From: James H. Vellenga (jhv0@viewlogic.com)
Date: Mon Jul 22 1996 - 08:34:40 EDT
> From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
>
> ...
>
> If one of Paul's themes is that the faith that came from (EK/EX) the Jews
> (as the seed of Abraham? cf. 4:16 and John 4:22 "hH SWTHRIA EK TWN IOUDAIWN
> ESTIN") resulted in (EIS) salvation for the gentiles--or, conversely, that
> out of Abraham's faith which he had while uncircumcised (4:10) (i.e., while
> a gentile) salvation came to the Jews--then that may explain the
> back-to-back prepositional phrases in 1:17.
>
> In 3:30 Paul says that God will justify the circumcised (Jews) EK PISTEWS
> and the uncircumcised (gentiles) DIA THS PISTEWS. This is EK/DIA, not
> EK/EIS, and Boers points out on p. 108 that lexically the two prepositions
> at 3:30 can have the same meaning, but maybe Paul used the two different
> prepositions here both for stylistic reasons and to maintain his
> distinction of Jews and gentiles begun with his IOUDAIWi TE PRWTON KAI
> hELLHNI in 1:16 and repeated at 2:9 and 10.
>
> If so, then perhaps Paul used the two different prepositions in 1:17
> because he was also referring to the two different peoples, i.e., Jews and
> gentiles--talking about the faith which comes out of (EK) the Jews and
> results in (EIS) [the same] faith coming to the gentiles--since both Jews
> and gentiles are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. In 1:16 Paul's EIS
> SWTHRIAN PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI means "resulting in salvation to all who
> believe." Since the EK PISTEWS in 1:17a derives from the EK PISTEWS in
> 1:17b in Paul's quote from Habbakuk 2:4, perhaps the EIS PISTIN in 1:17a is
> based on the EIS [SWTHRIAN PANTI TWi] PISTEUONTI in 1:16.
>
Let me make this text even more ambiguous by noting that there are one
or two other players in Paul's drama who also have a PISTIS.
The first is God: See Rom 3.3, THN PISTIN TOU QEOU -- generally
translated as "God's faithfulness" -- i.e., subjective genitive. And
the other is Jesus, as in Rom 3.22 "An uprightness of God through a
PISTIS of Jesus Christ" (DIA PISTEWS IHSOU CRISTOU). But even if, with
most translators, you translate this latter as PISTIS in/to Jesus Christ,
we still have a PISTIS of God.
For convenience in explaining how a PISTIS of God can fit in here, let
me use the word "commitment" for PISTIS, since "commitment" connotes
both "faith" (as a mental act of assent) and "faithfulness" (as a set of
actions by which one follows through). My edition of the American
Heritage Dictionary defines "commitment" as "a state of being bound
intellectually [and] emotionally to a particular course of action." And
that pretty nearly sums up my take on the meaning of PISTIS.
So let me hypothesize that Paul may be talking in part in Romans 1.17
about God's PISTIS, to which we respond with a PISTIS of our own. Then
if we see God taking the initiative (or possibly having even a partially
unrewarded PISTIS, see Romans 3.3), then EK PISTEWS EIS PISTIN could
mean either
from out of [God's] commitment [leading] to a commitment [of our own]
or
from out of [God's] commitment [to the Jews] [leading] to a commitment
[to the Gentiles]
But how about Paul's quasi-citation of Hab. 2.4, where he says something
like "the upright from out of a commitment will live"? As previous
postings to this list have noted, this could be read either "the one who
is upright from out of a commitment will live" or "the one who is
upright will live from out of a commitment". Usually we assume that
this is the commitment of the upright person him(her)self, but the Greek
does not specifically say that. So this too could be an upright person
having life (or his uprightness) because of God's commitment.
Previous posts have also noted that in Hab. 2.4, the Hebrew has "emunah"
with the 3d person masc. possessive--hence, "his" faith or faithfulness.
Again we usually assume this to be the faith or faithfulness of the
upright person, but I don't think the Hebrew requires that
interpretation either. Habakkuk is urging the listener to wait for the
vision to be unveiled, and so may be saying, in fact, that the upright
(as opposed to the presumptuous or proud person) will live by depending
on His (i.e., God's) faithfulness/commitment.
This reading would go along with Romans 3.3: "What if some of the Jews
disbelieve? Will their disbelief nullify God's commitment?" I.e., in
this case Paul is focusing on the effects of God's commitment (to which
we commit ourselves in response), and seeing that as the primary driving
force, rather than focusing on our commitment first.
Finally, as to Eric's comments of Romans 3.20, one could then read this
as "God ... will vindicate the circumcision from out of a [His]
commitment and the uncircumcision through the commitment [that he made
first to the Jews but then extended to the Gentiles through the Jewish
Messiah (as Paul regarded him)]."
Let me say that I am not necessarily committed to this view, but I would
be interested whether other listers agree that this is a possible
interpretation on the basis of the Greek.
Regards,
Jim V.
James H. Vellenga | jvellenga@viewlogic.com
Viewlogic Systems, Inc. __|__ 508-480-0881
293 Boston Post Road West | FAX: 508-480-0882
Marlboro, MA 01752-4615 |
http://www.viewlogic.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:46 EDT