Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rabbi Saul" <tim AT rabbisaul.com>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7
  • Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 21:44:02 -0600

Richard Godwin writes,

>Dr. Gallant (I assume Dr.), thank you for your comments. 
 
Well, thank you for that assumption, but I have not earned that one.  :)
 
>By convoluted, I was referring only to your statement that God would plan (apparently consciously) to devise an incompetent law, already knowing that his created human beings were not able to comply with it (impossible by nature), in order that he could condemn these beings, punish them for not complying, and then forgiving them through the process of the sacrificial atonement for such failure with the excruciating killing of his son, or in the orthodox Christian sense, killing (martyring) Himself. 
 
Hmm.  Perhaps I have not made myself clear.  The law is not given "in order that" God would condemn these beings (that's not what "consigning all under Sin" means).  Torah functioned within a previous covenantal relationship.  Once more, my point about accounting is quite aside from Israel's responsibility.  They could not themselves enter into that accounting, and were not intended to (once more:  Ps 143.2; and thus note that this is NOT NEW - Paul is applying David's correct insight from many centuries previous).  Paul explicitly says that God "passed over" previous sins (Rom 3.25-6).  That is not punishment; it is forbearance.  My point about accounting is that God is just and looks after the accounting Himself, apart from Torah (cf Rom 3.21).
 
"Incompetent" is a description which wholly depends on how you look at it.  If you pick up a matchstick and attempt to pound a nail with it, well, the matchstick is incompetent for that purpose - but neither was it intended for that purpose, so it's prejudicial to speak of it in that way.  Torah was fully competent for the purposes which God envisioned for it, but its competence cannot be stretched beyond that sphere.
 
>However, judging by your response to Dr. West's message, and yours herewith, I gather that it will not do to just take potshots at your statements, but rather examine your whole theory, i.e. your theology, evidently an intricate "systematic" theology, in order to determine your presuppositions, both of methodology and basic propositions. 
 
It is not clear to me precisely what you are looking for, but I will simply observe that I take an evangelical view of the texts, viz. that Scripture, for all its texture and complexity, is a unity.  I do not acknowledge that God evolves, but I do acknowledge that His self-disclosure is progressive (otherwise, one could hardly account for the self-disclosure in the Son, for one thing).
 
Regarding my approach to Paul more specifically:  I am attempting to do two things which many scholars have largely given up on:  (1) generate contextual readings of the individual statements; (2) integrate those contextual readings into a coherent (though of course not exhaustive) pattern.  It is my conviction that we must not approach the texts with a counsel of despair which says that unless I can integrate in short order, Paul must be either incoherent, or at least self-contradictory.  We are constantly unlearning the wrong way of reading the text, and I believe we are not in a position to claim we have fully understood Paul until we can do something like integration, without doing violence to any aspect of the data. 
 
Regarding my actual interpretation once more:  There is no trickery whatsoever in my view of God's purpose for Torah.  It was never intended to be a means of achieving perfection, and it was not presented by Yahweh as the means for justification.  It always stood within the context of God's covenantal righteousness, to which God's people were to appeal for salvific (whether you take that widely or narrowly, including vindication against political oppression).
 
>BTW I don't think Paul thinks of Torah as a "system of accounting."  You say "God being holy cannot simply pass by sin": So for you then, not only is God limited (i.e. not omnipotent), but also He Himself is subject to law (caps=Law).  But (oddly) I agree with you that your conclusion does conform to how the Tanakh characterizes God.
 
It does not at all follow from the predication "God cannot simply pass by sin" that He is therefore limited.  It simply follows that He cannot abandon His own character.  Omnipotence has never meant random power.  God is faithful; He cannot deny Himself:  these biblical statements do not imply limitation, but extraordinary power.  There is no power greater than being able to determine all things such that you never in any way deny your own character. 
 
But now, we are getting away from Pauline exegesis and into theology.  To return to the issue of the "system of accounting," we must note the way Paul develops things in Rom 3-4. 
 
(1) Rom 3.20:  He interprets Ps 143.2 in such a way as to bring identify "works of Torah" with "entering into judgment."  David has pled that Yahweh *not* enter into judgment, thus showing that the judgment in view is not the sort of judgment he would seek out.
 
(2) Rom 3.25-6:  He goes further and speaks of the passing over of sins in divine forbearance, which are dealt with by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ as a propitiation.
 
(3) Rom 4.4-8:  He sets working for wages over against Abraham's covenantal righteousness.  Now, this would make no sense unless there were some "accounting backdrop" that he is making his point against.  If you examine ch. 4, you will see that it is clear that the "righteousness of faith" was always available (although the issue of eschatological justification lies in the background and will be dealt with more as he goes).  Paul is not suggesting that God changed his mind regarding the nature of justification, but precisely the opposite.  Although Abraham has a special covenantal place in salvation history, his "faith accounted as righteousness" is not unique to the period, as the two appeals to David show.  But my point here is that Rom 4.4-8 presupposes my "accounting system" analogy.
 
tim
 
Tim Gallant
Pastor, Conrad Christian Reformed Church
Conrad, MT
 
 
Pauline studies:
http://www.rabbisaul.com
 
(406) 278-5846 / (406) 278-7809
Fax:  (406) 278-7809
http://www.timgallant.org
 
.



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page