Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Richard: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: Richard:Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant
  • Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 20:16:14 -0700



> John:
> Abraham's faith is his belief in YHWH in terms of what YHWH/Elohim has
spoken to
> him concerning his heir: 'this man will not be your heir' (Genesis 15:4).
This impels
> Abraham to continue to follow the voice of God. The voice of God is his
law which is
> why it makes sense that YHWH says to Isaac 'Abraham obeyed my voice and
kept my
> charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws [Torah]' (Genesis 26:5).
This is
> what I would say is the universal or natural law that Paul is talking
about in Romans 1-
> 2.

You're going way beyond the evidence here. How do you see Abram
impelled--where is this in the text? I don't see Abe agreeing to any
obligation. He had faith in this god, which implies, along with his action,
that this god is his exclusive god, albeit it reluctantly. There is
nothing here about "his law." So in 26 the narrative author has yhwh make a
very compelling case to Isaac, including the actions of Abe, following his
commandments and law (no Torah at this time), which I take to be an
embellishment since there is no mention of that in the Abe story, first hand
rather than third hand. Or: It does appear that Abram had no stated
intention to follow any unmentioned commandments and laws, but that his
actions of obeyance of yhwh's forthcoming various directions indicates after
the fact that indeed he did follow at least commandments. And what might
the "laws" have been--at this time? Your reference to Paul in Romans is
pure conjecture to make it fit your paradigm, but of course it is
possible--just no evidence.

> To jump ahead to Augustine's (and the reformers) interpretation of faith
which is crucial
> for understanding how Paul is interpretting the idea of covenant in
Genesis........

I do not agree that Augustine is crucial for understanding Paul.

> John responds:
> Sin is not reckoned because there is no Torah or embodiment of the divine
> decrees/statutes. The voice of God is spoken within man's conscience is
how I would
> understand Paul to be speaking of the pre-Mosaic period.

Ok, but sin was not reckoned because yhwh is only at this time trying to
establish a relationship with this people, long before this god could
establish any law. And perhaps this is why the covenant was so lopsided
with the god's promise without requiring obedience to any commandments or
laws from Abram, fundamentally different when yhwh has won the people over
through deliverance, and then he could require law through Moses. Again the
Abram covenant appears to require nothing of Abe, other than recognition
which was realized through his faith. I don't see any particular relevance
in the remaining portion of your comments in this segment.

>
> John:
> My interpretation of the Paul's use of the Mosaic Covenant is that the
particular
> embodiment of the divine imperative which we see in the Jewish Torah does
not apply
> to the Gentile in terms of the rituals of circumcision, food laws, etc.
But what does apply
> is the divine imperative in terms of righteousness which is what God is
seen to be
> responding to in the Genesis 1-11 narrative which contains the history of
mankind in
> general and not Abraham and his descendants in particular.

I think it is a mistake for you to make a decision of separating the Torah
into the part it doesn't apply and the part it does. Can you support this
from the text?

> If there were no obligation, why is there a judgment in terms of the flood
or the
> expulsion from Eden? These imply that there is an obligation and I think
that it is
> explicitly stated in the text.

There is not judgment in the sense of law-breaking payback. Reading the
narrative of the times immediately following creation of human beings, it is
evident that God was very disappointed in his creation, realizing something
he did not expect. There was no obligation, and God did not see the need
for any--no implication of obligation. Simply, human beings did not turn
out well for God, so he decided first to punish them from an obvious set-up
at Eden at a time of no obligation, and then to destroy them and start over
with Noah and family, whom he determined necessary to save the human race.
The story of Eden is IMO to show the people that the creation did not work
out as intended, which of course is verified by the history the Judeans had
suffered through. I think it was written in the 2nd Temple period, utilizing
the Elish and perhaps some Ugarit traditions--reflecting back of how this
history that ended with loss of land, expulsion, and exile can be explained.
They wanted to understand what has happened, perhaps in order to make amends
for the purpose of reconciling with Torah.

>
> I think that we agree in general, Richard, that the Augustinian
soteriology is a
> misapplication of the divine imperative. But we seem to be getting hung up
on how this
> is worked out in the text. With patience, I think that we can find the
same page in terms
> of understanding one another.

Again, we're not reading the Bible the same way (hermeneutics), where we are
"hung up".

Richard Godwin.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page