Corpus-Paul

["Tim Gallant" <tim AT rabbisaul.com>]

> 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