Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Circular Rhetoric and Logic of Paradox: Its Exegesis and Hermeneutics Evangelical Theological Society Southwest Meeting 2016 Dallas Theological Seminary April 1 -2, 2016 Place: CAC 203. 4/02 Saturday 2 -2: 45 pm Richard K. Min The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas, USA Instituto Teologico Bauptista Pablo (ITBP), Chiapas, Mexico email: rkm 010300@utdallas. edu http: //www. utdallas. edu/~rkm 010300 SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Acknowledgements • • • Gopal Gupta for his support and guidance for my study and research at University of Texas at Dallas. Hyungu Kim at Ko-Mex Mission in Chiapas, Mexico, Sam Underwood at FBC Farmers Branch, Sang-Jin Kim at Glory Baptist Church, Fernando Gonzalez at Heights Baptist Church, Bob Utley at Bible Lessons International, Donald Kim at SWBTS, Katy Barnwell at Wycliffe Bible Translators, David (Hosik) Kim at Korean Bible University, and Se. June Hong at IBM, for research opportunity, support, and encouragement. E. Earle Ellis for my NT Study and Harry B, Hunt for my OT study at SWBTS, Carl F. H. Henry for my study in John and Theology, John Grassmick and Eugene Merrill at Dallas Theological Seminary. Cathy Drewry for Editorial Support. Mi Min (my wife) for her support and encouragement, and being my first and best audience. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Note on Terminology These terms are used somewhat informally (interchangeably): • Cycle ( סבב or κύκλος in Ecclesiastes 1: 6) • Self-Reference, Self-Witness, Self-Testimony (Genesis 22: 16; Isaiah 45: 23; Hebrews 6: 13; John 8: 12 -20) • Idem per idem (Exodus 3: 14; 33: 19; 21: 23– 24; Matt. 5: 38) (S. R. Driver, 1911; recently Lundbom, 1978) • Perichoresis (περιχώρησις Gregory Nazianzen; John 14: 10) – Coindwelling, Coinherence, … & Gregory of Nyssa (Stramara Jr. 1996, 1998). Reciprocal Interiority (Brown 1966; Malatesta 1978) • Vicious Circle (Titus 1: 12) by Russell (1903) & Kripke (1975) – (Infinite) Loop, Coinduction, Coinductive Logic (in computational logic) • Circular Rhetoric (Min 2010 -2016) SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Part 1 • Introduction and Background SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Circular Rhetoric and Paradox: Background • Russell’s Discovery - Paradox (1910 & logical atomism) A barber is “one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves. " (Barber’s Paradox) Does the barber shave himself? Yes? or No? (Russell 1918 Lecture: The Philosophy of Logical Atomism) cf. “Physician, Heal yourself!” (Luke 4: 24) • The Liar Paradox (Titus 1: 12; cf. Romans 3: 4) Even one of their own prophet has said, “Cretans are always liars. ” “Κρῆτες, ἀεὶ ψευδεῖς, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί” [by Epimenides (circa 600 BC), identified by Clement of Alexandria] Logical Role of the Liar paradox in Titus 1: 12, 13: A Dissent from the Commentaries in the Light of Philosophical and Logical Analysis by Anthony C. Thiselton (BI 1994) SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Two Traditional Approaches • Logical Atomism 1 (Russell, followed by Tarski): – Philosophy to provide a sound epistemological foundation – Classical Logic: to avoid circularity (paradox), to treat circular logic as invalid, and to have a hierarchy of language to prevent the circularity • Logical Atomism 2 (Wittgenstein): – Philosophy to point out linguistic mistake: “metaphysics and ethics were literally nonsensical” • Deconstructionism (Postmodernism) (by Derrida): to treat the languages as incapable and helpless. • “Is Zombie alive or dead? ” • Reconstruct one’s own personal & subjective meaning of the text (for there is no such a thing as objective “truth” expressed in a text). • The rise of Post-Liberal (Narrative) Theology SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Breakthrough by Kripke (1975) and Emerging new development with Circular Logic Kripke (1975): “Outline of a Theory of Truth”, and “Kripke-Kleene 3 -valued Semantics for Logic Programs” by Fitting (1985), and various computational approaches, applications & implementations, including: Coinductive Logic Programming by Simon (2006), Coinductive Logic Programming with Negation as Failure by Min (2009), and its application to the study of Circular Rhetoric and Paradox in the Bible by Min (SBL IM 2010– 2015, EABS 2014, ETS 2014). Rediscovering Circular Rhetoric and Logic in Trinitarian formulation in Early Christianity: Recent noteworthy work on Gregory of Nyssa by Stramara Jr. (1996; 1998). