The Missing Link

I will caveat this post for the onset that I am utilizing large brush-strokes and maybe some generalizations in order to raise a theological question. What I have heard re-iterated time and time again from my dispensationalist professors (minor excursus: If you have not inferred it yet, let me be explicit at this juncture: I am not a dispensationalist! The closest camp that I have been able to align myself with is Covenant Theology, without the Covenants.) is that there is no explicit text concerning a change in the “land” aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant, ergo you cannot abrogate it or relegate it to a “spiritual” fulfillment in Christ. I will not take the opportunity at this juncture to rehearse my official rant about how this is a foul in the use of their logic concerning subjecting theological inferences; rather, necessity has constrained me to mention what I believe is a much excluded text from the argument.

In the context of Romans 4, Paul has been arguing for sola fide via a theo-historical rehearsal of Abraham’s faith. In v. 12, Paul describes the universality of Abraham’s paternal relationship with all those, circumcised or not, who follow in his faith. Paul immediately supports this proposition in v. 13 through stating a thesis that the modus operandi of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham or his decedents would only be via faith. What interest me at this juncture is “What is the content of the promise?” Look closely at v. 13. The content of the promise is “The world,” and not “The land.” A quick Bibleworks search reveals that this is not a LXX substitution but a Pauline or maybe OT expansion (the latter require verification). A perusal of Romans will reveal that the most natural use contextually and theologically for world here is the physical land and all that goes with it.

Some may immediately respond, “Well, your point is moot seeing that Abraham’s descendants are his physical descendants in this context.” Initially, I thought this was not just a valid interpretation but perhaps ever the proper one. But to continue to hold to such a view seems to not deal with the contextual definition of “descendants.” In v. 16, Paul reiterates the result of a salvation that is sola fide, viz. the promise—remember v.13’s definition—would be universally enjoyed by all of Abraham’s descendants, including the goyim. Paul even supports the universality of this enjoyment by citing a fraction of Gen. 17:5.

So what are my conclusions? To be frank with all of you, I do not have an answer to that question articulated in my mind as well as I would like to have it. I will posit this though for the blogsphere to digest and discuss, viz. that Pauline theology relegated all the promises made to Abraham, specifically in context the land promise, to his true descendants, those of faith, not to his physical descendants.

How many gods?????

On a recent post on Higgaion (click here), Chris Heard related recent developments within the socio-religious evolution of Israel’s deity. The crux of this post was the interplay of two articles from October of this year (“Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut. 32:8–9 and Psalm 82?” by Michael Heiser (Hiphil 3, 2006) and “Who Is the Real El? A Reconstruction of the Prophet’s Polemic in Hosea 12:5a” by R. Scott Chalmers (Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68, October 2006)) that challenge the late merger of the two gods, “El” and “YHWH,” into the one deity as an earlier process in the development of Israel’s religion.

Though I do hold to the belief that the early Israelites where “Philosophical Monotheist” (i.e. though they worshipped YHWH alone holding to His supreme deity, they did not reject the idea of the existence of other deities), I would infer from the text of the Old Testament that the religion of Israel did not develop along the same socio-religious lines as its contemporary neighbors. Ergo, this discussion is an engaging intellectual exercise but does seem to be lacking in foundational assumptions.

To be frank, I do not wish to turn this post into a drawn-out polemic (I feel far too amicable for that today). With that stated, let me make a brief point. This whole line of questioning and reasoning seems to have an a priori of classical source criticism and progressive socio-religious thought. I along with many moderate scholars have considered these suspect in their original presentation. So for me to engage in such dialogue as to the merger of two deities into a monotheistic form, I must first have some questions answered and concede some other lines. I do appreciate though this post as it directed my attention to another dimension of Old Testament studies.

A Bad Day At The Office

For those of you who don't know me too well, one thing you will find out about me very quickly, besides my passion for OT studies, is my like passion for all things poker. Poker is a game essentially of skill with a dash of chance. Today during my on-line play, it felt like someone poured in a cup of chance and a large portion of bad luck. I try to play very, very tight playing most of the time only the top 10-20 pocket cards espeacially during limit hold'em. Unfortunately, I have only been dealt one of the top 10-20 pocket cards during my last hour of play! If you compare this to yesterday where I was dealt one of the hands every other round, this day has been disappointing. Fortunately, I am up for the week and will stay that way. "May your cards always be live and your pots be monster."