The purpose of this thread is to explore what I have called "the Hellenistic reading" of Paul. By this I mean those scholarly approaches that see Paul as essentially holding to a Hellenistic ontology, and which seek to understand his thought in that context. I hold to this view, and I want to discuss it with both critics and sympathizers to it. I invite all, whether Christians, atheists, agnostics, mythic Jesusers, or whoever, to participate. Because my time is limited I may not be able to respond to every point, but that's OK, post away as many ideas as you can.

One constraint: I would request that the discussion focus only upon the universally accepted Pauline canon, namely, these 7 books: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galations, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians. While there might be many Twebbers who feel that Paul wrote the other books in the NT attributed to him, I do not want to be derailed by that argument here. You are welcome to participate in this discussion whatever your view on the questions of authorship, but please try to argue your case regarding Paul's views from the 7 books listed above. To put this another way: any attack on the Hellenistic reading of Paul that appeals primarily to the deutero-Pauline books will be unconvincing to modern scholars, so if you want your case to stand up in general terms, base it on these 7 books.

For the record, I will state my own position clearly straight up:

(a) I am an orthodox Christian (I believe in the trinity, hypostatic union, and so forth).

(b) I do not hold to inerrancy in its classical evangelical form. I do not believe that Paul was an orthodox Christian in our terms, or that he believed the trinity, or so forth. I do not believe that anyone believed the trinity as we know it prior to the 3rd century. I do not believe that Paul wrote other than the 7 books listed above. This, of course, raises all sorts of theological questions in relation to my orthodoxy, but I do not wish to address those questions here. Let me suffice to say that I do not believe that Paul's opinion on theological matters should govern our views on such matters, and that I think that God could speak prophetically through Paul in his writing without him being aware of it, and even when the ideas he himself was expressing were wrong. In short, I think there is a deeper, mystical sense to scripture. But that debate is for another day.

For this thread, I want to concentrate not on theology, but on the historical question of what Paul actually thought, what he was saying in his historical context. How we might integrate that into broader theological concerns, if we should choose to do so, is not something I want to deal with here.

OK. So much for the intro. Now I want to make a brief background argument on why the claim that Paul might have been a Hellenist should not be rejected on a priori grounds. Many who criticize the Hellenistic Paul approach, it seems to me, do so an the a priori basis that as a Jewish Pharisee, he would not have had a Hellenistic worldview, but a Jewish one. So let us deal with that issue briefly.

Paul, as far as we know, was born in Tarsus. Tarsus was a Greek-speaking and thoroughly Hellenistic city in modern Turkey. Paul was not a Palestinian Jew, unlike the other apostles. His first language was almost certainly Greek. He probably learnt the OT mainly from the LXX, at least until he began his Rabbinic studies. Paul claims to have been a Pharisee, and I see no reason to disbelieve this (although some scholars have questioned it), but I also see no reason to automatically assume that he therefore adopted the worldview of Palestinian Jews. His mission interests were to the Gentiles, not the Jews, and this suggests some natural affinity with them. Furthermore, history is littered with examples of people who were raised in one particular religious or ethnic environment, but who later in life became enamoured of another culture altogether and adopted it as their own. I could mention, off the top of my head, the German author Herman Hesse, who adopted Hinduism. We have little information about Paul's education and reading, or where he spent most of his life prior to his conversion, but it is absolutely quite possible that he was thoroughly versed in Hellenistic thinking, and familiar with Hellenistic religion. On occasions he quoted the Greek poets. In short, there is just no reason to assume on an a priori basis that his thought-world must have been Jewish. We have to go to the texts.

This is an enormous area and I am a bit at a loss how to start out. Perhaps I could do so as follows. What does the Hellenistic reading of Paul claim about his theology? In general, it claims as follows:

(a) He held to a thoroughly dualistic ontology, which saw reality as divided into an earthly, material realm of the flesh, which was (in general terms) "evil" - the visible realm; and a spiritual, heavenly realm, which was (in general terms) "good" - the invisible realm. However, there had been some "admixture" of the two, so that in the lower heavens there were "evil spirits", and in the earthly realm, there were "good humans". He also believed in a hierarchical set of levels to the heavens and the earth (hence his reference to visiting the "third heaven"). All of this was thoroughly Hellenistic and quite standard fare for the times, shared by many of the mystery religions and so forth. Hence:

"For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another"

"As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly"

"the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal"

Many other verses could be cited - too many in fact to list here. It should be noted that evangelicals will be used to reading verses which refer to the "flesh" in a non-literal manner, meaning "sinful nature" or something like that. Indeed, the NIV often translates the Greek word for flesh, sarx, as "sinful nature". Those who hold to the Hellenistic Paul view would regard this as a gross mis-translation (I think it is one very good reason not to use the NIV, the prime example of its theological bias). When Paul says flesh, he means actual flesh, as is illustrated by verses such as 1 Cor. 15:39 - read it in context.

(b) He saw Jesus Christ as a spiritual counterpart to the earthly Adam, the firstborn of creation, but no as God. He was a "heavenly Adam":

"The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven"

(c) Christ was not truly a human, but only appeared to be such (docetism). Christ was a spiritual counterpart to the human Adam; he was the "heavenly man" as opposed to the "earthly man".

(d) Christ as a historical figure is irrelevant and unimportant:

"Therefore from now on we recognize no man according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer"

This is why there is very little reference to actual history - to Jesus' life or his teachings - in his theology.

(e) He believed in resurrection into a "spiritual body", not a physical or earthly body. We become transformed from an earthly body (like Adam) into a spiritual body (like Christ); we cross-over from the realm of the earthly to the realm of the heavenly. At first he thought this would happen in a general resurrection of the righteous at the end of the age; but Paul was generally uninterested in historical eschatology and gradually came to the position that spiritual resurrection happened immediately upon death.

(f) Salvation occurs by participation in Christ's death and resurrection, and thereby escaping from the realm of the flesh into the realm of the spirit.

(g) The Old Testament was to be interpreted in terms of a deeper meaning, not the plain sense.

"the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life"

(h) The Jews, by reading the OT literally, came into bondage to the flesh, and are the earthly Jerusalem. Believers are set free in the spirit by a mystical, non-literal reading of the OT, and are the heavenly Jerusalem. The two covenants are the earthly and the heavenly. The law is bad because it is of the earthly covenant, and brings death.

Anyway, that's something to start from. Perhaps I should stop now and invite comments/objections? Then we can from there.

Great thread. Thanks for the detailed and informative post. I agree with a whole lot of what you've laid out but have some comments and contention I'll lay out here.

Originally posted by Rupert Pupkin

(c) Christ was not truly a human, but only appeared to be such (docetism). Christ was a spiritual counterpart to the human Adam; he was the "heavenly man" as opposed to the "earthly man".

But Paul calls him "Man." It seems natural to take it literally. I'm not saying Christ doesn't transcend normal man....

Originally posted by Rupert Pupkin

(d) Christ as a historical figure is irrelevant and unimportant:

"Therefore from now on we recognize no man according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer"

This is why there is very little reference to actual history - to Jesus' life or his teachings - in his theology.

This I think is too far. Paul had other objectives than to detail the history of Jesus' life. IMO, his teachings are pretty close to Jesus. Soteriologically, both focused on identifying with Jesus in following Him in His death, in faith or faithfulness.

Off hand, IMO, that verse in 2Cor. means that we have a supernatural understanding of Jesus beyond being a historical figure, into being the Point of Origin for New Creation. Not that Christ was spiritualized by Paul beyond how Jesus viewed Himself. Christ as a historical figure backs Paul up IMO. Jesus was pretty mystically oriented when He spoke about Himself and His powers.