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Two Familiar Examples outside of the Bible • “Cogito ergo sum” by Descartes, René “I think, therefore I am. ” in Specimina Philosophiae (1644) This proposition became a fundamental element of Western Philosophy, as it was perceived to form a foundation for all knowledge. (Wiki) • “Scripturae explicanda est. ” – Augustine: When we wish to examine passages made obscure by metaphorical expressions, the result should be something which is beyond dispute or which, if not beyond dispute, can be settled by finding and deploying corroboratory evidence from within scripture itself” (On Christian Doctrine III. 86 -86, p. 87). – Luther: In this manner Scripture is its own light. It is a fine thing when Scripture explains itself. (Franz August Otto Pieper, Church Dogmatics, vol. 3: 362) SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Part 2 • Survey - Selected Examples in the Bible Circular Rhetoric and Paradox SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Example 1. Exodus 3: 14 "I am who I am ( ")אהיה אשר אהיה in Exodus 3: 14. idem per idem (OT) – S. R. Driver; Lundbom SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min Example 2 - John 14: 10, 11 Perichoresis (περιχώρησις) and oneness by Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa; Triniterian concept & term by Athansius, and Cappadosian Fathers: coindwelling, coinherence, circumincession, cycle, periphero, anacyclosis, etc. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Example 3 – Titus 1: 12 The Liar Paradox Romans 3: 4; Psalm 116: 11 cf. “Physician, Heal yourself!” (Luke 4: 24) Self-Reference with Negation Bertrand Russell SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Example 4 Three Paradoxes in Matthew 22: 15– 46 (1) Matthew 22: 15 -22 To Pay Tax to Caesar or not (2) Matthew 22: 23 -33 Marriage vs Resurrection (3) Matthew 22: 41 -46 David called Christ, “My Lord” in Psalm 110: 1 SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Example 4 (1) Matthew 22: 15 -22. To Pay Tax to Caesar or not? ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ θεῷ. 1. The Solution is Circular. (What is God’s to God). cf. “A if A” and “B if B” (or “not A if not A”) 2. The Solution is Modal: a model-set of two contradicting models. ”possible world semantics”: a model-set of two solutions/models (1) the first model (“Give Caesar’s to Caesar”) is true (2) the second model (“Give God’s to God”) is true SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Example 4 (1) Matthew 22: 15 -22 (Pay Tax to Caesar or Not) “possible world semantics”: a model-set of two solutions/models (1) the first model (“giving Caesar’s to Caesar”) is true (2) the second model (“giving God’s to God”) is true • A deeper analysis may reveal that this is not just a problem of “either-or” but it could be a problem of “both-and” if one consider the biblical mandate (e. g. , Romans 13: 6 -7). • Similar examples in the Bible – A Model Set – Luke 17: 20 -30. “Already” and “Not Yet” and Oscar Cullmann in Christ and Time (1946); Salvation in History (1965) SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min Note on Modal Logic (and Bias) Outside of the Bible • Modal Logic and its Tradition (outside of the Bible) goes back – at least two millennia with Greeks (Aristotle) and – a millennium for Ontological proof of the existence of God (One and Only one God) back to Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz, Descartes, Pascal, Kant, and finally Kurt Gödel (as his proof is proven to be flawless!). (cf. Romans 1: 18 -23) • Scholarly tradition (bias) against Modal Logic could be traced back to Kant (1781), and the omission of modality by Frege (1879) in his pioneering groundwork of modern logic for propositional logic and higher-order logic. