aanbiddelijke billekoek [christelijk/denominatief]

~*~


"WILL
the only
real true secret
Jew/Christian/Muslim a.s.o.
stand up please?"


~*~




~*~

PAUL's
"JEW"
[christian/muslim a.s.o.]
is no longer as in my interpretation
- based on D.'s -
a real Jew at all
but a symbol
or allegory
for the "pious person" -
a pejorative in Existential
Theology.


And
K. goes on
to say that,

"The person
represented typically
by the Jew
is determined by 'hardness' and,
in explication,
by the 'impenitent heart.'



So,
on the one hand,
K.,
superficially similarly to D.,
recognizes as well
that these terms
are drawn from biblical preaching
of repentance itself,
but on the other hand,
for him
the repentance that PAUL calls for
is not repentance from failure to keep the Law
but from success in keeping
the Law.




THIS move
is brought out clearly
in such statement as the
following:

"It derives
from the good Jewish view
that a person accumulates capital in heaven
with his works
when he is alive ...
PAUL,
however,
changes the Jewish expectation
into its opposite ...".




Hidden
in this statement
is a truly sinister interpretation of Paul -
although one which the entire Lutheran tradition prepares -
that Paul
is NOT claiming
that Jews who do NOT
keep the Law,
claiming instead priviliege
by its mere possession,
are storing up wrath
for the Day of Wrath,
but that Jews
who DO keep the Law
and believe that THUS
they are storing up merits are,
in fact,
only accumulating
wrath.




As K.
puts it explicitly
in another place,

"works of the law ...
[by which K. means all good works
and ethical striving]
are for PAUL
a higher form of godlessness
than transgression of the law
and are THUS
incompatible
with faith" -
to which I
as a 'mensch'
would instinctively reply
that such "godlessness" is surely
preferable to G D
than a faith
that does NOT issue
in ethics.




Now K.
clearly recognizes
that the next verses [6-8]
are extraordinarily difficult
for traditional Protestant interpretations of Paul,
his among them:

"who will render
to each
according to
his works."
To those
who seek for glory
and honor and immortality
by perseverance
in doing good -
eternal life.
But to those
who out of selfish ambition
also disobey the truth,
being persuaded
to unrighteousness -
wrath and
anger."




THESE verses
are extremely difficult one for Protestant Paulinism,
whereby works not only are insufficient for salvation
but actually constitute
sinfulness.




Indeed
well might have
"Roman Catholics seized on it,
not without malicious joy for their dogmatics,"
for these verses clearly say
that at the
"Last Judgment"
one will be judged
by one's works.




In fact,
the problems
which this chapter presents
are much deeper
and more fatal
for a Lutheran Paul than K.
is willing to
admit.




The Jew
who is addressed by PAUL here
is NOT a Jew
who has confidence
in her achievement
in keeping the Law
and thereby denies G*d's grace,
but exactly the
opposite!




The Jew
whom PAUL is addressing and attacking here
is a Jew who does NOT successfully keep the Law,
and relies on G d's grace to the Jews
to save her at the last judgment.
PAUL's adversary is covenantal grace,
NOT good works!




ROM 2,
I admit,
renders the Lutheran reading of Paul,
and with it K.'s,
simply nonsensical?!




In the brilliant
and biting formulation
of Francis Watson:

"The Jews
teach a doctrine
of sola gratia,
and this
leads them to live
by the maxim
pecca fortiter."




The
biblical
theologoumenon,
established in the Torah and repeated in the Prophets -
which PAUL knows
and even asserts in Romans 9-11 -
that in the end salvation is guaranteed to the Jews,
could easily lead
to the [mis]understanding
that Jews do not even need
to keep the commandments
in order to be saved,
and Paul's argument here
is THUS one
that any Pharisee would
agree
with.


[paars

The
doctrine
of G d's grace
is indeed a very
dangerous
one?




WHAT IS
NEW IN PAUL
is his deduction from the truism
that Jews must keep the Law to be saved
that therefore they are in no advantageous position at all
vis-a-vis gentiles when it comes
to justification!




THIS
'explanation', then,
strongly supports the tradition of interpretation,
within which 'we stand', for on 'our view'
PAUL is NOT critiquing homo religiosus
BUT
homo non religiosus,
the Jew
['christian/muslim
or whatever']
who does not keep the Law
but thinks it is ENOUGH merely
'to be Jewish'
['Christian or Muslim'?!]
and 'possess or hear' the Law
to be saved.




K.'s
attempt
to get OUT of the implication
of these verses
is simply incomprehensible to me,
and I will not even attempt
to paraphrase
it.

~verliefdliefdesverdrietverliefd~
engel
19 aug 2005 - bewerkt op 20 mrt 2008 - meld ongepast verhaal
Weet je zeker dat je dit verhaal wilt rapporteren? Ja | Nee
Profielfoto van Asih
Asih, man, 81 jaar
   
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.   vorige volgende