corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
- 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 Biblical Studies Center
http://www.timgallant.org/center.htm Pauline studies:
http://www.rabbisaul.com .
|
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Galatians 2:16: Exploring the Relationshipbetween Faith and Works
, (continued)
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Galatians 2:16: Exploring the Relationshipbetween Faith and Works,
John Brand, 08/12/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Galatians 2:16: Exploring the Relationshipbetween Faith and Works,
Ian W. Scott, 08/12/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Galatians 2:16: Exploring the Relationshipbetween Faith and Works,
John Brand, 08/12/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Galatians 2:16: Exploring theRelationshipbetween Faith and Works, Rabbi Saul, 08/12/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Galatians 2:16: Exploring the Relationshipbetween Faith and Works,
John Brand, 08/12/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Galatians 2:16: Exploringthe Relationshipbetween Faith and Works, Rabbi Saul, 08/12/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Galatians 2:16: Exploring the Relationshipbetween Faith and Works,
Ian W. Scott, 08/12/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7,
Loren Rosson, 08/11/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7,
Rabbi Saul, 08/11/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7,
meta, 08/12/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7,
Rabbi Saul, 08/12/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7, meta, 08/12/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7, Rabbi Saul, 08/12/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7, meta, 08/13/2004
- Coherence and sovereignty (Was: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7), Rabbi Saul, 08/13/2004
- Re: Coherence and sovereignty (Was: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7), Jim West, 08/13/2004
- Re: Coherence and sovereignty (Was: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom7), Rabbi Saul, 08/14/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7,
Rabbi Saul, 08/12/2004
- Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7, Matthew Estrada, 08/13/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7,
meta, 08/12/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 2:19 & Rom 7,
Rabbi Saul, 08/11/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Galatians 2:16: Exploring the Relationshipbetween Faith and Works,
John Brand, 08/12/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.