Originally posted by Rupert Pupkin

(e) He believed in resurrection into a "spiritual body", not a physical or earthly body. We become transformed from an earthly body (like Adam) into a spiritual body (like Christ); we cross-over from the realm of the earthly to the realm of the heavenly. At first he thought this would happen in a general resurrection of the righteous at the end of the age; but Paul was generally uninterested in historical eschatology and gradually came to the position that spiritual resurrection happened immediately upon death.

Yes, not an earthly body, but not physical? I question that. It think it's clear that the spiritual body transcends physicality but it seems to be quite physical.

In 1 Cor. 15, Paul's emphasis and triumphal dogmatic assertions about the resurrection at specifically the last trumpet, make me seriously doubt that he ever changed his view to the resurrection occuring right at death..., though I am aware of this tension with Phillipians.

I don't see any lack of interest in a historical eschatology in Paul? Romans 8b for instance shows his triumph in it.

Originally posted by Rupert Pupkin

(f) Salvation occurs by participation in Christ's death and resurrection, and thereby escaping from the realm of the flesh into the realm of the spirit.

Amen to that. How do you think Paul envisions that we participate in Christ's death and resurrection?

Originally posted by Rupert Pupkin

(g) The Old Testament was to be interpreted in terms of a deeper meaning, not the plain sense.

"the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life"

It seems that Judaism offered some wild interpretations of the OT themselves and Paul's hermeneutic was similar if not much more tame than what was common. I cannot defend this, just something I've come across.

Paul did see the letter of the law as a killer, but it was intended to do this and it is "good", so the issue is more complex than a correct method of hermeneutics. The law was a deceitful but good thing, which worked to lead people to look deeper. It worked this way in my life aswell.

Originally posted by Rupert Pupkin

(h) The Jews, by reading the OT literally, came into bondage to the flesh, and are the earthly Jerusalem. Believers are set free in the spirit by a mystical, non-literal reading of the OT, and are the heavenly Jerusalem. The two covenants are the earthly and the heavenly. The law is bad because it is of the earthly covenant, and brings death.

I basically agree. But the law is not bad, it is just insufficient. It can't give life. Paul was very faithful to tying up the OT in a neat bow. He didn't just reject it's literal interpretation.

Because Paul's thought resembles Hellenism in some ways, atleast in wording, explanations..., and even some concepts, does this mean that it is not the truth of God, but Paul's own overly wordly opinions, influenced by the worldviews of Greek philosophers? So then we must instead quest for a deeper meaning which has escaped the Greek culture in which the NT was written? I don't agree with that. Actually I see most of the New Testament, including Paul, but not limited to him, in these same,"Hellenistic" or semi-Hellenistic ways. I cannot separate them from New Testament Scriptures without ending up with nothing left afterwards but a bunch of OT quotations.

Scholarship is onto something good because they are starting to see Paul more and more naturally, as he thought and wrote. Yet they must not limit him into being a Christologizer of Greek Philosphy. I seek to be a Biblical thinker myself but most often my explanations, illustrations, etc..., are bathed in my culture... far beyond escape. It would be natural and wise for Paul to use Hellenistic illustrations and thought structures in evangelizing Gentiles. To tie in the positive ideas of the Gentile culture in with His own gospel, which was truly rooted in the OT, and in Christ's words themselves. Paul quotes heavily from the Old Testament and he's thoroughly Jewish. He can best be understood within his Hellenistic Jewish culture, but his viewpoints are not exclusively determined by either.

Originally posted by Rupert Pupkin

Anyway, that's something to start from. Perhaps I should stop now and invite comments/objections? Then we can from there.

Thanks again for the great thread.

God bless, Benjamin

Originally posted by whipartist

But Paul calls him "Man." It seems natural to take it literally. I'm not saying Christ doesn't transcend normal man....

The problem with this argument, is that Paul explicitly contrasts an "earthly man" and a "heavenly man" (1 Cor. 15:47). In both cases he uses the word ANQRWPOS. In short, Paul seems to think that there are two different beings, both of which are "man"; there is a heavenly archetype, and there is an earthly copy. It is this dualism with respect to the term "man", that completely undermines such arguments I think.

Originally posted by whipartist

This I think is too far. Paul had other objectives than to detail the history of Jesus' life. IMO, his teachings are pretty close to Jesus. Soteriologically, both focused on identifying with Jesus in following Him in His death, in faith or faithfulness.

I disagree. The lack of any reference much to Jesus' life and teachings is crucial. It is a silence that speaks volumes. We know that other, later segments of early Christianity - those that produced the gospels for instance - placed central importance on Jesus' life and teachings. It is implausible to suggest that Paul, if he were in a similar theological position, would not refer more often in his voluminous writings to Jesus' teachings. For instance, why not refer to his ethical teachings when Paul is dealing with ethical matters such as marriage? Why not say, "Just as Jesus taught us about marriage ..., and so ..."? The absence doesn't make sense - unless Paul himself was not interested, for whatever reason, in Jesus' earthly life.

And I think that a huge gulf seperates Pauline Christianity from the synoptic gospels. They are completely different. Mark is adoptionist; Matthew is proto-orthodox, and Luke-Acts are ecumenical. The gospel of John represents a "third stream" in early Christian thought, which has some affinity with Paul, but also proto-orthodoxy.

I think we should consider the "political" aspects of all this. Paul, remember, claimed apostolic authority, even sufficient to challenge Peter, but he had never actually met Jesus. He had only had visions of the risen Christ. This might put him at a severe disadvantage with respect to apostles like Peter who had actually been with Jesus. In the minds of ordinary people, wouldn't someone who had spent three years with Jesus be superior to someone who had never met him? In order to combat this "inferiority complex", if you like, it would be natural for Paul to emphasize the spiritual reality of Christ that he had experienced in visions, and downplay the importance of the historical Christ. It's like he is saying, "well, Peter might have known Jesus historically, but that knowledge is irrelevant and unimportant; I have the "real deal", the secret, hidden knowledge of the heavenly Christ".

Originally posted by whipartist

Off hand, IMO, that verse in 2Cor. means that we have a supernatural understanding of Jesus beyond being a historical figure, into being the Point of Origin for New Creation. Not that Christ was spiritualized by Paul beyond how Jesus viewed Himself. Christ as a historical figure backs Paul up IMO. Jesus was pretty mystically oriented when He spoke about Himself and His powers.

This gets to the heart of the matter - the meaning of "according to the flesh" (KATA SARKA). How much hangs upon this! I would argue that this phrase means "according to visible appearances", or "from the perspective of the material realm". In this case, 2 Cor. 5:16 is definitely saying that we should not know Christ as he appeared in history, as he seemed to be in the material realm. And that fits well with Paul's lack of interest in Jesus as a historical figure. It also fits well with what he is saying about believers - we ought not to look on them as they appear to us, but as they "really are" in the invisible realm, where "all things are made new" (see the context).

Originally posted by whipartist

Yes, not an earthly body, but not physical? I question that. It think it's clear that the spiritual body transcends physicality but it seems to be quite physical.

In 1 Cor. 15, Paul's emphasis and triumphal dogmatic assertions about the resurrection at specifically the last trumpet, make me seriously doubt that he ever changed his view to the resurrection occuring right at death..., though I am aware of this tension with Phillipians.

I think this is one of the most implausible aspects of the orthodox reading of Paul. In 1 Corinthians 15, he sharply distinguishes the earthly and the spiritual, and explicitly states that the resurrection body we will receive is not the body we presently have (verse 37), and explains this by highlighting the different kinds of bodies - some of flesh, some of heaven. He explicitly states:

"Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable".

This seems to me pretty conclusive. Paul does not believe that the resurrection body is physical.

As for a development in his eschatology, this is a pretty common scholarly view, and is mainly based on a comparison of his teaching in 2 Corinthians (especially chapter 5) with his earlier teaching. But it is a side issue; it is interesting, as it shows a slight progression in a gnostic direction if true, but it is not essential to the Hellenistic reading.

