Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Audience of Romans/Symbolic Paul

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tim Gallant" <tim AT rabbisaul.com>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Audience of Romans/Symbolic Paul
  • Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 13:44:46 -0600

Yet this is exactly what Paul's language implies. Why
was Abraham "strong"? For believing in God's ability
to give life to Sarah's dead womb (4:19-21).
Christians are likewise strong for believing in
Christ's resurrection (4:23-25). How could this be any
clearer?

If he said it in the context you are imposing it on, it would certainly be clear.

It seems much more natural to
recognize that Paul defines "weak"
in ch. 14 itself - the weakness is
characterized by believing one may
only eat vegetables, for example
(14.2).

And yet this is exactly what Paul's language does
**not** imply. If eating vegatables and abstaining
from meat were "weak", why would Paul advise doing so,
without reservation, in honor of God? The weak do
these things, because they're Judeans, but their
"Jewishness" itself isn't the weakness.

I never claimed it was. The thing that Paul says is weak is the *belief* that one must observe these dietary rules, not *that* one does observe them. He considers the former a weak conscience.

In any case, Paul does define the faith and weakness in view in the context of ch 14-15 much more clearly in 14.29-23. The "faith" that concerns Paul in this instance is something that one can have oneself before God (22), adding, "Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who *doubts* is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin" (22b-23).

The above shows clearly that the faith in view is not faith in the resurrection, since Paul would not privatize that and say one should have it to oneself before God.

Equally clearly, the doubt has to do with eating.

Saying that God has chosen Israel is
nothing like saying that unbelieving
Israel is living to/for Christ. But
that is how Paul describes the weak
in Rom 14.

Point taken. But since Paul isn't even addressing the
weak, it's irrelevant.

How can it be irrelevant? The issue is not whom Paul is addressing (even were I to agree with you that Paul does not address the weak here, which I do not, seeing no need to weaken e.g. 14.3b into a merely rhetorical imperative). The issue is whom Paul is speaking *about.* I understand you to claim that the weak are unbelieving Jews. But Paul describes the weak here as those who live and die unto the Lord. The point is that it matters not whether he is addressing them directly or not; he is in any case speaking of Christians.

Ultimately, as far as I can see, your position entails:

1) holding that Jews who did not believe in Christ are described by Paul as living and dying "to the Lord," i.e. Jesus.

2) that Paul suggests that faith in the resurrection is something one should hold "to oneself" before God.

3) that the unbelieving Jew is condemned in eating, because he does not believe in the resurrection (?).

3) holding that Paul speaks of unbelieving Jews as "brothers" to believing Gentiles (14.15). Although this is not as problematic as points 1 & 2, in particular, it is still unprecedented as far as I am aware. Paul calls unbelieving Jews *his* brothers, and he calls believing Gentiles his brothers, but I'm not aware of anywhere else where he makes believing Gentiles and unbelieving Jews brothers.

tim

Tim Gallant
Pastor, Conrad Christian Reformed Church

http://www.timgallant.org
tim | gallant site group





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page