Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "meta" <meta AT rraz.net>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7
  • Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:56:59 -0700

Response to Tim Gallant.
I intersperse my responses with yours:

----- Original Message -----
From: Rabbi Saul
To: Corpus-Paul
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7

YOU: Hmm. Perhaps I have not made myself clear. The law is not given "in
order that" God would condemn these beings (that's not what "consigning all
under Sin" means). Torah functioned within a previous covenantal
relationship. Once more, my point about accounting is quite aside from
Israel's responsibility. They could not themselves enter into that
accounting, and were not intended to (once more: Ps 143.2; and thus note
that this is NOT NEW - Paul is applying David's correct insight from many
centuries previous). Paul explicitly says that God "passed over" previous
sins (Rom 3.25-6). That is not punishment; it is forbearance. My point
about accounting is that God is just and looks after the accounting Himself,
apart from Torah (cf Rom 3.21).

ME: I suspect you assume, for your emphasis on God's original planning,
God's omniscience, in the sense of knowledge of all future events. So in
this case, then the "in order that" would follow as accurate, in that
knowing man would sin, then "consigning" would have been both known and
planned, as well then as condemned (God would not plan something not
desirable and good, right?). Yes, Torah presummed the covenantal
relationship determined by God, and yes Israel assumed its responsibility
under the contract/covenant, ratified in a voting event directed by Moses
just prior to Israel's entering Canaan. All this occured under God's
recognition that in no way could Israel fulfill its responsibility, and God
never intended that it could, right? I take Psa. 143 as rhetorical for the
purpose of supplication (v.1) and quest for forgiveness and mercy, not as
literal propositional knowledge about reality, understanding that in past
experience it was apparent that MAYBE or probably fulfilling such
responsibility was impossible for man/Israel. But this is no indication of
God's intentions! Paul is reflecting back on "Old Israel" with hindsight
abstracting the observation that Israel was not able to comply with its
obligations, forming the theory that it was an impossible task, and
therefore.....Christ enters the picture for his atonement theology, as I
said utilizing this old motif, so that now God has shown that he has
mercifully forgiven Israel and no longer holds his chosen people to their
covenantal obligation: complete remission through the faith of Jesus Christ
(sub. gen.), and this of course is ultimate righteousness. In the past it
was punishment, but that tactic was unproductive and useless, so now what is
left?--the new tactic, the one which does work. But to say that God
intended this odd senario is IMO ridiculous. IMO God always has and still
does work with and through humanity. There is no knowledge of future events
(this is a contradiction in terms: an event to occur requires time process,
so that in prior time, and God operates in time, he cannot know what has not
yet occured in time: this is the biblical understanding!) The idea of
timeless eternity is a later Platonic concept. In the Bible, eternity means
time without end, not "no-time". God is just, but he is not an accountant;
he sincerely is trying to get done what will work, first operating through
Torah, not apart from it. You merely are making up your own theories, not
supported by Rom. 3:25, which says that with Christ, God has changed
directions, you might say changing from Torah, or as rationalizing
"reinterpreting" Torah.


YOU: "Incompetent" is a description which wholly depends on how you look
at it. If you pick up a matchstick and attempt to pound a nail with it,
well, the matchstick is incompetent for that purpose - but neither was it
intended for that purpose, so it's prejudicial to speak of it in that way.
Torah was fully competent for the purposes which God envisioned for it, but
its competence cannot be stretched beyond that sphere.

ME: At the time, Torah was considered competent and even necessary, in
God's plan, devised by God and imposed on his created human beings whom he
gave a brain competent for the purpose. Later (in time) it became evident
that this devised plan simply didn't work. So now it's time to devise a new
plan, one which will work, sans Torah. I agree that it depends on how you
look at it. I think the Bible clearly shows that it is not a matter of
competency, but is a matter of what works. The new "Gospel" is the plan
that will work. But did it? Not as expected in their lifetime. Will it?
Since it's about the future that never seems to become present, you can't
tell, but you can wager on it (Pascal). You say Torah was incompetent in
the long run, yet at the time was competent. Doesn't this strick you as a
bit unrealistic for your kind of God? Was the purpose of the
competent-at-the-time Torah to break the back of his chosen people, perhaps
so he could be the great Hero at the end by doing himself what he expected
his people to do: perhaps just to show off? So God kept the books: writing
down all those bad things do (as some children are taught), placing
numerical values on them with a graduated scale, and at the end say
"gottcha." So now he says, just to show you what a great Guy I am, not only
will I do it myself for you, but I'll even kill myself to do it! Now kids:
fall in line, because I'm still here, and I really am going to give you what
you always wanted--some time, maybe even when you don't suspect it.