Originally posted by whipartist

I don't see any lack of interest in a historical eschatology in Paul? Romans 8b for instance shows his triumph in it.

But what you will never find, anywhere, in Paul, is any description of end-times historical events, of the kind you find elsewhere in great detail in the New Testament (e.g. rise of antichrist, abomination of desolation and temple destruction, great tribulation). This is what I mean by a lack of interest in historical eschatology. There is just the resurrection of the righteous, that is it.

Originally posted by whipartist

Amen to that. How do you think Paul envisions that we participate in Christ's death and resurrection?

By being transformed from earthly bodies into spiritual bodies, from earthly men into heavenly men, by escaping the material realm.

Originally posted by whipartist

Paul did see the letter of the law as a killer, but it was intended to do this and it is "good", so the issue is more complex than a correct method of hermeneutics. The law was a deceitful but good thing, which worked to lead people to look deeper. It worked this way in my life aswell.

This is an important point. Although he was a forerunner of gnosticism, it is not true to call Paul a gnostic. Perhaps we could call him a proto-gnostic. In any case, he did not believe that the material realm was created by an inferior deity, and he did not believe that the OT was inspired by an inferior deity. Everything was created by the one, true, God.

What are we to make of the evil, material realm, then? I think Romans 9 provides us with help:

"Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?"

Paul is here reflecting proto-neoplatonism. Indeed, it is the very fact that Paul has assumed underlying concepts (perhaps via Philo) that came to be expressed most clearly in 3rd-century neoplatonism, that Augustine, who was quite explicitly a neoplatonist, finds so much in common with Paul. Paul believed that God, in order to fully "realize his potential" so to speak, had to create a PLHRWMA or fulness of being. This means that he is like a mad artist, who wants to include absolutely everything in his paintings. Paul believes in "the great chain of being". This necessitates that God create "bad" things as well as "good" things, in order that the fulness of being might be realized. The material realm is created by God for destruction, the spiritual realm for glory. The act of creation is seen somewhat in terms of emanation, rather than creatio ex nihilo, although Paul's view is kind of a middle ground on this point I think.

Originally posted by whipartist

Because Paul's thought resembles Hellenism in some ways, atleast in wording, explanations..., and even some concepts, does this mean that it is not the truth of God, but Paul's own overly wordly opinions, influenced by the worldviews of Greek philosophers? So then we must instead quest for a deeper meaning which has escaped the Greek culture in which the NT was written? I don't agree with that. Actually I see most of the New Testament, including Paul, but not limited to him, in these same,"Hellenistic" or semi-Hellenistic ways. I cannot separate them from New Testament Scriptures without ending up with nothing left afterwards but a bunch of OT quotations.

I do see scripture as the truth of God, but I just think that God spoke through the writers of scripture in ways that they did not understand, imbuing their words with a deeper meaning that requires a different hermeneutic to expose. So I do see all of Paul's writings as theologically valuable, but only when read in a more "esoteric" manner. And like you, I don't see any problem with Greek influence; I think much in Greek philosophy was good and God could incorporate it into his teaching.

Thank you for your comments!

Excellent OP, this should make for an interesting thread. I have just one nit to pick though...

Originally posted by Rupert Pupkin

One constraint: I would request that the discussion focus only upon the universally accepted Pauline canon, namely, these 7 books: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galations, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians.

You've listed six titles. I think I know which other one you wish to include but for clarification's sake you may want to mention it (I don't want to assume).

Originally posted by rogue06

You've listed six titles. I think I know which other one you wish to include but for clarification's sake you may want to mention it (I don't want to assume).

Thanks for pointing that out, rogue6! The additional book, of course, is Philemon. It's a little book and doesn't shed much light on these matters, but it should be in there, of course!

Thanks for your response and clarification. I probably want to get into some other aspects later when I have more time, but with the time I have now I'm mainly interested in the below point.

Originally posted by Rupert Pupkin

By being transformed from earthly bodies into spiritual bodies, from earthly men into heavenly men, by escaping the material realm.

I understand what you're saying but I'm saying, pragmatically, practically, how is it that we participate in Christ? What do we have to do? Is this union present through the Holy Spirit? Does it involve imitation, baptism? Or is it a reference entirely to a future eschatological destination? In Romans 6, Paul ties it in with obedience. So how does this relate?

Also, is New Creation a present reality in a Christian's life or is it simply a destiny which is surely coming?

In not recognizing Christians according to the flesh, is Paul saying, similar to the gnostics, and John MacArthur's interpretation of 1Jn. 3:9, that we ignoring the real sinfulness of their lives in favor of some inner perfection we have faith in?

Originally posted by whipartist

I understand what you're saying but I'm saying, pragmatically, practically, how is it that we participate in Christ? What do we have to do? Is this union present through the Holy Spirit? Does it involve imitation, baptism? Or is it a reference entirely to a future eschatological destination? In Romans 6, Paul ties it in with obedience. So how does this relate?

In my opinion, Paul envisages the believer as being in a "half-way state" between the material and the spiritual realms. That is why the spirit wars against the flesh in their lives. The spirit is alive, but the flesh is not yet dead. At the resurrection we cast off the flesh forever. Ethical imitation of Christ's life is important because it, so to speak, "strengthens" the spirit, whereas if one does evil, it "strengthens" the flesh. Paul thinks it is possible to lose one's salvation, so it is important to continue to nourish the spirit and starve the flesh.

Originally posted by whipartist

Also, is New Creation a present reality in a Christian's life or is it simply a destiny which is surely coming?

Yes, it is a reality; the spirit has been made alive. But, unfortunately, the flesh is not yet dead. So we continue in a half-way state.

Originally posted by whipartist

In not recognizing Christians according to the flesh, is Paul saying, similar to the gnostics, and John MacArthur's interpretation of 1Jn. 3:9, that we ignoring the real sinfulness of their lives in favor of some inner perfection we have faith in?

No, I don't think so. I think Paul is saying that our minds constitute a battleground between the "good" spirit, which we receive when we believe, and the "evil" flesh, which we inherit from Adam. Our duty is to choose the spirit over the flesh. In doing so we put the flesh to death, and prepare ourselves for the final purification when the flesh will be eliminated altogether.

For this thread, I want to concentrate not on theology, but on the historical question of what Paul actually thought, what he was saying in his historical context. How we might integrate that into broader theological concerns, if we should choose to do so, is not something I want to deal with here.

I doubt it’s possible to separate what Paul “actually thought” from a theological context. His writings are primarily theological. Because I see this, I may not be up for this intellectually…i.e., not sure what you’re looking for since I can see no way to separate his historical thinking from the theological. If you don’t respond, I’ll know I’ve crossed the line you’ve drawn…

(a) He held to a thoroughly dualistic ontology, which saw reality as divided into an earthly, material realm of the flesh, which was (in general terms) "evil" - the visible realm; and a spiritual, heavenly realm, which was (in general terms) "good" - the invisible realm. However, there had been some "admixture" of the two, so that in the lower heavens there were "evil spirits", and in the earthly realm, there were "good humans".

It should be noted that evangelicals will be used to reading verses which refer to the "flesh" in a non-literal manner, meaning "sinful nature" or something like that. Indeed, the NIV often translates the Greek word for flesh, sarx, as "sinful nature". Those who hold to the Hellenistic Paul view would regard this as a gross mis-translation

Here lies the essence of why I read Paul differently than either the Hellenistic or traditional ways. I agree that Paul was a dualist. Many—maybe most—Christians hold to some form of dualism in their belief system usually without carrying this distinction far enough into their theology to tie enough ends together to avoid the pitfalls common to popular thinking. When you first state that Paul was an ontological dualist, then go on to try to limit his understanding to a more literal meaning, you seem to me to be violating the principles ontological dualism imposes on any theological thinking and reading.