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min Example 4: (2) Paradox in Matthew 22: 23 -33 Resurrection (with Marriage Law) The Law of this age versus the Law of the age to come SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min Example 4: (2) Paradox in Matthew 22: 23 -33 Monotonic vs. Nonmonotonic Reasoning • Circular, Modal, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning used as one of the most common motifs, methods, and themes used in the Bible – seemingly contradictory to monotonic reasoning and principles. – cf. Ecclesiastes 3: 1 -10, 7: 14 • Ecclesiastes 7: 14 When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one (good times) as well as the other (bad times). Therefore, a man cannot discover anything about his future. • Consider Job 1 -2 or Matthew 5: 10 -12. Paradox of being Cursed to be Blessed? That is, if the righteous are blessed and the evil are cursed, then how can a righteous man be cursed and persecuted in this world, to be blessed? SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Example 4. (3) Paradox in Matthew 22: 41 -46 Christ - Whose son is he? Son of David. Paradox of Lord-Servant (Father-Son) Relationship What is Human vs Divine in crash! SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox A New Look at Matthew 22: 15 -46 • 4 Questions (& Answers) in Form-critical classification • Midrash in Yelammedenu Midrash (Question-Answer) • W. G. Braude. Pesikta Rabbati 2 vols. (1968). • J. W. Bowker, ‘Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form’ NTS 14 (1967 -1968) 96 -111. • E. Earle Ellis, ‘Midrashic Features in the Speeches of Acts’ (1970) 303 -312 • All dealing with non-conventional, non-classical logic – generating paradox, confusion, conflict, contradiction, dilemma – defying conventional logic or contemporary common-sense – dealing with circular, modal, or nonmonotonic logic • All very difficult problems in Sitz Im Leben – at least “very easy” to verify once a solution is given – A problem of verification (cf. Luke 5: 23; Daniel 2) SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox A New Look at Matthew 22: 15 -46 • All dealing with Biblical Law & Legal Reasoning • thus the problems of Biblical Legal Reasoning (Halakoth) • Two Laws in Conflict – Matthew 22: 15 -22. Tax Law • the law of God vs the law of Caesar (this World) • Who is my Master (Matthew 6: 24)? Whose servant am I? – Matthew 22: 23 -33. Marriage (Family) Law • the law of Marriage (Mosaic Law) in this age vs. in the age to come • the old law to be perished (time-expired) vs. the new law in resurrection • Old Law vs. New Law (over the old law) – Matthew 22: 34 -40. Linear Order in the Laws (legal precedence) • Hierarchy of the Laws, legal authority, highest law, legal precedence and superseding law, to avoid circular paradox but provide a linear order – Matthew 22: 41 -46. Law of Inheritance (for Title of Lordship) • the law governing the Son of God in flesh vs. divine (Psalm 110: 1) SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Part 3 • John • Two Proof Methods in John 8: 12 -21 • (Predicated) “I am” sayings of Jesus SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min Two Proof Methods in John 8: 12 -19 (NIV) 12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. ” 13 The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid. ” (1) John 8: 12. one of “I am” sayings in John ε γω ει μι το φω ς του κο σμου (2) John 8: 13. Objection and Accusation by the Pharisees It is “Self-witness” (Circular Reasoning). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Two Proof Methods in John 8: 12 -19 (NIV) – Two Testimonies 14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 18 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me. ” 1) John 8: 12 “I am …” as Self-Testimony – Circular Reasoning 2) John 8: 17 Testimony of two men according to the Law – Lawful Reasoning 3) Thus all metaphorical “I am” sayings of Jesus in John are essentially Circular. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Parallel: John 8: 12 -19 & Exodus 3: 14 -15 (Exodus 3: 14 ASV – Self-Referencing God) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Exodus 3: 15 ASV – God in reference with His 3 most credible witnesses) And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. Also noted in Matthew 22: 23 -33: God is God of the living. