Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT 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: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant
  • Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:58:48 -0700

John, if I may be permitted, I would like to offer a revision of my theory
of the difference between covenant as promise and covenant as contract, thus
in a sense to "give in" to your perspective. I think there is no fine-line
distinction. With Abram, the covenant was bilateral in the sense of his
faith in the deity, which implies if not clearly stated, his intention, with
obligation, to maintain loyal service to the deity, i.e. only this deity
will be Abe's god; all other gods will be forsaken. Thus Abe's obligation
would be that of exclusiveness in service, and worship. So then, in this
sense Abe accepted this obligation as "self-imposed"--but in practice
through the story it appears he was not so serious about the service part.

For Paul, this pre-Mosaic period was governed by law, not Torah, but the law
we might explain as a sense of right and wrong perhaps genetically
inherited, a natural law (see Rom. 1:18-32 "invisible things...written in
their hearts") through which sin was not legally "reckoned" (ouk
ellogeitai--not accounted, Rom. 5:13)--although the Reformers seem to think
it was reckoned by God, and Rom. 2 might bear this out.

Do you think Paul thought of the covenant-obligation as applying to the
pre-Mosaic period? Frankly I don't know. If it didn't apply, then that
might bear on lack of covenantal human obligation in the Abraham situation
(Patriarchal period), which might apply to the meaning of covenant. What
did Paul mean by covenant? As far as I can tell his meaning applies only to
the Mosaic covenant.

Thank you.
Richard Godwin.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page