My point is, dualism in being proceeds naturally to dualism in the ethereal realm, if one is truly a dualist. The true dualist IMHO necessarily reads this structure into his or her religious thinking. Just as we accept without reservation (either knowingly or ignorantly) that thing and attribute are simultaneous existents in material reality, seems to me the committed dualist should accept not merely the standard theological dualisms (good/evil, spirit/matter), but a simultaneous ontological/theological dualism. They exist and interact concurrently.

Hence, to limit Paul to a primarily literal thinking (that flesh = matter) is to necessarily miss what he’s trying to say.

Examples:

“in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace” (Rom 8:4-6 [NASB])

To walk according to the flesh necessarily has simultaneous literal and spiritual (esoteric; corresponding) meaning. To pursue immaterial evil leads to sin-in-act, in time and space. They occur together, as I think Paul well understood. To 'walk' after immaterial good (spirit) leads to the willful practice of constraint which leads to a materially “righteous” stance in time and space. [righteous here means only non-participation with evil, not “righteous” in its perfect sense as Christ Himself is]

To suggest that Paul is speaking only or even primarily in a literal sense in v.6 only corroborates this distinction, as one’s “mindset”—an immaterial function—precedes, then combines with, act. To unite with contamination in the immaterial mind requires more than the material object of desire, as Jesus noted in Mark 7:21-23.

Rom 8:9: “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” …again seems to verify this. To unite with the indwelling Spirit of God, an ethereal union, produces like fruit in time and space. The converse would naturally be true with indwelling evil.

When Paul noted that we must die if we live according to the flesh in Rom 8:13, this is hard to understand unless one embraces not simply individual dualisms, but their admixture. I.e., to unite with evil in immaterial reality produces death in spirit as well as body, and the merger with Spirit produces life. That the body dies as a feature of our lifelong union with various evils is natural outcome of the union, as Paul noted in Gal 5:16-17: “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.” Material flesh has no “desire”. Desire is a component of the immaterial realm. The object of desire is fixed on some point in time and space, but the desire for it lies elsewhere, somewhere in immateriality. It seems to me that your dividing line for Paul’s thought, “….that in the lower heavens there were "evil spirits", and in the earthly realm, there were "good humans".” …doesn’t go far enough to uncover what Paul’s really saying. We continually try to divide Scripture, incl. Paul, into these ‘either/or” categories when his thinking is trying to convey all simultaneously, and so for all Scripture.

Originally posted by Bernie

I doubt it’s possible to separate what Paul “actually thought” from a theological context. His writings are primarily theological. Because I see this, I may not be up for this intellectually…i.e., not sure what you’re looking for since I can see no way to separate his historical thinking from the theological. If you don’t respond, I’ll know I’ve crossed the line you’ve drawn…

No problem Bernie! I know that Paul is doing theology, it's just that I want to separate Paul's theology from ours. In other words, I want to understand Paul's theology in its historical context, without my own theology being bound by what he thought.

With respect to your other comments:

Firstly, I think you are falling into a bit of a trap that evangelicals often do. That is, they say, hey, the word "flesh" here seems to be used as meaning a mindset, or a propensity to sin, or whatever. And they are quite correct. But they then make the faulty judgement, that if it is used in this way, then it cannot also and at the same time be intended literally. That is, I think Paul thinks that our sinful propensity, and sinful mindsets, and so on, arise from our flesh, in the literal sense. We could think of this like this. Paul thinks that our "urges" towards sin, like adultery, murder, gluttony, and so forth, arise from our material nature, from our literal flesh. Of course they then are manifested in the mind, which is the battleground between flesh and spirit. So I find these comments of yours unconvincing.

In other words, in my view, when Paul talks about "walking according to the flesh", he means living in a manner that gives in to and yields to the literal flesh, that succumbs to the desires which originate in the flesh. Similarly, walking according to the spirit means to give in to, and yield to, the motivations that arise from the spirit. But this whole contrast is very much rooted in an ontological dualism between the literal flesh and spirit. In one sense, you are right: there is an admixture of the two sets of desires (fleshly and spiritual), but in my view that admixture is located in the mind. That is, when Paul speaks of "mind", he speaks of the "middle realm" of admixture in which the flesh dukes it out with the spirit. Note the importance of "mind" in this respect in the scriptures you cited. The mind parallels the "middle realm" of admixture in the cosmos.

Secondly, I think that it is wrong to say that if someone is dualistic, then they must be rigourously dualistic through all the various dimensions of dualism (theological, cosmic, cosmological, anthropological, eschatological, and so forth). It is true that dualistic thinking, which Paul certainly has, tends to manifest repeatedly in different domains - as it does in Paul. But that does not mean that someone will be dualistic in every respect, and that might be either because they haven't thought things through enough, or it might be for good reasons, like that it would be logically incoherent. Not all dualisms are logically compatible with each other. Indeed, adhering to some dualisms might preclude other kinds of dualism. Let me give a simple example. Virtually all the anthropological monists I have encountered, have been strongly Reformed in their theology (i.e. holding to a strong theological dualism). The reason for this, I think, it that if one abandons theological dualism in its strong form, thus allowing for some kind of theosis, then one is forced, of logical necessity, to go to a dualistic anthropology. So sometimes we have to trade off one kind of dualism for another.

This is why both orthodoxy and gnosticism, represent developments, and not faithful reproductions, of Paul's thinking. They simply start with his thought, and then try to draw lines from it at orthogonal angles to each other.

Your comments are excellent, though, and I think the issue of what separates the Hellenistic reading of Paul from the general evangelical one.

Originally posted by Rupert Pupkin

In my opinion, Paul envisages the believer as being in a "half-way state" between the material and the spiritual realms. That is why the spirit wars against the flesh in their lives. The spirit is alive, but the flesh is not yet dead. At the resurrection we cast off the flesh forever. Ethical imitation of Christ's life is important because it, so to speak, "strengthens" the spirit, whereas if one does evil, it "strengthens" the flesh. Paul thinks it is possible to lose one's salvation, so it is important to continue to nourish the spirit and starve the flesh.

Yes, it is a reality; the spirit has been made alive. But, unfortunately, the flesh is not yet dead. So we continue in a half-way state.

No, I don't think so. I think Paul is saying that our minds constitute a battleground between the "good" spirit, which we receive when we believe, and the "evil" flesh, which we inherit from Adam. Our duty is to choose the spirit over the flesh. In doing so we put the flesh to death, and prepare ourselves for the final purification when the flesh will be eliminated altogether.

I basically agree with that. Thanks for the clarification.

It's ironic that you you cut across the grain by seeing Paul as being a proto-gnostic, yet practically, less gnostic than many evangelicals. What I mean is that evangelicals often view our spirit's as being perfected despite the fact that our flesh is defiled by sin. And they seem to think that sort of dualistic thinking is an ok thing. They split the definition of righteousness up into compartments. "Positionally righteous but not practically righteous." That's nonsense talk asfar as I'm concerned.

I'm reading over some of your posts again and trying to understand how you think Paul would view original sin? God creating a material order which He called "good" but that it went astray through...? Is the material order good? Or did it used to be good? What made it bad?

Another question I have for you is, what theological position(s) do you see the "quasi-Pauline" epistles as representing? And do you view them as Scripture and authoritative? And also, I'm trying to understand, is your own position more allied with orthodoxy or Paul, since you see them as somewhat separate? Where was Paul wrong?

Rupert,
I have seen people who hold Paul was hellenistic interpret his hellenism as meaning he believed things quite different from some of the things listed in the original post. So I'm not sure I see an advantage in discussing whether Paul was "hellenistic" or "Jewish" - if people can disagree over what these categories mean in terms of exegeting Paul, then is there a point in making such a distinction in the first place? My preferred approach would be to learn as much as possible about both the hellenism and Judaism of Paul's time and then, when reading his letters, decide on a case-by-case basis which concepts from his time he was referring to. It might well turn out that he always uses hellenic concepts or always Judean concepts (though I would think chances are surely good that he would make use of some of each), but that is not something that should be decided before we examine the evidence.

