Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: WAS Re: Romans 10:1-4, NOW: Paul's use of scripture

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: WAS Re: Romans 10:1-4, NOW: Paul's use of scripture
  • Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 15:54:25 -0700


Harold, my apologies for a belated reply.

I meant that Paul "twists" the scripture in Gal 3:16 in a modern sense:
interpreters today are concerned to discover the intention(s) of the
authors, editors, or communities that produced or preserved the sacred text
or tradition and to accurately convey to us what that intention was. Paul's
use is more consistent with rabbinic exegesis where the text commonly means
whatever the rabbi wants it to mean. It is only because Paul asserts a
greater revelation in the crucified and risen Christ as uniquely fulfilling
God's purpose that he claims that the divine promise to Abraham's
descendants actually had in mind a single descendant, through which those in
solidarity with Christ inherit the promise. Nothing in the Genesis narrative
of the Abrahamic promises even hints at the christological interpretation
Paul gives it, hence in Gal 3:16 he is twisting the scripture to fit his
theology.

I use the word "twist" in a neutral sense relative to the issue of whether
Paul's use of scripture conforms to the scripture versus Paul's use of
scripture to make it say whatever he wants. All too often Paul's
interpreters read his statements as conforming to the intent of his source
(or their interpretation of his source), whereas Paul's use of scripture
commonly bears no contextual relation to the text or his meaning may even
fly in the face of the quoted text or tradition.

Alex LaBrecque
evangelica AT earthlink.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harold R. Holmyard III [mailto:hholmyard AT ont.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 12:48 PM
> To: Corpus-paul
> Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Romans 10:1-4
>
>
> Dear Alexander,
> I agree that Paul was an apostle of the new covenant; so what he
> brought superceded the revelation of the old covenant where the two
> covenants disagree. I'm sorry that I did not make it clear earlier that I
> understood this fact. But he also sought that God's law be kept in the
> heart, as does the new covenant of Jer 31:33. God sent Christ to die that
> the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us (Rom 8:4). Paul's
> meaning is consistent with Jeremiah and Ezekiel, except that he
> reveals the
> mystery of God's will for the Gentiles, which Ezekiel and Jeremiah do not
> address in their new covenant revelation. Galatians 3:16 does not really
> twist Scripture; as you probably know, it argues rabbinically from the
> appearance of the words (the interesting singularity of "seed")
> to a truth,
> the unique seed of Christ. Paul is not using this stress on "seed" versus
> "seeds" for a proof. Rather he is reminding that the Abrahamic covenant
> looked beyond the Law to the coming of Christ.
> You write:
> 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.
>
> I do not think that Paul in Romans 4 is trying by His argument
> itself to do
> away with circumcision. I agree with you that Paul relies on new covenant
> revelation in his general stance that circumcision is nothing. But he is
> explaining his stance somewhat in Romans 4. How can it be that
> Gentiles can
> be righteous apart from circumcision? There are spiritual
> realities at work
> that account for this possibility. I do not find Paul's argument
> implausible in itself. It is only implausible if regarded as the
> sole basis
> for scrapping circumcision. And you seem to be making this point,
> too, that
> something more is needed.
>
> Yours,
> 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