Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] RE: Second Temple Judaism and covenant

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: [Corpus-Paul] RE: Second Temple Judaism and covenant
  • Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 15:27:31 -0700

Rabbi, let me respond very briefly to your answers to my response:



YOU: But you keep assuming this condemnation,....

ME: You picked out just this one word--condemnation--, ignoring the rest
of my statement. I mean nothing extensive by this word, but only that yhwh
condemned his people in their apostasy, that's all. How about the rest of
my statement?



YOU: In other words, it is quest for forgiveness and mercy apart from
knowledge of reality?

ME: All I was saying is that the author of the Psalm is making a
rhetorical, emotional statement of reflection and appeal, without being a
philosopher or scientist with some proposition regarding metaphysics. Is
that better?



YOU: ...if we are to have an exegetical discussion, you will need to deal
with the texts.

ME: Yes, you are right. The ridiculous aspect is imbedded in the text,
but the text is not a metaphysical statement, therefore, the text is not
ridiculous: it comes "from the heart." IMO you theological assumption (or
inference) you make out of the text is a metaphysical theory, which IMO is
ridiculous.



YOU: ...balanced reading of Scripture itself....God as foretelling future
events....the text *does* say repeatedly and in many ways that God knows the
end from the beginning.

ME: I have no idea what you might mean by "balanced reading". God
foretelling future events, in the text, would be as we might say, "If we
make war on Iraq, then we will be owning the country," in the sense of our
obligation due to our action. This has nothing at all to do with a
metaphysical theory of omniscience as some later Christian theologians
devised. God knew what would happen in the event of apostasy: that he would
have to punish his people. As indeed they also came to realize that aspect
of the future. There is no evidence in the text that God "knows every event
that will ever happen in the future." If you can find that specifically,
please let us know.



YOU: there are far more passages..... Etc.

ME: Well, yes; so what? Inconsistency and contradiction are part of the
scriptures, indeed paradox. Of course there are texts indicating both
ways. That is the way of life and of understanding the real world. "God
knows all things": yes, and this is a rhetorical statement, not one of
metaphysics. My father knew all things; I could never keep a secret from
him, and he seemed to always know what I would do in reaction to something
that would happen. God knew even better. "God controls all things":
Really?! I don't think so. God is not in control of me when I sin. Did he
control Hurricane Charlie? Or the tornadoes?



YOU: "God cannot deny Himself," was not generated by me, but was a
quotation of 2 Tim 2.13.

ME: OK, then let's apply exegesis here: This means that in no way would
God deny himself. Maybe expand to interpret texts: God would not deny his
utter goodness or his absolute power. From this it is only eisegesis to
extrapolate into some metaphysical statement that for example "God does not
have the ability or power to deny himself," not that this makes any sense
anyhow.



YOU: Where does Rom 3:25 say that God changed direction? Absolutely the
opposite, actually. It says that God in His forbearance passed by sins.
Quite clearly, that means that all along He knew they were not being looked
after by the present system. Whether you think that is sensible is beside
the point; that's what the text is saying.

ME: Perhaps this points out how difficult it is to interpret texts
objectively, as proper exegesis. It appears we are forced to impute our own
understandings or theology through interpretation. I think Paul says
throughout his letters that Torah hasn't worked, that it is obvious by just
reflection on Israel's past history, and that now God is changing
directions. Would you say that sacrificing his Son, or Himself, is not a
change in direction? One might ameliorate the interpretation by saying Paul
is not denying Torah, that God is not just eliminating Torah, but just
moving it in a new direction. Does that sound better? I exegete a
phenomenal change. And of course "God is looking ahead," otherwise why
would he have done what he did? He is foreseeing the future, but not
knowing what will happen, how human beings will take this new direction:
obviously not exactly the way he would have wished, right? Of course you
can say he created human beings with the ability of choice and committing
evil if they determined, but that is a theory devised extraneous from the
texts. Is God playing some kind of game with us?--as some have asked.



YOU: You invented this one [incompetency]; I never said anything of the
sort. As I have made clear throughout, God always had a means of dealing
with His people. Let me repeat one more time: the accounting was for God's
purposes, not Israel's. How God was going to take care of their sins was
His business; their responsibility was to live in covenant faithfulness
(pistiV).

ME: I was just carrying what you said to its logical conclusions. You can
make God an accountant if you wish; I don't see anything wrong with that,
except that your exegesis goes beyond the texts into a theory you have
composed, eisegesis. But that's the way theology works, forming theories
which purport to explain the texts or the Bible as a whole, and then picking
out those verses (usually out of context) to support their theories.



YOU: God is One (Dt 6.4), and all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3.16;
cf. also 2 Pet 1.20-21). The coherent character of Scripture is based upon
God's own self-coherence, God's own unity.

ME: This is OK. The Tanakh has a unity in its diversity, which gives
coherence to and through its primary motifs; there is integration. But,
nothing you say here logically implies your inference that any part of the
scripture interprets all scripture. There is not that kind of unity. How
can you interpret James' assertion that salvation comes through good works,
with Paul's that it comes from pistis alone? (I know you have an answer to
that!) God-breathed inspiration is carried out in human terms, with all its
diverse ways of understanding and emotion, which has evolved throughout the
scripture, as understanding gained and increased through the process of
their relationship with God. "the coherence of His Word" does not logically
imply the kind of unity you wish it would.



YOU: The either-or you quote is not mine at all, as is clear if you reread
the original context.

ME: I was merely carrying out the logical inferences from your statements.



YOU: (Ironically, it is only belief in an infinite God that leaves genuine
room for paradox; if all is finite, then in principle everything is
comprehensible.) The integration I seek is much more modest; I simply want
to show how the teaching as a whole is not self-contradictory.

ME: You parenthetical statement cries out for explanation. It doesn't seem
to apply to the concept of time, let's say the scientific understanding of
time. I agree that the teaching as a whole is not self-contradictory, and
this is part of beauty of both the Tanakh and Paul. Both are grappling with
reality-as-we-experience-it with their faith in God (trust that is).

YOU: "Obvious"? I frankly don't see how. (BTW, one must be very careful
regarding the biblical terms that have been translated "perfection." Job
was a "perfect" man. Does that mean he had absolutely no faults? Nope.
The biblical terms for perfection range in meaning from "wholeness" to
"maturity" and beyond.

ME: Please re-read my statement. I am not saying perfection was realized.
I am saying perfection is expected. And yhwh discovers in the Tanakh that
not only is it now happening, but it is unachievable. His creation didn't
turn out the way he wanted or expected. Therefore, Christ was his only
workable solution. (Question, going far beyond the text: Is that solution
working out?)



Thank you,

Richard.








  • [Corpus-Paul] RE: Second Temple Judaism and covenant, meta, 08/14/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page