(a) He held to a thoroughly dualistic ontology, which saw reality as divided into an earthly, material realm of the flesh, which was (in general terms) "evil" - the visible realm; and a spiritual, heavenly realm, which was (in general terms) "good" - the invisible realm. However, there had been some "admixture" of the two, so that in the lower heavens there were "evil spirits", and in the earthly realm, there were "good humans". He also believed in a hierarchical set of levels to the heavens and the earth (hence his reference to visiting the "third heaven"). All of this was thoroughly Hellenistic and quite standard fare for the times, shared by many of the mystery religions and so forth. Hence:

"For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another"

"As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly"

"the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal"

Many other verses could be cited - too many in fact to list here. It should be noted that evangelicals will be used to reading verses which refer to the "flesh" in a non-literal manner, meaning "sinful nature" or something like that. Indeed, the NIV often translates the Greek word for flesh, sarx, as "sinful nature". Those who hold to the Hellenistic Paul view would regard this as a gross mis-translation (I think it is one very good reason not to use the NIV, the prime example of its theological bias).

I totally agree about not using the NIV because of it's "sinful nature" mistranslation. But I totally disagree with you about what the Spirit/Flesh language means.I think Paul is making use of concepts that were common in Greek philosophy and ethics. (and Stowers "Rereading Romans" who holds to a very Greek view of Paul agrees with me strongly on this one)

Greek philosophers when they talked about self-control used a conceptual model of the human mind divided into parts which each represented one type of desire - normally one part for bodily desires (literally "desires of the flesh") and one for the desire for abstract goods, and optionally a third logical / controlling part which choose between the other two. This concept is used by Plato, was regularly used by the Stoics, and was popularized by the Emperor Augustus.

Since Paul uses the identical Greek phrase "desires of the flesh" to Plato, and contrasts it with a spirit that desires abstract goods, I don't have any doubt that he is intending to echo standard Greek ethical philosophy and is talking about self-control. Hence Paul's flesh and spirit represent two parts of the mind with different desires, one desires bodily pleasures and if this one is allowed to be in control it will naturally lead to sin, and the other desires abstract goods and if it is placed in control will naturally lead to holiness. That's why the adjective "sinful" is used occasionally for "the flesh" and why the adjective "holy" is used occasionally for "the spirit".

So there you go - I agree Paul is being "Greek" in this instance, but my view of how he is using Greek concepts seems antithetical to your reading. Hence I'm not convinced that to say Paul is Hellenistic is particularly helpful.

Hi RP,

Firstly, I think you are falling into a bit of a trap that evangelicals often do. That is, they say, hey, the word "flesh" here seems to be used as meaning a mindset, or a propensity to sin, or whatever. And they are quite correct. But they then make the faulty judgement, that if it is used in this way, then it cannot also and at the same time be intended literally.

Okay, but I must not have conveyed what I felt very well; one of my main points is that the strength of thinking in a dualistic sense should be specifically to accept that the "flesh" in Paul's thinking speaks at the same time to both material and spiritual spheres. Same with Peter's and Jesus' use of the phrase. The literal and spiritual are concurrently valid in somewhat the same way "green" and "blade of grass" exist as one. I agree that it's faulty to believe that flesh can't be both literal and figurative at the same time.

I think Paul thinks that our sinful propensity, and sinful mindsets, and so on, arise from our flesh, in the literal sense. We could think of this like this. Paul thinks that our "urges" towards sin, like adultery, murder, gluttony, and so forth, arise from our material nature, from our literal flesh. Of course they then are manifested in the mind, which is the battleground between flesh and spirit. So I find these comments of yours unconvincing.

First, I pointed out in my previous post Mark 7:21-23, where Jesus seems to dismiss the idea of sin arising from our material nature: "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man." Few would argue that "heart" in the sense Jesus means it refers to the fleshly organ which pumps blood.

Second, consider 2Cor 7:1 "Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Being a Jew and a dualist, I think Paul knew well that temple sacrifice was a pattern or type corresponding to a spiritual reality. That he uses the idea of cleansing for both spirit and flesh in this knowing seems to dismiss the notion that he would suppose the propensity to sin comes from the literal flesh. Cleansing "from all defilement" in this sense just doesn't appear to support this, else the numerous literal washings of the Mosaic Law would have a real effect, and it seems pretty obvious that Paul didn't believe this.

Third, in Gal 4:29 the idea that Paul thought of flesh principally in a lteral sense doesn't seem to make sense to me in his comparison of the dual covenant seen in Issac and Jacob: But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. That Paul works freely between literal and ethereal suggests to me that like Peter and Jesus, he used the contradistinction "flesh and spirit" to establish a simultaneous significance in words his audience would understand. Correspondence, or the transition of context from one mode to another seems the meat of figurative language.

I just don't see a Gnostic disposition in Paul.

In other words, in my view, when Paul talks about "walking according to the flesh", he means living in a manner that gives in to and yields to the literal flesh, that succumbs to the desires which originate in the flesh. Similarly, walking according to the spirit means to give in to, and yield to, the motivations that arise from the spirit. But this whole contrast is very much rooted in an ontological dualism between the literal flesh and spirit. In one sense, you are right: there is an admixture of the two sets of desires (fleshly and spiritual), but in my view that admixture is located in the mind. That is, when Paul speaks of "mind", he speaks of the "middle realm" of admixture in which the flesh dukes it out with the spirit. Note the importance of "mind" in this respect in the scriptures you cited. The mind parallels the "middle realm" of admixture in the cosmos.

Secondly, I think that it is wrong to say that if someone is dualistic, then they must be rigourously dualistic through all the various dimensions of dualism (theological, cosmic, cosmological, anthropological, eschatological, and so forth). It is true that dualistic thinking, which Paul certainly has, tends to manifest repeatedly in different domains - as it does in Paul. But that does not mean that someone will be dualistic in every respect, and that might be either because they haven't thought things through enough, or it might be for good reasons, like that it would be logically incoherent. Not all dualisms are logically compatible with each other. Indeed, adhering to some dualisms might preclude other kinds of dualism. Let me give a simple example. Virtually all the anthropological monists I have encountered, have been strongly Reformed in their theology (i.e. holding to a strong theological dualism). The reason for this, I think, it that if one abandons theological dualism in its strong form, thus allowing for some kind of theosis, then one is forced, of logical necessity, to go to a dualistic anthropology. So sometimes we have to trade off one kind of dualism for another.

I'm not saying one "must be rigorously dualistic", only that I don't think we can properly connect the dots unless we apply them equally and simultaneously. To me, Paul makes perfect sense, specifically because he seems to understand and 'think dualistically'. In fact, in the first of the two paragraphs in the quote above, it seems to me that you separate 'evil' from the 'good/evil' dualism in regard to spirit and place it in the flesh, with mind as the battleground. This seems to me to force Paul into a position I don't see him taking. That mind is a battleground, no one would deny. And it's popular to separate flesh and spirit; many in Christianity today do, but to do so one necessarily assigns a prescriptive nature to matter, an untenable position, and raises a number of other questions obviously beyond the scope of this thread.

Great thread, RP. Your stance is well thought out, even if we don't see exactly eye to eye.

I've done some brief study of Paul's usage in 2Cor. of "according to the flesh" over the last few days. From this I cannot see the justification for assuming that He's intent on saying that Jesus' actual historical life is irrelevant. The phrase "according to the flesh" is used 5 times in 2Cor. and in context, Paul was defending himself agaist those who viewed him as if he walked according to the flesh. Inotherwords, those who judged by outward appearance and not by actual spiritual power. Who looked at qualifications and accomplishments, and not at fruit. Many judged Jesus in the same way, and Paul was noting that rather than explaining away His historical existence altogether. He was using our transformed perception of Christ to back up the idea that we should not judge Paul or anyone else by fleshly achievements either.