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox “I am” as Interpretive Key • John 10: 1 -18 (John 10: 1 -5 παροιμία): Proverbial Parable of (1) Gate and (2) Good Shepherd – Audience does not understand the meaning (its hidden and intended message). • (10: 6 -18) Jesus provides two interpretive keys (an aid to the audience), by injecting himself into the story. – To unlock (decode) the part of the hidden message (meaning or interpretation) of the parable, using “I am” (ἐγώ εἰμι) as the key to the “partial” solution (interpretation) of the parable. – Not complete (partial) solution (as there are still many figures whose true identities are undisclosed (hidden). – Modal (more than one and only one best interpretation) SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox “I am” as Interpretive Key A few distinctive features in John 10: 7 -18 for 10: 1 -5 – In contrast to the presentation and interpretation of the parables used in the synoptic gospels, for example, Matthew 13: 3 -9 (Presentation) & 13: 18 -23 (Complete Interpretation). (1) Partial Interpretation, and Modal Aspect (2 solutions) (2) Story Unfolding & Expanding, (3) Dynamic and Blended (of what is symbolic and real) – – SBL IM 2015 Being interpreted with the “I am” key Story is Unfolding Adding new materials to the Story Blended (or mixed) with what is Symbolic (Figurative) and what is Real materials, in a continuous, progressive, and dynamic narrative-frame. The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox “I am” as Interpretive Key • Compare Matthew 13 with John 10 – (1) the parable of seed-sower in Matthew 13: 3 -9 and – (2) its interpretation in Matthew 13: 18 -23. • Presentation in a fixed and static content with its (fairly) full or complete interpretation provides an exemplary case to be compared with the parable and its interpretation in John 10: 1 -18. • Clear boundary in discourse between presentation and its interpretation • Intended to confusion (or diffusion) with parable as a rhetorical means of hiding information, with puzzling effect (defensive) to the general audience SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox “I am” as Interpretive Key This pattern (“I am” as Interpretive Key with “Partial-Blended. Unfolding”) is clearly observed in John 6. (1) Jesus claims himself as the bread of the life (John 6: 35) using “I am” as the key to unlock the story of “the true bread of God” from the heaven, who gives life to the world (John 6: 31 -34). (2) Jesus uses the partial interpretation of the parable to his audience, thus inviting to eat his flesh (where it is meant to receive his word as explained in John 6: 63). (3) Blending what is real and what is symbolic. – – Eat the manna from the heaven Take my word (teaching) or Believe in me Take me as the living bread or Take me as the living water Eat my fresh or Drink my blood (4) Not “User-Friendly” Teaching, Interpretation, Rhetoric, Sermon, Storytelling or Retelling, and Discourse or Narrative Style SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min A Unifying Interpretive Framework “I am” sayings of Jesus in John (1) John 8: 12 -19 as a theoretical basis for “I am” sayings (2) John 10: 1 -18 as a model of “I am” sayings in John “I am” as Interpretive key to 2 solutions => Modal and Partial interpretation, Blended and Unfolding story ** Comparison of Parable in John 10 vs. in Matthew 13 John 10 (parable of shepherd and sheep): Modal, dynamic & progressive, partial solution; blended & unfolding story. Matthew 13 (parable of sower and seed): One complete and fixed (static) set of parable and its interpretation with a clear boundary between the parable and its interpretation. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min A Unifying Interpretive Framework “I am” sayings of Jesus in John, in self-testimony (1) John 10: 1 -18 (with a parable explicitly stated in 10: 1 -5) “I am” the good shepherd, and “I am” the door of sheepfold (2) John 6: 30 -34 (Well-known OT manna story - Sitz Im Leben) Background Story: Manna from the heaven in the wilderness John 6: 35, 48, 51 - “I am” the bread of life … to eat my flesh and drink my blood (John 6: 56) … (3) Somewhat similar, yet different presentations (OT Sitz Im Leben) John 8: 12 “I am” the light of the world (John 9 - a man born blind) John 11: 25 “I am” the resurrection and the life (John 11 - Lazarus) John 14: 6 “I am” the way and the truth and the life (John 14: 1 -5) John 15: 1, 5 “I am” the true vine (John 15: 1 -10 dwell in me, in my love) SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min A Unifying Interpretive Framework Summary for 7 Metaphorical Predicated “I am” sayings of Jesus in John – – – “I am” as the Interpretive Key, providing Partial Interpretation (and Modal solutions) Unfolding Story Blended with Real and Symbolic (Figurative) materials With or Without an opening proverbial or parabolic story with • well-known OT story or case of Sitz Im Leben, Miracle, etc. – In Continuous, Progressive, Dynamic narrative-frame. