Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul and the Law

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "W.S. Campbell" <WS.Campbell AT lamp.ac.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul and the Law
  • Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:00:01 +0000


Terence,
Thank you for your points re the gentiles as Abraham's seed. I think we
must bear in mind several other items of relevance.Sperma in Romans 4:16 f
is a 'not only but also' i.e. inclusive type argument concerning not one
but two clearly defined groups. It is these two groups in their
distinctiveness that together comprise the sperma, (unlike Galatians).

The other item worth noting is that Paul's arguments in Rom 4 are not
simply theological comment-to follow Wendy Dabourne's emphasis in her
Purpose and Cause in Pauline Exegesis (CUP 99) but contextualized
intentional statements designed to prevent the Gentiles in Rome taking up a
new anti-Jewish identity.I feel that many of the problems we find in Paul
arise from taking his arguments too theologically. To take one example-Paul
as a pastor may well exaggerate something to force his converts to change
their behaviour.This is perfectly acceptable persuasive strategy, but we
should not exaggerate theological statements, otherwise we confuse our
doctrines.

If Paul stresses too much the different designation of gentile believers,
he may well be encouraging those very separatist tendencies he was trying
to oppose.Whilst I am not keen to set one scripture against another, we
must allow Paul the freedom to interpret for himself and not interpret him
via Genesis.

Best wishes,Bill






At 09:23 09/02/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Mark,
>
>I have been following your discussion with Antonio Jerez (and others)
>with some interest, and since my work has come into view I thought I
>should toss in a comment. What I have found curious -- and ultimately
>revealing -- about the Gentiles in Pauline perspective is the way he
>wants to square the circle. That is, on the one hand they are to be
>accorded full and equal membership "in Christ" without the usual Jewish
>badges of membership (circumcision, food laws, etc.); yet on the other
>hand, as members "of Christ" they are full and equal members of the
>family of Abraham. What makes the circle even more circular -- and
>harder to square -- is the fact that at the same time he sees continuing
>theological significance for Jews as defined according to the usual
>boundary markers -- both within the church (e.g., Rom 15: 27) and
>without (Rom 11:26).
>
>The phenomenon is perhaps most marked in Romans 4. Here, in making the
>case that Gentiles are part of Abraham's family, Paul asserts that they
>are part of his "sperma" (v. 16; cf. v. 13, 18). The backdrop to the
>language here is Genesis 17, where -- problematic for Paul's argument --
>sperma are defined very precisely in terms of circumcision; one who is
>uncircumcised is "cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant"
>(Gen 17:14). What makes this argument revealing, in my view, is that the
>Abraham narrative provided Paul with a much "softer" option for bringing
>Gentiles into relationship with Abraham: they could simply be seen as
>part of the multitude of nations (Gen 17:5) of which Abraham was father.
>These "nations" are evidently differentiated from the circumcised
>"seed". Thus the passage could easily have been read in a "righteous
>Gentile" kind of way (cf. t. Sanh. 13.2), leading to an argument in
>which the Gentiles are members of Abraham's extended "family of
>nations," without having to become part of the covenantal "seed." Paul's
>citation of this verse from Genesis (Rom 4:17) indicates that he was
>aware of this option. But instead, he wants to use the language of full
>covenant membership to describe "members" who at the same time do not
>bear - and are categorically prohibited from accepting -- the
>scriptural marks of covenant membership.
>
>It is this desire to square the covenantal circle, even in the face of
>the plain sense of his scriptural warrants, that makes Paul's language
>about Gentiles so perplexing. At the same time, as I have tried to argue
>in my book it provides us with the most reliable indications of the
>convictional interplay that is going on beneath the rhetorical surface
>of his argument.
>
>Best wishes,
>Terry Donaldson
>Wycliffe College
>Toronto
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: WS.Campbell AT lamp.ac.uk
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>
>
Dr. William S. Campbell
Department of Theology and Religious Studies
University of Wales, Lampeter
Lampeter
Dyfed
SA48 7ED

Tel: 01570 424708 x415
Fax: 01570 423641




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page