Corpus-Paul

["John Brand" <jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca>]

From:                   "rabbisaul" <tim AT rabbisaul.com>
To:                     "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject:                Re: [Corpus-Paul] 'Faith working through love'
Jewish versus Protestantview
Date sent:              Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:04:24 -0700

> John Brand wrote,
>
> >We might profit most from keeping it simple (the K.I.S.S.
principle)

Tim responds:
> > Well, to be honest, John, I find your post to be an attempt to
keep it
> too simplistic.

John continues:
I am willing to defer to your judgment, Tim. It is difficult for me
to see myself as others see me … please help me understand your view
better.

Tim wrote:
 You continue to impute views to me based upon your
> own assumptions, as well as to make assertions regarding historical
> theology which are simply untrue.  This makes dialogue difficult.

John writes:
Please feel free to correct me as we move along. I do want to
understand your view and will need your help so that the dialogue is
easy.

Tim:
> I will simply comment on *one* aspect of your post here, because I
> don't have time to respond to everything you wrote.

John continues:
Thanks for taking the time from your busy schedule.

John had written:
>
> "Indeed, your positing that to pit sacrifice against mercy is one-
> sided is to disagree with Hosea who said it first 'I desire mercy,
not
> sacrifice' (6:6) and Jesus who quoted Hosea: 'If you had known what
> these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not
have
> condemned the innocent" (Matthew 12:7)."

Tim responds:
> This is precisely what I mean by trying to argue on a simplistic
> basis.  For your interpretation errs on at least two levels.
>
> First, the biblical idiom, "I desire this, not that" cannot simply
be
> taken in complete antithesis.  For example, Jesus also said, "I
came
> not to bring peace, but a sword."  Well, we know that He *did* come
to
> bring peace.

John responds:
How do you bring these two (mercy and sacrifice) together, Tim?

'I came not to bring peace but a sword' is a quotation from Matthew
10:34 where Jesus quotes Micah 7:6 'a man against his father' etc..
Jesus says that the answer is that each must take up his cross which
corresponds to a participatory view of sacrifice (Isaiah 53) rather
than a substitutionary. The prophetic/deuteronomic system would say
that sacrifice is not regarded where there is no justice. Can we use
the categories of the Heidelberg Catechism to make a comparison?
Israel's misery is due to the injustice that has been allowed to
spread do to unjust rulers (7:3). In the Heidelberg Catechism, Q/A 3-
5 our sin and misery is due to our not keeping the law of God
perfectly (Q/A 5). This is why a mediator must be sought who can
satisfy the justice of God. In the prophetic view of Micah, it is
Micah who is in misery because of what he sees in Israel (7:1 'what
misery is mine'). According to Jesus perspective of Micah, it is his
disciples who must take up his cross so as to satisfy the justice of
God. Yet, he does say that his blood is the basis of his covenant
with his disciples (Matthew 26:28). Therefore, his sacrificial self-
offering along with theirs will satisfy the justice of God. This
combination appears to be the idea in Q/A 31 and 32 where Christ as
our anointed prophet, priest and king (Q/A 31) and we participate in
that anointing: 'Because I am a member of Christ by faith, and thus
am partaker of his anointing; that so I may confess his name, and
present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to him: and also
that with a free and good conscience I may fight against sin and
Satan in this life and afterwards I reign with him eternally, over
all creatures' (Q/A 32). Is this what you mean by a cooperation of
mercy and sacrifice?

Tim
> Second, your question fails to differentiate between kinds of
> sacrifice. For Christ's sacrifice is a slf-offering, and once more,
> Paul employs the sacrificial categories with reference to Christ
> without apology.  Clearly, he does not pit sacrifice against mercy
or
> anything else.

John writes:
Christ's sacrifice is a self-offering and we are to present ourselves
as a 'living sacrifice' (Romans 12:1) primarily in view of God's
electing us to salvation and with a view to bringing the Jew back
from his paraptwma (Romans 11). Here is where we meet with a snag, it
seems to me. In Galatians 6:1the brother caught in paraptwma is to be
restored with gentleness, etc. but in your interpretation of Romans
11, the Jews paraptwma is to be linked with the Adamic paraptwma.
Your linking these together appears to be following the logic of the
Heidelberg where man was originally created free so that he could
perform the covenant. God created man good (Q/A 6) but through Adam's
paraptwma we all are 'so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of
doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness' (Q/A 8). My
understanding of your position here is that God has withdrawn his
grace from the covenant with Adam. I am confused as to how you are
understanding this since Noah finds grace before God (Genesis 6:8)
and he is said to be 'a righteous man, blameless among the people of
his generation' (v9). Since God establishes (heqim) his covenant with
Noah. It appears to me that he is following through on the terms of a
covenant that already exists where heqim is used. When setting the
terms of a covenant is meant, the word carat is used (i.e. in the
Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 15:18.
I have read through your primer on the Adamic Covenant and have found
it helpful. In the context of this discussion: I do not see going on
in Genesis what the Heidelberg Catechism is talking about. God's
grace appears to be operative so that he accepts the righteousness of
Noah as the basis for establishing the covenant he had made with the
head of the race, Adam. Also, the Noahic Covenant is made with all of
Noah's posterity. A remnant of that race is focused upon in the
Abrahamic Covenant. Is there a clear text that states that the Adamic
and Noahic covenants are abrogated due to default?
Tim:
> Besides all this, your view requires an antithesis within Scripture
> that I find unacceptable.  If you choose to chop up the texts and
say
> that the prophets disagreed with "the priestly code," etc, that's
your
> choice, but I have no inclination to follow you.  If, on the other
> hand, you do not go that route, then you have to face the fact that
> sacrifice and mercy must not be so antithetical as you suggest
above.

John:
I can agree that sacrifice works together with mercy. Can you agree
that sacrifice is annulled if there is no mercy? If not, how do you
support this view from the prophets as well as from Paul?

Tim:
> I stand by what I said.  Paul sees no antithesis between mercy and
> sacrifice.  But let's not simplistically suppose that all sacrifice
is
> equal,

John:
Are you implying that the sacrifice of Christ is a superior
sacrifice? Does this mean, then, that a new situation is in view than
what we meet in the prophets? How do you develop this idea?

Tim:
… and that once we say the word, we are speaking univocally.
> Despite your good intention to simplify the discussion, sometimes
> trying to draw your black/white lines are not going to generate the
> sort of sophistication necessary to understand the rhetorical point
in
> the passage(s) in question.

John:
Agreed.

Thanks, Tim