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: "Given, Mark Douglas" <mdg421f AT smsu.edu>
  • To: "Tim Gallant" <tim AT rabbisaul.com>, "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: RE: [Corpus-Paul] Audience of Romans/Symbolic Paul
  • Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 15:02:14 -0500

Forgive me if anyone has already thrown this in the mix, but Mark Nanos
has a long response on his website to Gagnon's CBQ objections to his
identification of the weak in Rom 14.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/nanosmd/projects.html

Mark

Mark D. Given
Associate Professor
Department of Religious Studies
Southwest Missouri State University [Missouri State University beginning
8/28/05]
901 S. National Ave.
Springfield, MO 65804

-----Original Message-----
From: corpus-paul-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:corpus-paul-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Tim Gallant
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 2:45 PM
To: Corpus-Paul
Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Audience of Romans/Symbolic Paul

> 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


_______________________________________________
Corpus-Paul mailing list
Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page