I think it's an overly presumptious and simplistic assumptions that scholars operate under, when they delve into Paul's supposed political feelings about not being one of the original disciples, or other such subjects, which they assume came to shape his theology so dramatically. In 1Cor. 7 he appeals to Jesus' earthly teaching directly. And throughout most of the NT, in many authors, there is not more than a hint of actual appeal to Jesus' real life teachings as authoritative to back up what they are trying to say. I don't find any less in Paul than others. Infact in the last year, I've seen striking similarites between Paul and many things Jesus teaches in all the gospel accounts. I don't think Paul's silence speaks such volumes. He's just playing his part in a larger picture, and not going beyond his expertise.

I'd say more but I have to get ready for work, Ben

Originally posted by whipartist

I'm reading over some of your posts again and trying to understand how you think Paul would view original sin? God creating a material order which He called "good" but that it went astray through...? Is the material order good? Or did it used to be good? What made it bad?

I'm not sure how thoroughly Paul had thought through all these questions; although he was obviously an extremely brilliant mind, it was not a philosopher's mind, I don't think. But the kind of answer that you would get from the sort of middle Platonism that I think has filtered down to him one way or another, is that the material order is evil, but that evil is not an actual entity in itself, but just a privation or absence of the good. Think of it like this. God has a whole lot of possible things he can make, combining various possibilities in various ways. Some possibilities involve making things that lack goodness, and hence are evil. But God makes them, because he is interested in realizing the fulness of all potential being. He makes these wicked for destruction, and the good for glory. The material world lacks goodness and is evil, as does the flesh.

Originally posted by whipartist

Another question I have for you is, what theological position(s) do you see the "quasi-Pauline" epistles as representing? And do you view them as Scripture and authoritative? And also, I'm trying to understand, is your own position more allied with orthodoxy or Paul, since you see them as somewhat separate? Where was Paul wrong?

OK. In brief: Colossians and Ephesians (which drew on Colossians) increasingly develop a more "realized eschatology" of resurrection than Paul. 2 Thessalonians tries to move Paul in a direction that is more in line with the historical eschatology of Palestinian Christianity (proto-orthodoxy). The Pastoral epistles are written later when church structure has become more organized and hierarchical, and are an attempt to justify that structure by putting Paul's stamp of approval, so to speak, on it.

Disclaimer: The following is merely speculation, since I think the evidence is too weak for solid historical reconstruction. Having said that:

I believe orthodoxy only emerged gradually, and was not present in the 1st- or 2nd-centuries. I think it only makes sense to speak of proto-orthodoxy (that is, people who had ideas that are recognizably similar to later orthodox ones in crucial respects) during this time. But I do not think that Paul was aligned with proto-orthodoxy, which was based, in my opinion, in Palestine. Paul was the leader of his own, unique form of Christianity. He remained on reasonable terms with the proto-orthodox, and was able to get away with teaching a lot of stuff which they would not have approved of, because he was writing to Gentiles in Greek. I think he was a diplomat, and when he went to Palestine and met with proto-orthodox leaders, he presented his theology in ways which made it seem less radical. I think 1 Corinthians 15 is a classic example of this; he starts out seeming to be perfectly in line with proto-orthodoxy in its Jewish belief in a physical resurrection, but then he goes on to completely redirect things as a spiritual resurrection, more in line with Greek thinking. I think his ability to synthesize Greek thought into Christianity was a major factor in his missionary success. And I think the fact that he was later adopted and championed by proto-orthodoxy, is due to his spectacular missionary success. To have disowned Paul, would have been to split the Christian world in two in such a way as to make the proto-orthodox faction a small minority. So instead, they took him on board and "tamed" his theology to bring it more in line with theirs, and gradually sought to bring Pauline communities into line. And I think that this effort was what probably, in large part, led to the development of gnosticism as a distinct community of faith (i.e. the Paulinist "radicals" who were unwilling to compromise, and took things even further, were alienated from the proto-orthodox).

Yes, I view all of scripture as authoritative - but I think that God spoke through the human author in a way that they did not understand, imbuing the text with a deeper meaning that can only be seen by the eyes of faith, reading the text in a Christocentric, canonical manner. So I can address the question of Paul's beliefs, separately from the question of the divinely intended significance of these texts.

Originally posted by Tercel

I have seen people who hold Paul was hellenistic interpret his hellenism as meaning he believed things quite different from some of the things listed in the original post. So I'm not sure I see an advantage in discussing whether Paul was "hellenistic" or "Jewish" - if people can disagree over what these categories mean in terms of exegeting Paul, then is there a point in making such a distinction in the first place? My preferred approach would be to learn as much as possible about both the hellenism and Judaism of Paul's time and then, when reading his letters, decide on a case-by-case basis which concepts from his time he was referring to. It might well turn out that he always uses hellenic concepts or always Judean concepts (though I would think chances are surely good that he would make use of some of each), but that is not something that should be decided before we examine the evidence.

Yes, I think this is a reflection of the wonderful diversity of Hellenistic thought. But I still think there are certain definite tendencies - such as an ontological dualism of matter (evil) versus spirit (good) that is characteristically Hellenistic. I agree that we must determine what Paul thought from the text, but I also think it is crucial to bring to bear the conceptual background from the historical context. Just as we misunderstand Heidegger if we do not read Husserl, so we misread Paul if we do not understand the Hellenic background of his work. Personally, I do not see very much that is distinctively Jewish about his thinking. He is a Hellenistic interpreter of the Old Testament, I think, much as Bultmann was an existentialist interpreter of the New Testament.

Originally posted by Tercel

But I totally disagree with you about what the Spirit/Flesh language means.I think Paul is making use of concepts that were common in Greek philosophy and ethics. (and Stowers "Rereading Romans" who holds to a very Greek view of Paul agrees with me strongly on this one)

There are a number of issues here, I think. The first is whether Paul was flying in such exalted company, or whether he was more influenced by ordinary Hellenic religious ideas. The second is the interpretation of Plato; it is true that he thought in terms of a rational, spirited and appetitive components of the psyche, but I am not sure that these operate in a vacuum disconnected from his general metaphysics. Also Plato tends to have the notion of a "correspondence" between the macrocosm and the microcosm, so the rational part of the soul corresponds to the philosopher-kings in the state and the realm of the forms in metaphysics, and the appetitive part of the soul to the masses in the state and the material world of flux in metaphysics. The third is exegetical. Consider 1 Cor. 15. Paul is discussing the contrast between the "earthly" body and the "spiritual" body. He then says:

But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

Now I would suggest that in the passage above, the word flesh must mean the literal, material flesh. It cannot mean anything to do with ethics because birds, fish and so forth are not ethical creatures. I would suggest, indeed, that Paul is here making an explicit definition of what he means by flesh, in the very context of the question of human anthropology. He then goes on to say that in the resurrection we will not have flesh - in this literal sense - because flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God. Draw your own conclusions, but I think it is pretty clear that Paul thinks of the literal, physical flesh as the source of evil desires and unethical behaviour.

Originally posted by Bernie

Okay, but I must not have conveyed what I felt very well; one of my main points is that the strength of thinking in a dualistic sense should be specifically to accept that the "flesh" in Paul's thinking speaks at the same time to both material and spiritual spheres. Same with Peter's and Jesus' use of the phrase. The literal and spiritual are concurrently valid in somewhat the same way "green" and "blade of grass" exist as one. I agree that it's faulty to believe that flesh can't be both literal and figurative at the same time.

I disagree. The flesh never, ever has reference to the spiritual in Paul. It is always contrasted with it. The flesh is earthly and of the lower sphere, as the quote above shows; it is at war with the spirit, as numerous quotes show. I challenge you to cite any verse in Paul in which the flesh and spirit are considered as one. The realm of admixture in Paul is the mind, in which the two antithetical, totally mutually exclusive forces of flesh and spirit go to war.

