sin grace doom babysitting ugly demonic pedagogues



'Is
the law then
against the promises
of "G*D"?'
[GAL 3:21-25]

Paul
begins
this argument
with another
logical
proof.

IF
the Law,
as he has just
said,
is given
for the purpose
of preventing sin,
does it not annul the promise -
in other words,
does it not substitute
itself
for
the promise
and obviate
the
promise?

THIS
seems
to me
a strong argument
against
the interpretation
of the previous verses
that the Law
was given
to increase sin,
in order that the grace
of the promise
would be
necessary,
for if THAT were
the case
then the question
of the Law
being against
the promise would
not
arise?

ONLY
if the Law is accorded
the positive role
of confining
sin
would it be
possible
even to imagine
that it somehow cancels
the promise
of a 'free gift
of
grace.'

Verse 23,
"But the scripture,"
seems difficult for my interpretation,
however?

IT
seems
strongly to promote
a reading
that the Law itself
produces,
and thus confines
everyone
under,
sin.


However,
THIS problem is
illusory!


NOTE
that Paul switches here
from "The Law"
to "Scripture"
as the subject of the sentence,
and this SHIFT must be
significant?


He is
NOT
speaking HERE
of "The Law" at all,
but of the
text.
The action
of the text is linguistic,
SO
"consigns/confines everyone
under sin"
must be understood
as
"predicates of all humanity
that they are
sinful."
To understand
this point,
the following
linguistic parallel
may be
helpful!?


The
peculiar
PESSIMISM
about 'mankind'
and 'flesh'
in the Dead Sea Scrolls
arises from
an apocalyptic
and sectarian
perspective
which CONSIGNS
EVERYONE
to DOOM
unless
they experience
the grace
of "G*D"
WITHIN
the ELECT
community.


JUST
as HERE
it does not mean
to say here
that the sectarian perspective
CAUSED [performative]
everyone
to be doomed
but only
that it
DECLARED [constative]
everyone doomed,
SO ALSO
could we understand
Paul's Scripture as "confining" everyone
under sin,
IN OTHER WORDS,
declaring that
all are
'sinful'.


THIS
interpretation
ALSO OBVIATES
the difficult conclusion
that Paul is
equating
"under sin" in this verse with "under the Law"
in the next;
therefore,
the Law = sin.


For
'under sin'
in the sense of
"sinful,"
see ROMANS 3:9.
IT MAY BE
that Paul holds,
as indeed he seems to,
that the Law
CANNOT redeem
from sin [ROM 6:14],
but this still does NOT mean
that he holds that the Law
PRODUCES,
increases, causes
sin.


E.T. offers
an attractive alternative
interpretation,
that Scripture
[which HE takes as equal to the Law HERE]
CONFINES everyone
who is sinful
and does NOT allow them
to escape
the CONSEQUENCES
of their
sin.


~*~liefdesverdrietverwardgaap!bah!nahnahverdrietigverliefdverdrietignahnahbah!gaap!verwardliefdesverdriet~*~


Anyway,
in either case, however,
the FUNCTION of the Law
is NOT
to GIVE LIFE?!
The answer to the question
about the Law being AGAINST the promises,
then,
is "NO",
of course
IT is
NOT.


NOW
comes Paul's proof:
IF there were a law
which COULD make ALIVE
[= justify],
THEN indeed
justification WOULD come
from the Law
and the Promise
would be
nullified!


The function
of the Law,
however, is NOT
to GIVE LIFE.
ALL IT DOES
is confine all
under sin,
or by reason of sin,
so that they may continue
UNTIL the promise is given
to those who
believe.


Therefore,
the original premise
is proven wrong:
The Law does NOT
annul the promise.
Paul then explains
the positive function of the Law
as a pedagogue
who makes it possible
for people to be justified by faith,
and now that this function
HAS BEEN fulfilled
is NO LONGER
required!


~*~


Accordingly,
we need not see
the 'guardianship of the pedagogue'
in a negative light
in order to follow Paul's argument.
IF the pedagogue
is a GUIDE and 'baby-sitter' appropriate
for the SMALL child,
THEN we understand Pauls'
mashal
perfectly?!


IN THE INFANCY
of humanity
the pedagogue was necessary
because of sin
[NOT to produce sin,
a bizarre and near Marcionite notion,
which Lutheran theologians refer to as
"G*D's Strange Work"!],
BUT NOW
with the maturity
of the coming of Christ
the pedagogue is
no longer
necessary.


If we do not accept
the essentially Lutheranizing interpretation
of Paul's Law doctrine
to the effect that it has never been
a way of achieving virtue,
THEN we do NOT need
to render Paul's notion of the Law
as a pedagogue
so discontinuous with the topos of Law as educator
as was common
from Plato on.


On the other hand,
there may be no doubt that A.B. is correct that it wrong
to see here an argument that the Law prepared for the coming of Christ
by educating people in
THAT direction.


The mashal
in the beginning of chapter 4
completely disables SUCH an interpretation.
The pedagogue is not a teacher in the sense of one
who keeps him or her
out of trouble
while WAITING for
adulthood.


This does not,
however, translate into such terms as "ugly" or "demonic",
NOR to a notion that the pedagogue was sent
to INCREASE
TRANSGRESSION!

~knipoogcool!nahnahgaap!gemeenliefdesverdrietverliefdliefdesverdrietgemeengaap!nahnahcool!knipoog~
engel
04 jul 2005 - bewerkt op 07 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