Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Romans 10:1-4

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Alexander LaBrecque" <evangelica AT earthlink.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Romans 10:1-4
  • Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:56:46 -0800


Harold, in Paul's letters "God's word" is primarily Paul's kerygma that God
raised the crucified Jesus from the dead for the benefit of humankind (1
Thess 1:4-10; 2:13; 2 Cor 2:14-17; 4:1-6; 5:14-21; Rom 10:6-17; perhaps Col
1:5, 25; 3:16; 4:3). In Paul's view this applies also to other Christians'
kerygma to the extent that theirs is consistent with his own (Phil 1:14-18;
cf. 1 Cor 15:1-11). The "word of God" is primarily the kerygma in Acts as
well (4:29-31, 33; 10:36-44 and 11:1; 13:44-49, et al).

For Paul, Judaism's scriptures remain "the word of God" (Rom 9:6) but only
secondarily, to the extent that the scriptures are consistent with or
interpreted as expressing Paul's theology (Rom 1:1-5; 15:4). If for Paul the
scriptures had remained primarily or equally the word of God, he would not
have contradicted the Torah by rescinding for his Gentile converts the
everlasting obligation of circumcision required of all who join the
Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17), nor would his quotation of scripture freely
twist the scriptures to support his own theology (cf. Gal 3:16). For Paul,
there is now a reality higher than that of the scriptures.

As for 2 Cor 3, my point was that most interpreters treat this passage as
consistent with the Jeremiah and Ezekiel passages you cite, when in fact
those passages envision not any abrogation nor supercession of the Torah
within the community of God's people but rather Israel's steadfast obedience
to the Torah. Paul's terminology has affinity with those passages, but his
words mean something radically different and his meaning is not compatible
with what those passages envision.

As for Rom 4, Paul's purpose is indeed to show "that people can be reckoned
righteous apart from circumcision" (as you note). To this end Paul's
specific argument is that Abraham received this status before he was
circumcised (an argument from chronological sequence); this argument is
intended to make circumcision non-obligatory for Christian believers who are
of the Abrahamic faith, such that they are righteous apart from observing
the practices distinctive to the Torah. The effect of Paul's argument here,
as purposed throughout chs 2-4, is to undermine the obligation of
circumcision that Gen 17 forever requires of all persons who join the
Abrahamic community. The point in my previous post was that Paul's argument
from chronological sequence in Gen 15 contradicts and negates the explicit,
everlasting biblical obligation of Gen 17. Even if we are predisposed to
accept its intended result, Paul's argument from Gen 15 is implausible.

Again, for Paul himself there is a reality of higher authority than
scripture. Otherwise his handling of texts would make him a horrible
exegete.

Alex LaBrecque
evangelica AT earthlink.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harold R. Holmyard III [mailto:hholmyard AT ont.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 7:03 PM
> To: Corpus-paul
> Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Romans 10:1-4
>
>
> Dear Alexander,
> I have not been following this thread because the connection between
> the Jeremiah passage and Rom 10:1-4 did not seem strong. But it seems that
> you minimize Paul's use of God's word to provide authority for what he
> says. It's true that Paul was an apostle appointed by God with direct
> revelation, but even Jesus used the authority of the OT. The fact
> that in 2
> Corinthians 3 Paul does not give a biblical source for a negating
> dichotomy
> between the Torah and the "new covenant" of "the Spirit" does not
> mean that
> he could not have done so (Jer 31:8, 31-34; Ezek 16:60; 34:25; 36:24-28;
> 37:26). In Romans 4 Paul does not "argue from chronological sequence that
> Abraham's status as righteous while uncircumcised negates the
> obligation of
> circumcision for Abraham's descendants who are of the resurrection faith."
> At least that is not the explicit purpose of his argument. Paul
> argues that
> Abraham's example shows that people can be reckoned righteous apart from
> circumcision. Paul, at least here, does not go on to argue that
> circumcision is not obligatory for anyone.
>
> Sincerely,
> Harold Holmyard
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: evangelica AT earthlink.net
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
>
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page