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Part 4 • A Few More Noteworthy Examples • John 1: 16 SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min A Classical Example in Contemporary NT Studies Two-Stage Coming of the Kingdom of God “Already” and “Not Yet” in Tension (Luke 17: 20 -30) Salvation History (Heilsgeschichte) by Oscar Cullmann SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min The Testimony of John the Baptist (John 1: 15, 30) • The similar circular rhetoric of “already” & “not yet” in the testimony of John the Baptist (John 1: 15, 30) • The passage is composed of three simple and distinctive prepositional phrases, in either temporal or spatial (in rank or order) meaning, to generate an interesting enigma and paradox in exegesis. (1) ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος (2) ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν (3) ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox A Difficult Problem in 1 John 3: 9 & 5: 18 vs 1: 8 -10 1. Sin-state of Christian in need of Confession for the forgiveness of God (1 John 1: 8 -10) versus 2. Sinless-state (impeccable state) of Christian (1 John 3: 9, 5: 18) • How to Harmonize these conflicting passages? Or is it even possible? • 1 John 3: 9 one “born of God” in circular logic Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται. • Does sin have a different meaning (aspect) to one “before” and “after” being born of God? • What sin can “one born of God” never commit? Sin of not believing in Jesus Christ the Son of God our Propitiation SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min Hebrews: A Masterpiece of Circular Rhetoric and Logic of Paradox in Action Paradox 1. The Son of God vs Melchizedek (Psalm 110: 1, 4; Hebrews 7: 3, 15). [Paradox of “Already and Not Yet”] Paradox 2. The oath of God, sworn by himself (Hebrews 6: 13; 7: 21). [Paradox of Self-Testimony] Paradox 3. According to the Scripture, as it is written, the Son of God has come to fulfill what had been written about himself (Psalm 40: 6– 8; Hebrews 10: 5– 9). [Paradox of Self-Reference: Son of God in Person and in Scripture referring to Himself in Scripture] Paradox 4. The Son of God as the High-Priest of God, offering Himself as the sacrifice (Hebrews 10: 8– 10). [Paradox of Mutual Reference] SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Hebrews 7: 3, 15 - Melchizedek 1 Οὗτος γὰρ ὁ Μελχισέδεκ, βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ, ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου, … 3 ἀπάτωρ ἀμήτωρ ἀγενεαλόγητος, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων, ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές. … 15 καὶ περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλόν ἐστιν, εἰ κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα Μελχισέδεκ ἀνίσταται ἱερεὺς ἕτερος, And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest. 15 (Hebrews 6: 13) For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Grace in John 1: 16 - Promise & Fulfillment (Galatians 3: 16– 18) • The phrase of grace (χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος) in John 1: 16 presents an interesting challenge and difficulty in exegesis and interpretation. • The lexical pattern (A + ἀντὶ + A) is clearly circular and frequently found in the Bible (the New Testament and LXX). • Ruth B. Edwards, "XAPIN ANTI XARITOΣ (John 1. 16) Grace and the Law in the Johannine Prologue, " Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32 (1988): 3– 15; and Nigel Turner, "The Style of John, " in Style, ed. James Hope Moulton, 4 vols. , 64– 79 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1976). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Grace in John 1: 16 - Promise & Fulfillment (Galatians 3: 16– 18) Ruth B. Edwards, "XAPIN ANTI XARITOΣ (John 1. 