “Judaism” or it’s “bad” is really vague in explaining his position.
Looks like the same basic concept to me he’s pushing. Both are about the value of faith which Abraham was an example of having. In Romans the circumcision was an outward sign but it was still faith that was the key ingredient for salvation/god’s approval. I don’t think there any need for an actual circumcision in either.

Romans 4:11, 4:9-12 Gal 3:18

I couldn’t find where the circumcision itself was part of God’s plan or that it’s necessary for his promise with them to be kept.
I don’t know if Galatians 4:8-10 is likening following the Law to Paganism. I could see an interpretation of “elemental principals” being a play on pagan gods or also a knock against following a material nature. But him relating following the law to Paganism seems like a stretch to me.

Is there reason to believe they had a copy of the Galatians letter in Rome when he sent the Romans letter?
I wouldn’t go as far as him rejecting the law but both writers don’t think it’s necessary for salvation. Ga;2:15-16, 5:4-6 Rom 10:4, 10:9-10.

When you say he rejects Judaism do you mean he rejects their rejection of Jesus or something more like obedience to the law?

Rick Sumner

This starts to look like it should maybe have it's own thread. . .just a suggestion, if a moderator is so inclined.

In Galatians Paul can't give any usefulness for the circumcision. Or rather, if he can, he doesn't. The only way in is faith in Jesus Christ. In Romans, (see esp. 9-11) Paul has all kinds of use for it.

When Paul is writing to the Romans he explains why God would give the Law--almost an apologetic of sorts for his rant in Galatia. Israel--the circumcision--is still chosen. All will be saved by faith in the end, but Israel will have that faith later. Not by choice, as the Gentiles may have it, but because God wills it.

It's not Paul's stance on the "new Israel" that's changed. It's his stance on the "old" Israel.

Paul hasn't changed his mind about whether or not his converts should take the circumcision. And he hasn't changed his mind about whether or not one "gets in" by faith. He's changed his mind about Israel. Israel will be saved. Simply because they are Israel.

What promise do you think Paul has in mind in Romans 11 if not the covenant? The circumcision is the covenant. It is the promise Paul is talking about. That God has chosen Israel, and Israel is definied by the circumcision. It's not simply "necessary for the promise," it is the promise.

Paul's position, laid out in Romans 11, is essentially this: God chose Israel. But before he saves Israel, he also wishes to save the Gentile. To save the Gentile, he needed to harden Israel's hearts, so that Gentiles would turn to God. Once the "fulness" is reached, God will turn Israel to Jesus, and "so all Israel shall be saved." (11.26)

The question of why Paul has changed his tone probably has many answers, all of which affected him to varying degrees. But I don't think there can be much doubt that the tone has changed.

I'm not sure how you can get anything else out of it. You used to worship false Gods (v.8). Then you left those false Gods, but are still enslaved by the same practices (v.9) Don't you see the hypocrisy of this (v.10-11)

If he's not comparing the convert practicing Judaism with the convert practicing Paganism, how exactly has he "wasted his time" bringing them from false gods? (v.11)

I'm not sure that he could be comparing the two much more explicitly. It's the climax of his argument. No doubt intended to be as shocking as it sounds now. The build-up is wasted if he's just comparing "elemental principles."

I think you're mixing up who is arguing what. Jake has suggested that the recipents of the letter to the Romans must have deep familiarity with Pauline doctrine. I'm suggesting they don't--they can't, because Romans' argument wouldnt' work.

So no, I doubt very much they had a copy.

I'd venture that "both" writers are named Paul.

But no, he does not think the circumcision is necessary for salvation. He thinks the circumcised will be saved. They will not be saved because they choose to be, as the Gentile will. They will be saved because they are chosen to be. The election stands in Romans in a sense it doesn't in Galatians.

He sees the circumcision as a sort of in-between step. The new convert gets to skip that. He doesn't need the election. That is the fundamental difference between Romans and Galatians. In Galatians, there's no point to getting the circumcision because it's a "curse." In Romans, there's no point to getting the circumcision, because God has offered something better.

Though, for the record, I think we are loathe to equate Pauline rhetoric at Galatia with Pauline theology. I also, however, think we're loathe to read Romans back into Galatia. Romans represents a more developed, more mature soteriology. It doesn't fit his letter to Galatia.

Paul thinks that, at least at that juncture in history, Israel has been elected to fail.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Elijah

Not trying to be difficult but specific citation please. I’m not seeing what you are talking about. The only purpose I see him making for circumcision is that it’s to show that it has no purpose and that true circumcision is of the heart. Rom 2:29

He had room to expand on the ideas in Romans but I’m not sure what you see as the ideological contradiction.
Some references that show this change of mind please or it simply being because they are Israel.
The actual circumcision is an arbitrary superficial mark that descended down from a particular man of faith who believed in a promise from god. The covenant wasn’t established with the cutting of flesh but with faith in a promise. Paul goes on to show that the true descendents of that man are people of faith not people that are actually circumcised. Paul is trying to establish that god’s elect are of a faithful/spiritual type not an earthly clan who descended from a man of faith. Gal 3:38-29 Rom 4:12 10:12
I think the position he is making is that God chose a man of particularly strong faith whose descendants were given a mark as a sign of that faith. Now the actual cutting isn’t where the covenant is established but the faith in the promise is what defines the act. (Rom 4:10-11) Nor do those with the circumcision represent the elect or children of the promise but only those with the same kind of faith that Abraham had are. (Rom 4:10-11, 9:8) And that this same kind of faith can be found in the Gentiles who believe in Christ to help show the Jews the mistake of following the Law instead of realizing that their covenant is actually established by faith. (Rom 4:22-24) Gal 3:22-29

The tone may have changed but I thought it was ideological differences we were after?
I think the Jews worshiping false gods in their past is known but comparing the following of the Law to worshiping a false god I’m unfamiliar with. Maybe the OT god being a false god demiurge type figure but that’s not what he is talking about there. I could also see a Hellenized Jew calling the Jewish Law a type of daemon but again that doesn’t seem to be what is going on there either. It’s seems to be either complaining about the idolatry in the Jewish culture/past or the materialistic nature of people in general coming from a platonic dualist/gnostic perspective.
Sorry, I thought the church that would have the problem reconciling the letter was the Roman church.

What do you mean the Romans’ argument wouldn’t work?
Well everyone gets saved in the end but faith is required by all parties. I’m not sure what you mean by the “election stands” statement and sorry to be a jerk but some citation for that choose vs chosen dichotomy.
Relying on works of the law is the curse in Galatians. You could say that circumcising yourself because you believe it’s a law means you’re under a curse but I’m not sure about the circumcision itself being a curse but maybe I missed something. Both texts are antinomianistic(sp) just Romans is more expansive on the problems with following the law. In neither text is circumcision now of benefit. In Romans he elaborates on what good has come from the act though by showing it’s just superficial.
It seems to fit for me. This is a pretty particular ideology he has and a very specific religious reformation they are trying to achieve. I’m still unsure of what you consider the actual ideological differences between the two. If it’s the same writer it looks just like the main difference is he had to write Galatians himself and was briefer and had someone else to write Romans so he could elaborate more at length after time to further develop his argument.
So Paul has no ideological problems wish Judaism, it’s just their rejection of Jesus as the Christ is their failure?