YOU: ....that Scripture, for all its texture and complexity, is a unity.

ME: Yes, this is what I was looking for and expected. Each part of the
scripture interprets all the rest. This is the fundamental presupposition.
It reminds me of my being an observer at Harvard, as a graduate scholarship
student in my youth many moons ago, in an international philosophy seminar
in which a very prominent RCC theologian participated (darn it can't
remember his name). I thought that by far he was the best speaker. He was
the mark of wonder in his manner and cogency, with impeccable logic and
inferential reasoning, developing his argument. Two of the others kept
picking away at him, especially A. J. Ayer (an iconoclastic prof. at
Harvard--but I enjoyed his class), to the point at which this man gave in
and admitted to his basic fundamental presupposition, that of Catholic
dogma. Of course we all knew it, but they just wanted him to admit it. I
was very impressed by him and continue to have great respect for Catholic
scholars.


YOU: ....(2) integrate those contextual readings into a coherent (though
of course not exhaustive) pattern.

ME: Yes, this would follow based on your basic presupposition, which btw I
don't find supportable in the Bible. Can you point to it? Of course we're
working for coherency, but it would be a very big step to "complete"
coherency, amidst all the diversity and inconsistencies in the Bible, which
IMO were intended by its editors.


YOU: ....unless I can integrate in short order, Paul must be either
incoherent, or at least self-contradictory.

ME: This is a mark I have always found in the Evangelical theology: the
"either-or" complex: Either absolute or nothing. There is no truth unless
there is Absolute Truth. If Paul cannot be fitted into the whole Bible in a
completely coherent consistent system of thinking and theology, then he is
incoherent and/or self-contradictory. When will you people realize that
ancient thinking is not like modern thinking in our scientific way? Even
modern religious thinking true to itself must admit of diversities and
contradictions: have you read the Medieval Catholic mystics?


YOU: Regarding my actual interpretation once more: There is no trickery
whatsoever in my view of God's purpose for Torah. It was never intended to
be a means of achieving perfection, and it was not presented by Yahweh as
the means for justification. It always stood within the context of God's
covenantal righteousness, to which God's people were to appeal for salvific
(whether you take that widely or narrowly, including vindication against
political oppression).

ME: I beg to differ from you: Torah always was and still is intended to
be a means of achieving perfection, and this is obvious IMO from its
reading. Very simply, God had expectations of perfection from his
creation--all of it, even the cosmos. And it was presented (written) as the
means of justification. And it had its own context. If you take off your
rose-colored theological glasses I think IMHO you will understand this, but
I am not meaning to be disrespectful. This is the problem: if you conceive
the context of biblical truth to be completely holistic at all of its times
and stages, then you will completely misread it.


YOU: It does not at all follow from the predication "God cannot simply
pass by sin" that He is therefore limited. It simply follows that He cannot
abandon His own character. Omnipotence has never meant random power. God
is faithful; He cannot deny Himself: these biblical statements do not imply
limitation, but extraordinary power. There is no power greater than being
able to determine all things such that you never in any way deny your own
character.

ME: The Tanakh shows God changed his mind, even repented, many times.
Often he is groping, not sure what to think or do. His character changes
throughout: sometimes merciful, gracious, loving, other times destructive,
murderous. The combination of good and evil, anger and forgiving. Etc.,
etc. If he cannot change his own character, then it is limited. I don't
know what you mean by "he cannot deny Himself" but at times he certainly has
repented of his past actions. In Christ, God has proved his fundamental
character as goodness and love.

Thank you and best regards,
Richard Godwin.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page