Regarding Mark 7:21-23, I don't think it is relevant because the author of Mark comes from an entirely different Christian community and theological perspective to Paul, with very little overlap between them.

Re 2 Cor. 7:1, the distinction is maintained. In light of Paul's other statements, I think that we can say that the flesh is defiled by being autonomous, whereas the spirit is defiled by being made subject to the flesh. Similarly, the spirit is cleansed by being autonomous, whereas the flesh is cleansed by being made subject to the spirit.

As for Gal. 4:29, I completely disagree with you. The literal meaning certainly is intended. The Jews are children of Abraham according to the flesh - that is, in terms of natural procreation and physical birth. But the children of the promise, believers, and children of Abraham according to the spirit, the higher realm. This fits in absolutely perfectly with my view and is additional evidence to support it.

So, I would say I see an extremely strong gnostic disposition in Paul.

Originally posted by Bernie

That mind is a battleground, no one would deny. And it's popular to separate flesh and spirit; many in Christianity today do, but to do so one necessarily assigns a prescriptive nature to matter, an untenable position, and raises a number of other questions obviously beyond the scope of this thread.

I don't get your comments about "a prescriptive role to nature". All I am saying is that Paul thinks that the material, fleshly nature is the source of sinful desires. That seems to me inherently plausible, at least for many sins, such as adultery or gluttony! Think of a nicotine addict's craving for cigarettes. Wouldn't we all say that had a biological origin? And Paul separates flesh and spirit absolutely, much more so than any orthodox Christians today I know of!

Originally posted by whipartist

I've done some brief study of Paul's usage in 2Cor. of "according to the flesh" over the last few days. From this I cannot see the justification for assuming that He's intent on saying that Jesus' actual historical life is irrelevant. The phrase "according to the flesh" is used 5 times in 2Cor. and in context, Paul was defending himself agaist those who viewed him as if he walked according to the flesh. Inotherwords, those who judged by outward appearance and not by actual spiritual power. Who looked at qualifications and accomplishments, and not at fruit. Many judged Jesus in the same way, and Paul was noting that rather than explaining away His historical existence altogether. He was using our transformed perception of Christ to back up the idea that we should not judge Paul or anyone else by fleshly achievements either.

I think that the meaning of kata sarka is a huge bone of contention and that much hangs on what you think about this. I'll comment on every instance in 2 Cor:

1:17 - Here I think Paul is referring to making resolutions on the manner of the material world. The concept that the material world is a world of flux and change and instability, while the spiritual world is one of stasis and permanence, I think underlies his statements here. Paul's word is stable and sure because it is a heavenly, spiritual world, not a fleshly, material world.

5:16 - already noted.

10:2 & 10:3 - Here the reference is to walking according to the flesh, which in this case means to be motivated by fleshly desires for gain etc. Note that he says that we walk in the flesh, but do not war according to the flesh - we inhabit the physical realm, but our pattern of behaviour is derived from the spiritual. That the same dualism in view here is clear, I think, if you read on to verse 4, in which the weapons of our warfare, divine and spiritual, are contrasted with literal, physical weapons.

11:18 - This is one of the clearest examples that supports precisely my contention. Here Paul speaks of "boasting according to the flesh", and then provides us with an example of exactly what this entails - giving an account of his historical circumstances and what he has been through in this life. I would take this as strong confirmation of my claims about the meaning of the phrase in 5:16.

Originally posted by whipartist

I think it's an overly presumptious and simplistic assumptions that scholars operate under, when they delve into Paul's supposed political feelings about not being one of the original disciples, or other such subjects, which they assume came to shape his theology so dramatically. In 1Cor. 7 he appeals to Jesus' earthly teaching directly. And throughout most of the NT, in many authors, there is not more than a hint of actual appeal to Jesus' real life teachings as authoritative to back up what they are trying to say. I don't find any less in Paul than others. Infact in the last year, I've seen striking similarites between Paul and many things Jesus teaches in all the gospel accounts. I don't think Paul's silence speaks such volumes. He's just playing his part in a larger picture, and not going beyond his expertise.

Actually, it is quite contentious whether 1 Cor. 7 is an appeal to Jesus' earthly teaching. It seems much more likely, I think, that this is a revelation that Paul has received from the resurrected Christ. Certainly, there is no record of the teaching that Paul gives here attributed to Jesus in any of the gospels.

As for the rest, I think you are tending to read Paul through the filter of Christian habit. Try to find actual examples in the text of allusions to Jesus' teaching. They are virtually non-existent. One of the few clear examples is 1 Cor. 11:23-25, but then you get into further problems about the origin of this tradition; and even if it is from Jesus, this is the only place in all of Paul's writings where he refers to the eucharist. Contrast that with baptism, which he mentions willy-nilly all the time.

Again, I think the silence does say an enormous amount, particularly given Paul's proximity to the events (remember, he is writing before any of the gospels existed), but I guess we'll probably just end up disagreeing about that.

Also, I think it is somewhat naive not to realize that there were political struggles within 1st-century Christianity. They've been there in every other century, why not then? Part of the problem is the illusion that 1st-century Christianity was this utopian fantastic time of harmony, and things just fell apart after then.

Wow, Ben, you have a job! What are you doing on Tweb, then?

Thanks for your comments, everyone!

Originally posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think that the meaning of kata sarka is a huge bone of contention and that much hangs on what you think about this. I'll comment on every instance in 2 Cor:

1:17 - Here I think Paul is referring to making resolutions on the manner of the material world. The concept that the material world is a world of flux and change and instability, while the spiritual world is one of stasis and permanence, I think underlies his statements here. Paul's word is stable and sure because it is a heavenly, spiritual world, not a fleshly, material world.

5:16 - already noted.

10:2 & 10:3 - Here the reference is to walking according to the flesh, which in this case means to be motivated by fleshly desires for gain etc. Note that he says that we walk in the flesh, but do not war according to the flesh - we inhabit the physical realm, but our pattern of behaviour is derived from the spiritual. That the same dualism in view here is clear, I think, if you read on to verse 4, in which the weapons of our warfare, divine and spiritual, are contrasted with literal, physical weapons.

11:18 - This is one of the clearest examples that supports precisely my contention. Here Paul speaks of "boasting according to the flesh", and then provides us with an example of exactly what this entails - giving an account of his historical circumstances and what he has been through in this life. I would take this as strong confirmation of my claims about the meaning of the phrase in 5:16.

Yeah I've got a job. It's tuff to find time to make my posts up to the quality I'd wish for. I know you're very busy aswell, so I thank you for the replies.

My understanding of "according to the flesh" is very similar to what you're saying, but without reading the hellenistic dualism into the text. Perhaps I am reading through Christian glasses, but I feel they are justified by my faith in the unity of the NT. If I held your position I'd have trouble being a Christian. I'm certain that reveals my bias.... Yet you are also imposing the hellenistic dualism on the text as being the best interpretive framework. We get what we pay for, eh?

In 2Cor. 6:4 through to chapter 8 we find Paul tying all this earthly trouble he's going through in with his being comforted. He's commending himself as a servant of God in the midst of all this. He doesn't write off the details of his fleshly existence, but shows how he wars according to the Spirit IN THEM. This is where I see the distinction between Flesh and Spirit. Considering we all walk in the flesh, but should not war according to the flesh, I see that it''s as focus not a totality. Not until the resurrection. Thus viewing Christ nolonger according to the flesh, or anyone else for that matter, would be the same thing. Not viewing them from fleshly perspective. And this doesn't write off their earthly existence but views it from the spiritual perspective. Otherwise, what you're saying seems to lead into gnosticism in a way which you are saying it doesn't. In a way which ignores the details of earthly existence, not just for Christ but for all believers. ...Inotherwords, what you actually are as a person doesn't, matter, you should be viewed as spiritually perfected.

