The Apostle Paul’s use of Analogy
The Jewish historian Hyam Maccoby argues in his book “The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity” that Paul could not have been a trained Pharisee. He argues this through multiple lines of evidence, but one line of evidence that was interesting to me was that Paul did not reason carefully on many occasions. Maccoby thinks this indicates that Paul didn’t have Pharisaic training. One example he cites is the passage Romans 7:1-6.
1Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Here Paul is making the analogy that when a husband dies; the wife is free to remarry. This is to illustrate how Christians are free from the law and can now be the bride of Christ. On one side of the analogy, we have a woman/bride, a deceased husband, a new bridegroom. On the other side we have the Christian (who died and was raised with Christ), the Torah, and Christ (who died and was raised).
But for the analogy to work, he needs to keep straight who is the widow and who is the deceased. In his illustration it was the husband’s death that made the wife free. But the Christian is the “Bride” and the Torah is supposed to correspond to the husband. The one who is free to remarry in the first scenario is the one who didn’t die. The Torah is the only thing in the second analogy that didn’t die. But he isn’t making a point about the Torah being free to take a new groom. In order for the analogy to hold the law has to be what died, not the bride and/or the groom.
Apparently Paul is introducing the idea that our own death frees us from the law. But if that is the case, why isn’t he talking about the freedom of the dead husband? Shouldn’t Paul have talked about how the husband is now free from the wife to make the analogy work? Of course, freedom usually entails the power to do something. Either to do what is desired or what we should be done. Power and freedom are not properties normally associated with the dead. (Of course zombie weddings probably would not be common experiences for Paul’s readers, so the correct illustration would have been difficult.)
This apparently confused analogy leads to several questions. If God were to inspire a collection of books, wouldn’t he want them to reflect his nature? If there is a God, I would expect his intellect would be much greater than ours, and he could certainly guide his servants to make clear arguments and analogies. Why shouldn’t flawed analogies and arguments disqualify Paul’s writings as scripture?
4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Here Paul is making the analogy that when a husband dies; the wife is free to remarry. This is to illustrate how Christians are free from the law and can now be the bride of Christ. On one side of the analogy, we have a woman/bride, a deceased husband, a new bridegroom. On the other side we have the Christian (who died and was raised with Christ), the Torah, and Christ (who died and was raised).
But for the analogy to work, he needs to keep straight who is the widow and who is the deceased. In his illustration it was the husband’s death that made the wife free. But the Christian is the “Bride” and the Torah is supposed to correspond to the husband. The one who is free to remarry in the first scenario is the one who didn’t die. The Torah is the only thing in the second analogy that didn’t die. But he isn’t making a point about the Torah being free to take a new groom. In order for the analogy to hold the law has to be what died, not the bride and/or the groom.
Apparently Paul is introducing the idea that our own death frees us from the law. But if that is the case, why isn’t he talking about the freedom of the dead husband? Shouldn’t Paul have talked about how the husband is now free from the wife to make the analogy work? Of course, freedom usually entails the power to do something. Either to do what is desired or what we should be done. Power and freedom are not properties normally associated with the dead. (Of course zombie weddings probably would not be common experiences for Paul’s readers, so the correct illustration would have been difficult.)
This apparently confused analogy leads to several questions. If God were to inspire a collection of books, wouldn’t he want them to reflect his nature? If there is a God, I would expect his intellect would be much greater than ours, and he could certainly guide his servants to make clear arguments and analogies. Why shouldn’t flawed analogies and arguments disqualify Paul’s writings as scripture?