Corpus-Paul

["Alexander LaBrecque" <evangelica AT earthlink.net>]

From the outset of this thread it appears an unfounded premise has been
assumed to be valid. Even if it could be demonstrated that the Jeremiah
passage is in any sense a source for Paul's statements in Romans 10, it does
not follow that Paul's meaning corresponds to the meaning of the alleged
source.

Paul's explicit citations of scripture habitually appropriate the words or
phrases of biblical texts to express the point that Paul wishes to make,
without regard for any intended or contextual meaning of the cited
scripture. Paul's quotation of scripture may even contradict what is clearly
evident from the quoted scripture.

Example #1: In 2 Cor 3 Paul's usage of biblical terminology makes a negating
dichotomy between the Torah and the "new covenant" of "the Spirit," whereas
that negation is nowhere evident or even implicit in the alleged biblical
sources of Paul's terminology.

Example #2: In Romans 4 Paul quotes Gen 15 to argue from chronological
sequence that Abraham's status as righteous while uncircumcised negates the
obligation of circumcision for Abraham's descendants who are of the
resurrection faith. Apparently this conclusion never occurred to those who
transmitted the Genesis traditions for it is clear from Gen 17 that the
priority of Gen 15 did not negate the subsequent obligation of circumcision.

If Paul's explicit citation of scripture does not correspond to the meaning
of that scripture, how much less the meaning of a source to which there is
at best an implicit allusion?

In Paul's letters, the actual authority for his arguments is not scripture
but his own theological convictions (which he attributes variously to his
divine calling, the reality of Christ's resurrection, and to the Spirit).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Wilking [mailto:johnwilking AT hotmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 11:50 AM
> To: Corpus-paul
> Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Romans 10:1-4
>
>
> Mark,
>
> I'm not making any general principles about ignorance or zeal.
> I'm saying
> that if Jeremiah 8 is the source for Paul's thought then
> ignorance of God's
> righteousness should be interpreted in light of "not knowing
> God's ways" in
> Jeremiah.  That ignorance seems clearly to be an unnatural one
> since "even
> the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons."  It was true of
> Jeremiah's audience and it would seem that Paul is applying it to his
> contemporary "Israelites."
>
> Concerning the zeal for God, if the Israelites Paul is referring to are
> rebellious and are ignorant of God's ways due to their rebellion, then it
> doesn't seem that that same group would have a true zeal for God.
>  If there
> is such a thing as a zeal for God which is wrong-headed (Isa.
> 58), then it
> would appear to me that it would be what Paul is talking about in
> Romans 10.
>
> My logic is this: Romans 10 looks like Jeremiah 8 in which
> rebellion is the
> issue and ignorance is clearly due to rebellion.  If ignorance of
> God's ways
> has bad roots in Romans, then the "zeal for God", which may be good any
> other time, isn't good here either.
>
> John C. Wilking
> >From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanos AT mail.gvi.net>
> >Reply-To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> >To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> >Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Romans 10:1-4
> >Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 11:28:37 -0600
> >
> >Dear John,
> >You wrote:
> >>If Jeremiah 8 is the correct source for understanding Romans 10,
> >>then ignorance of God's ways arises out of rebellion and a desire to
> >>pursue one's own ways.
> >
> >I am not sure of your point. Is this the only way in which it arises?
> >Is this and only this true for all people at all times?
> >
> >>
> >>A zeal for God (Romans 10:2) would likewise be wrong-headed.  This
> >>possibility seems to be supported by Isaiah 58:1-12.  The sinful
> >>house of Jacob "seeks Me day by day, and delights to know My ways as
> >>a nation that has done righteousness, and has not forsaken the
> >>ordinance of their God."  Yet they did not understand the true
> >>nature of a fast.  "Is this not the fast which I chose, to loosen
> >>the bonds of wickedness...?"
> >
> >I do not understand the connections you are making here. How do you
> >conclude that "a zeal for God" "would be wrong-headed" as though this
> >was an absolute principle? Do not the prophets and even Jesus call
> >for such zeal? Does not Paul boast of such? Does not Isaiah's comment
> >assume that seeking God and delighting in knowing God's ways is good?
> >Does not the criticism of "the fast" done when not choosing other
> >actions of righteousness assume the righteousness of the fast done
> >when those other actions are done righteously?
> >
> >If there is a general principle, is it not that zeal for God, like
> >everything else good, can be turned into "not good" when it comes in
> >the way of "the good," i.e, God, and good toward those whom he
> >created in his good image?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Mark Nanos
> >
> >
> >---
> >You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: johnwilking AT hotmail.com
> >To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> >$subst('Email.Unsub')
> >
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: evangelica AT earthlink.net
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
>
>