Interpretation of Rom. 7...literal or allegorical?

[Jbarrax]

Hi CM. thanks for posting that. Although I think some of the autohr's distinctions are hair-splitting I believe he has a valid point. There are other indictations that Paul's gospel and that of the other apostles were not the same, at least in Paul's mind.

Note Philippians 4:15

quote:

15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.

Paul's departure from Macedonia is recorded in Acts chapter 16. This had to have been several years after the day of Pentecost. Yet Paul refers to that timeframe as "the beginning of the gospel". This indicates that, as far as Paul was concerned, the preaching of the gospel didn't begin until he and Barnabus were annointed as Apostles and sent abroad by God to preach the mystery to the Gentiles.

This brings up an fascinating and somewhat controversial question. What was Paul's opinion of the "gospel" that was preached by the other Apostles? Galatians chapter one indicates that it wasn't very high.

quote:

Galatians 1:6-9

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Well. Any other gospel was anathema. The rest of Galatians indicates that there was another gospel being preached by "those who seemed to be pillars" of the Church, and that it was not in harmony with Paul's gospel. For a detailed and thought-provoking consideration of this issue, take a look at Dave Anderson's book, The Two Ways of the First Century Church

Peace

JerryB

[CM]

Yeah...any other gospel is so limiting that it quenches the Spirit of God. Our freedom to explore and search, accept, reject or reconsider that which has been rejected is ours.

[def59]

What do you suppose this other gospel was?

[Jbarrax]

Hi Def.

Hey are you an expensive TV set?

Sorry, that was a lousy pun.

The context of Galatians indicates that the other gospel Paul referred to was the concept that saved Gentiles needed to be circumcised despite the fact that they had received holy spirit. Paul vigorously rejected that line of thinking. Galatians 5:1-3 summarizes his position thusly;

quote:

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

According to Paul, the "other gospel" was a sneak attack designed to drag believers back into the bondage of the Mosaic law. Part of the reason it had gotten so much traction in Galatia was because it was being advocated by some of the original Twelve Apostles and James the Lord's brother. That's why Paul laid out his case in such dramatic language in the opening of the epistle

quote:

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.(emphasis added)

So the "other gospel" was legalism; specifically circumcision.

Peace

JerryB

[def59]

thanks