Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Any other ideas? ANyone have a clue as to how this relates to the argument of Gal 3? Recommeded articles? Looking through Burton, Bruce, Hays, Longenecker, Witherinton and they don't seem to have much clue either... Desperation haunts this wary exegete...
The two statements in v 20 are completely intelligible if each is taken by itself. It goes without saying that a mediator requires at least two parties between which he is to mediate; he cannot mediate on behalf of one party only. That God is one is the theological basis of Judaism and Christianity alike… It is the relation between the two clauses that constitute the interpretive problem. In what way does the affirmation that God is one form an antithesis to what is said about the mediator? The number of solutions offered to the problem as been reckoned to exceed 300 – one might wonder, indeed , if this is Robert Browning’s ‘great text in Galatians’ with its ‘twenty-nine distinct damnations’ for the unwary exegete.
[Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, pg. 178]
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
The Meaning of ex akoēs pisteōs
The noun akoē can sometimes mean “hearing,” but Paul’s use of it in a similar context in Rom 10:16-17 suggests that he understands it to mean “what is heard” – in other words, the proclaimed message… Here the interpreter of the letter is faced with a crucial fork in the road. Does Paul attribute the receiving of the Spirit to a human action (“hearing with faith”) or to divine initiative (“the message that elicits faith”)?