Also the list in chapter 11:18 and following of all those earthly circumstances... are pertaining to weaknesses.... Paul quickly puts a twist into his boasting. It is not necessarily boasting according to the flesh, but it is boasting and thus foolish. Weaknesses, allow power to be perfected. The spiritual realm breaks through in the weakness of the fleshly.

Originally posted by Rupert Pupkin

Actually, it is quite contentious whether 1 Cor. 7 is an appeal to Jesus' earthly teaching. It seems much more likely, I think, that this is a revelation that Paul has received from the resurrected Christ. Certainly, there is no record of the teaching that Paul gives here attributed to Jesus in any of the gospels.

I always thought Paul was appealing to Jesus' words concerning divorce in places like Matt. 5 and 19 but maybe I ought to reread 1Cor. 7 again. Whatever the case we can't find much better in any of the other NT writers either.

Originally posted by Rupert Pupkin

As for the rest, I think you are tending to read Paul through the filter of Christian habit. Try to find actual examples in the text of allusions to Jesus' teaching. They are virtually non-existent. One of the few clear examples is 1 Cor. 11:23-25, but then you get into further problems about the origin of this tradition; and even if it is from Jesus, this is the only place in all of Paul's writings where he refers to the eucharist. Contrast that with baptism, which he mentions willy-nilly all the time.

Yes I am reading the NT with an assumption of unity, even when I can't find it. Infact having remained faithful to this ideal for so long, and having been rewarded by it, I feel I'm onto something when I find a greater unity. I see your position as a retreated one. It's based on finding unity within small sectors of the NT to the exclusion of others. Whenever some sector of the NT comes in which questions the hypothesis of the already established unity, it is already accounted for as being potentially pseudonymous because it doesn't fit in with the established unity. It seems unfair.

Paul does attribute the eucharist to being something he received from the Lord, from actual historical events.

Originally posted by Rupert Pupkin

Again, I think the silence does say an enormous amount, particularly given Paul's proximity to the events (remember, he is writing before any of the gospels existed), but I guess we'll probably just end up disagreeing about that.

I suppose we will. It seems to me that the writings of the NT, are what they are. The purposes, and historical events the aim to address were addressed in the way they were. I find it amazing how little interest most Christians have in the historical teachings of Jesus, as we are discussing in Tercel's thread in Theology 201 right now. An appeal from Paul that "Jesus said such and such" would have been far less convincing to his audience than an appeal to the OT Scriptures. Especially as in your view, the gospels hadn't been written yet, and Paul's knowledge of Jesus' actual teachings may have been slim. Does this mean he writes them off as irrelevant? I don't think so. He came into contact with the truth of the gospel and he presents what he has been taught.

Originally posted by Rupert Pupkin

Also, I think it is somewhat naive not to realize that there were political struggles within 1st-century Christianity. They've been there in every other century, why not then? Part of the problem is the illusion that 1st-century Christianity was this utopian fantastic time of harmony, and things just fell apart after then.

I do think there were political struggles in the first century. I just don't see them dividing Paul so radically from what you call "proto-orthodoxy." Galations 2 gives us a lot of insight into these struggles. Paul apparently had relative isolation. And the church did have a bipolar aspect to it. I recognize these things but I don't take them as far.

Enough for now.

Hi RP,

Your thread has had me thinking the last few days. Since I'm the world's only rational esotericist and esoteric fundamentalist, I see things through that lens, and I've found in Paul's writings a wealth of similarity in meaning and structure also seen in the OT, mainly the prophets, and in Jesus' teachings in the gospels. The hellenistic reading doesn't work for me primarily because of the break from interpretive structure I mentioned earlier, but there are a few other points I thought relevant to the discussion.

When Paul says flesh, he means actual flesh, as is illustrated by verses such as 1 Cor. 15:39 -read it in context.

But I find the entire chapter to be a lesson in the use of 'movement' of truth from one context to another...e.g., the use of particulars in literal language to illustrate equal or greater truth in the spiritual. The attempt to pin a literal "flesh" meaning is incoherent in this regard. Spiritual language is necessarily contextually fluid and resistant to any "only" category. In other words, I find it pretty consist that to dismiss either spiritual or literal meaning in lieu of the other typically presents problems. The Gnostics fail the same as today's hardcore literalists for this reason, trying to separate meaning when its wholeness depends on its homogeny.

The whole range of passages in 1Cor 15 uses the standard comparisons of allegory (the grain sown produces an unlike quantity/quality; comparison of literal fleshly configurations to celestial ones; perishable to imperishable, natural to spiritual, weakness to power, etc. To force a literal flesh meaning on Paul, who so obviously (like the OT prophets who experienced God more closely than the average human) saw reality in its fluid and dual state, seems a distortion.

(b) He saw Jesus Christ as a spiritual counterpart to the earthly Adam, the firstborn of creation, but no as God. He was a "heavenly Adam":

"The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven"

It's true that there're no direct references to trinitarian thinking in Paul's stuff, but to interpret this as his not seeing Christ as God or equal to God lacks subtantiation. For instance, in Gal 1:1: "Paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead) he seems to implicitly include God and Christ as "co" by stating first that He was appointed not by human agency, but 'through Jesus Christ and God the Father'.

(c) Christ was not truly a human, but only appeared to be such (docetism). Christ was a spiritual counterpart to the human Adam; he was the "heavenly man" as opposed to the "earthly man".

Again, I think this is reading too much into Paul's use of allegorical speech. The comparison of Adam to Christ appears aimed at a relevance beyond the conclusion that "Christ wasn't truly human".

(d) Christ as a historical figure is irrelevant and unimportant.

"Therefore from now on we recognize no man according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer"

"But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised" (1Cor 15:13-15).
If Christ's historicity had no relevance to Paul, how could he arrive at this conclusion?

This is why there is very little reference to actual history - to Jesus' life or his teachings - in his theology.

I think whipartist covered this adequately. It's like Clint Eastwood once said, "A man's gotta know his limitations." Paul was neither qualified nor appointed to instruct us in such mundane matters. He alone had the terrifying honor of meeting the glorified Christ almost face-to-face; the information seared into his psyche from this encounter directed the course of his life and theology.

(e) He believed in resurrection into a "spiritual body", not a physical or earthly body. We become transformed from an earthly body (like Adam) into a spiritual body (like Christ); we cross-over from the realm of the earthly to the realm of the heavenly. At first he thought this would happen in a general resurrection of the righteous at the end of the age; but Paul was generally uninterested in historical eschatology and gradually came to the position that spiritual resurrection happened immediately upon death.

I think this is the soundest argument of the hellenistic view, but I'm not sure where you get the idea that he thought spiritual resurrection happened immediately upon death...1Cor 4:5?

(f) Salvation occurs by participation in Christ's death and resurrection, and thereby escaping from the realm of the flesh into the realm of the spirit.

Agree, but "thereby escaping from the realm of the flesh into the realm of the spirit" is pretty broad, can mean a lot of things to a lot of folks.

(g) The Old Testament was to be interpreted in terms of a deeper meaning, not the plain sense.

"the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life"

Amen to that.

(h) The Jews, by reading the OT literally, came into bondage to the flesh, and are the earthly Jerusalem. Believers are set free in the spirit by a mystical, non-literal reading of the OT, and are the heavenly Jerusalem. The two covenants are the earthly and the heavenly. The law is bad because it is of the earthly covenant, and brings death.

Okay, but the content of the meaning of "bondage", while it may have literal affiliation (as re addiction), is principally a spiritual malady, and it's hard to see how Paul could have thought this bondage tied primarily to literal flesh as it's again not really coherent.

Final thoughts. Good thread. Hope there's more dialog from others.