Corpus-Paul

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Alexander,
     I agree that Paul was an apostle of the new covenant; so what he
brought superceded the revelation of the old covenant where the two
covenants disagree. I'm sorry that I did not make it clear earlier that I
understood this fact. But he also sought that God's law be kept in the
heart, as does the new covenant of Jer 31:33. God sent Christ to die that
the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us (Rom 8:4). Paul's
meaning is consistent with Jeremiah and Ezekiel, except that he reveals the
mystery of God's will for the Gentiles, which Ezekiel and Jeremiah do not
address in their new covenant revelation. Galatians 3:16 does not really
twist Scripture; as you probably know, it argues rabbinically from the
appearance of the words (the interesting singularity of "seed") to a truth,
the unique seed of Christ. Paul is not using this stress on "seed" versus
"seeds" for a proof. Rather he is reminding that the Abrahamic covenant
looked beyond the Law to the coming of Christ.
     You write:
As for Rom 4, Paul's purpose is indeed to show "that people can be reckoned
righteous apart from circumcision" (as you note). To this end Paul's
specific argument is that Abraham received this status before he was
circumcised (an argument from chronological sequence); this argument is
intended to make circumcision non-obligatory for Christian believers who
are of the Abrahamic faith, such that they are righteous apart from
observing the practices distinctive to the Torah. The effect of Paul's
argument here,
as purposed throughout chs 2-4, is to undermine the obligation of
circumcision that Gen 17 forever requires of all persons who join the
Abrahamic community. The point in my previous post was that Paul's argument
from chronological sequence in Gen 15 contradicts and negates the explicit,
everlasting biblical obligation of Gen 17. Even if we are predisposed to
accept its intended result, Paul's argument from Gen 15 is implausible.

I do not think that Paul in Romans 4 is trying by His argument itself to do
away with circumcision. I agree with you that Paul relies on new covenant
revelation in his general stance that circumcision is nothing. But he is
explaining his stance somewhat in Romans 4. How can it be that Gentiles can
be righteous apart from circumcision? There are spiritual realities at work
that account for this possibility. I do not find Paul's argument
implausible in itself. It is only implausible if regarded as the sole basis
for scrapping circumcision. And you seem to be making this point, too, that
something more is needed.

                                        Yours,
                                        Harold Holmyard