Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Romans 4/Galatians 3 Obligation and the 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] Romans 4/Galatians 3 Obligation and the Covenant
  • Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:17:11 -0700


>
> John responds:
> You are building a credible argument here IMO, Richard. What are we
talking about in
> terms of the faith of Abraham? Is it fideism or belief in a creed? Or, is
it faith as an
> 'emerging paradigm' (Marcus Borg) or gradual realization of truth?

Trust. Based on conviction, which probably was based on consideration of
alternatives in life.

>
> You have noted the use of the 'mn trilateral root in the Hebrew verb
translated by our
> English 'faith.' The verb in Genesis 15:6 is in the hiphil stem which is
the causative of
> the qal. Thus, while mn in the qal is something that is firm, mn in the
hiphil is
> something that you make firm or cause to be firm which lends further
credibility to the
> scenario you are proposing: Abraham makes the 'voice' that he hears and
believes to be
> from the god YHWH something that is firm or established by acting on what
begins as a
> type of hunch and moves toward a firm conviction. It would be good to add
to your
> argument that Abram leaves his country because YHWH says 'leave yoru
country'
> (Genesis 12:1) and then follows with the promise.

Check out Joseph Fitzmyer, To Advance the Gospel, Pauline Topics, as I
recall. According to scholarship, Abram either was leaving Ur anyway, or
had already left.

>
> This is not the same as fideism which stresses the belief in certain facts
about god that
> must be 'believed' before one can expect the blessing from god. This is in
substance what
> becomes Christianity and becomes the undoing of Christianity in the view
of folk like
> Marcus Borg (i.e. 'The Meaning of Jesus'). People are asked to believe
'iffy' things in
> relation to Christ (i.e. his diety, his resurrection, etc.) instead of
being encouraged to
> walk a path along a gradual realization of the truth about Christ.

Religion was thoroughly pragmatic during the ANE times.


> It is also noteworthy that while Paul holds up the faith of Abraham as the
exemplar
> rather than the faith of Jacob. Indeed, Jacob is called a 'worm' by the
prophets. He is the
> one who negotiates with God and will only serve God if God does what he
wants and
> this is the approach the take to be that of Israel/Judah.

Paul referred to Abraham because he was/is the recognized Father of the
Jews: the original--same for Islam. Noone else could fit that
tradition-picture. Religion is based on tradition, not concepts.

>
> Paul is also saying that the pact/contract approach to obedience that is
in substance the > Mosaic Covenant is inferior to the emerging trust of
Abraham. It is based on the fear of
> punishment (which John argues 'love casts out'). There cannot be a
covenant without
> obligation (i.e. YHWH doesn't come to a citizen of Ur and simply make
promises) but
> the obligation must come from within a heart convinced rather than from
without and
> through fear of sanction.

Where do find "pact/contract"--covenant supposedly, in Paul? Works of the
law, it appears to me. Belief in Torah was based not so much on punishment
as love. Love for the law. This is the way the post-exile Judeans
understood Torah, still do. Yahweh came wherever he could find a
well-meaning basically good person. According to the story, whether or not
Abram ever existed in history, he fit the bill. And yes that's what he came
for--to make promises: not to be too hasty; need to hook em first.
Obligations came later, following Abram's conviction and trust. Not really
"from within a heart..." but more the pragmatic approach, the best
alternative available--nothing about the heart here; is faith always from
within the heart? But note that Abram did not make any real commitment
during the first, even second, stage (he worshipped). Again, he was leaving
anyway, probably because not making a living where he was, or he had already
left. I don't see any fear of sanction. Fulfilling an obligation meant
establishing self-identity--offering Yahweh a piece of his manhood (what it
means to be a man), according to custom at the time. But no laws until
Moses, a long time later.

Richard Godwin.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page