Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] (no subject)

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ryan Brandon Mannix <Ryan.Mannix AT pepperdine.edu>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Corpus-Paul] (no subject)
  • Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:53:32 -0700 (PDT)

I would first like to thank those who took the time to respond to my
post. It has helped me clarify where (and where not) I will direct my
thought.

The most powerful argument (or the best communicated to me) against my
proposed reading was that "the text won't function that way,
because Paul...makes no warning here
that there be no "works-righteous" attitude on the part of the people
he
calls the weak." Thank you for this insight.

Other individuals, though mentioning "many reasons" for not
interpreting the passage the way I had proposed, focused on questioning
my motives for interpreting it in that manner. I was asked "Why would
you want to promote that hypothesis for a reading of this material?"--
My initial response would be that I did not come to my study with an
agenda to prove, but with a sincere and open mind to inquire into what
God communicated through Paul in this letter. My personal motives
should have nothing to do with the interpretation of the inspired Word.
This works both ways. First, as mentioned, I am not trying to
interpret the text as an extension of my personal convictions. Second,
I am not trying to interpret the text with the goal of popularity or
men pleasing.

That said, it did not go unnoticed that I was rhetorically "goaded"
from a perspective of apparently manufactured humility: "Is it
necessary to suppose that such demeaning of the faith convictions of
the "other" in Paul's voice? Why not just do it in one's own voice, if
that is what one believes?"

I believe that I have been criticized for an implication in my proposed
interpretation that sprung from the mind of the inquisitor himself. The
statement was made that viewing the eating and not eating as an example
of any works one does to achieve right standing with God "makes central
the denigration of the motives and actions of others who choose to
express their faith in a way different than the reader who proposes the
reading you suggest to propose, denying to them the claim to act nobly
in faith, while reserving only for that reader such nobility."

This I do not agree with. Because there was no explanation from whence
this apparently implied central argument originated I really have no
thing to defend or argue against. I do agree with the another post,
who though he ironically "resonated" with the earlier criticism, found
"it difficult not to hear his [Paul's] advice as filled with a spirit
of tolerance towards believers who differed from himself, a tolerance
he wants to persuade "strong" believers in Rome to practice." This is
absolutely true and I fail to see how the proposed interpretation takes
this away to "make central" the denigration of the motives and actions
of others (again ironic given the questioning of my motives). Rather,
I would see that the goal of the tolerance of the "weaker" brother is
to assure (or at least not weaken) the full persuasion of his mind that
gives birth to a steadfast and unwavering faith. This would point to
the solidity of faith exemplified by Abraham mentioned in ch 4. This
also seems consistent with ch 14:22-23. There is no denigration in a
Love directed towards a tolerance with the goal of upholding (or at
least not battering) the faith of another believer. I suppose I was
reaching for a Lutheran interpretation without the Lutheran intolerance
(that was assumed without my intention). And I do admit that I was
"reaching"-- I was not posting my thesis!

I realize that I may be over-reacting (laying bare my pride and
intellectual vanity) to what may have been no more than standard
scholarly bravado or the customary hazing of this theological
community, which some day I will perpetrate on some other bright eyed
young Christian. If this is the case I do apologize. And if anyone
was offended or made weak by my proposed interpretation (which i had
merely pondered and brought forth for discussion), I do apologize.

Ryan Mannix









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page