16) • First (1), its most common meaning is "instead of" or "in place of" • For example, Abraham offered the ram in place of his son, Isaac (Genesis 22: 13), or no father gives a snake instead of a fish to his beloved child who asks for a fish (Matthew 11: 11). • The lexical pattern (A + ἀντὶ + B) is used for one thing "instead of" the other thing (even though these two things in the expression could refer to the same thing). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Grace in John 1: 16 - Promise & Fulfillment (Galatians 3: 16– 18) Ruth B. Edwards, "XAPIN ANTI XARITOΣ (John 1. 16) • Second (2), the very common meaning is "in return for" • Some well-known examples are "life for life, " "eye for eye, " "tooth for tooth, " "hand for hand, " and "foot for foot" (Exodus 21: 23– 24; Matthew 5: 38). • The lexical pattern (A + ἀντὶ + A) is the same with the lexical pattern in John 1: 16. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Grace in John 1: 16 - Promise & Fulfillment (Galatians 3: 16– 18) Ruth B. Edwards, "XAPIN ANTI XARITOΣ (John 1. 16) • (3) The third meaning of "in front of" or "opposite" in the local sense is found in Classical Greek, is very rare in Hellenistic papyri, is never found in the NT or LXX, and is safely to be ruled out for this case. • (4) The fourth meaning (proposed by Thomas Aquinas) is a theological meaning as the grace received by Christians is "corresponding to" the grace of Christ. However, the preposition has never been used for this meaning (except for a few compoundconstructs possibly) to be ruled out without further consideration. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Grace in John 1: 16 - Promise & Fulfillment (Galatians 3: 16– 18) Ruth B. Edwards, "XAPIN ANTI XARITOΣ (John 1. 16) • (5) The fifth meaning is "upon" or "in addition to, " which has been most popular in the most popular modern interpretation. – No parallel is found for this usage in all of Greek literature. The preposition, "ἐπὶ" is used for this meaning. – Edwards provides a thorough examination on various proposals for this meaning, and a conclusion to rule out this option. Based on this summary, we explore the lexical pattern (A + ἀντὶ + A) of grace as circular rhetoric and for its possible meaning(s). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Grace in John 1: 16 - Promise & Fulfillment (Galatians 3: 16– 18) • The first question for our investigation is • whether a substantial difference exists between the first meaning ("instead of" or "in place of") and the second meaning ("in return for") • in this circular pattern (A + ἀντὶ + A) with the case of grace in John 1: 16. • The lexical pattern (A + ἀντὶ + A) is very familiar to any reader of the Bible, as it is frequently found in the Bible, and is used in daily lives • (e. g. , Exodus 21: 23– 24; Matthew 5: 38). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Grace in John 1: 16 - Promise & Fulfillment (Galatians 3: 16– 18) • Here, John may use and take advantage of a confusing circular expression of grace, which is potentially ambiguous. (c. f. , John 1: 15; 6: 56; 8: 14; 10: 38) and/or • Its goal is for a naïve reader to be serious and curious, to keep meditating on the Scripture for one's salvation, leading ultimately to Jesus Christ (Psalm 1: 2; John 5: 39). • Another possibility for the "grace" in this phrase is meant to be generic, abstract, or even a place-holder for an openended and comprehensive view of grace in John. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Grace in John 1: 16 - Promise & Fulfillment (Galatians 3: 16– 18) Two Graces for “ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος ” ? • One case for the two graces in "χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος“ is – the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the first grace and – the Mosaic Law for the second grace. • This is the major and leading opinion by the Greek-speaking church fathers (e. g. , Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome). • This opinion seems to be supported by the following statement in John 1: 17 with its opening conjunction (ὅτι) in its full force, to present a parallel between Moses and Jesus Christ. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Grace in John 1: 16 - Promise & Fulfillment (Galatians 3: 16– 18) • In contrast to the early church fathers, many modern New Testament scholars reject this meaning. • The opinion is based on the negative view of the Law, which could not be the grace in this phrase. • However, many positive aspects are present on the Law to be good, holy, and worthy to be upheld in the Bible (e. g. , Romans 3: 31; 7: 12) and to be a witness of Jesus Christ (John 5: 39). • The aspect on the Law should not be restricted in a onesided negative view only, but in a two-sided modal aspect evidenced in NT (e. g. , Matthew 5: 17 -19; James 2: 14 -26). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Grace in John 1: 16 - Promise & Fulfillment (Galatians 3: 16– 18) • The second question for our investigation is whether the lexical pattern (A + ἀντὶ + A) in Exodus 21: 23– 24 and Matthew 5: 38 can be also applied for the case of grace in John 1: 16. (cf. life for life, eye for eye, …) so “grace for grace”? • A similar objection (against the case of the Gospel for the Mosaic Law) is voiced for this case, questioning on what grace is in return for (or instead of) what grace was. • If it is so (he Gospel in return for the Mosaic Law), then the Christians under the new grace of God by Jesus Christ are still under the old grace of the God through Moses (or not). (e. g. , Romans 3: 31; 7: 12– 16; Galatians 3: 21– 22). • Is the Law still valid to be upheld? Yes by Paul (Romans 3: 31) SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Grace in John 1: 16 - Promise & Fulfillment (Galatians 3: 16– 18) • Hence, it seems to be neither permissible, nor satisfactory (as the objection voices) to say that the new grace is in return for (or instead of) the old grace. • As we noted with the first question, the Law should be viewed in the modal aspect, still active in its presence and effect to all men under the sins. • Further, the Law was given to lead all men to Jesus Christ (John 5: 39; Galatians 3: 24), but has now completed its function as the promise of the coming savior is fulfilled by Jesus Christ (John 1: 14; Galatians 3: 19, 25). • Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978); Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Grace in John 1: 16 - Promise & Fulfillment (Galatians 3: 16– 18) • The next question is then, what would be a viable meaning for grace (χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος) in John 1: 16? • As Paul speaks in Galatians 3: 16– 18, it is the promise of Jesus Christ, the seed of Abraham. • The promise is given to Abraham, and it is given as a free gift (that is, a grace) of God δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός (Galatians 3: 16) • The promise of the coming savior is then fulfilled by Jesus Christ. (cf. John 1: 1 -18). • The fulfillment (of the promise) is the grace (instead of, in place of, in return for) for the grace that has been the promise (of the coming Savior who is the seed of Abraham). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Grace in John 1: 16 - Promise & Fulfillment (Galatians 3: 16– 18) • Thus, the content of both graces is the same Jesus Christ. • The first grace (in "χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος") is in the timeframe for its fulfillment ("already"), whereas • the second grace (in "χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος" ) is in the timeframe for its promise ("not yet"), but has now passed away through its fulfillment. • With this understanding, we conclude that the phrase “χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος” in John 1: 16 is expressed, in circular rhetoric, for the two-fold temporal aspect of the grace of God (that is, Jesus Christ). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Grace in John 1: 16 - Promise & Fulfillment (Galatians 3: 16– 18) • χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος • The grace of God in the past time is the promise given to Abraham and the faithful. • The grace of God in the present time is the fulfillment of the promise. • This conclusion further clears any objection against the common meaning of the preposition "ἀντὶ" in this phrase • Simply to say: grace for grace SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Part 5 • Circular Rhetoric and Exegetical Challenge in Romans (1) “From faith to faith" in Romans 1: 17 (2) Romans 3: 4 with the Liar paradox in Titus 1: 12, (3) “In Christ" and "Christ in you" in Romans 8: 10, (4) “Already" and "not yet" in Romans 8: 29– 30, and (5) Romans 9: 15– 18 in the light of Exodus 33: 19. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox (1) "from faith to faith" in Romans 1: 17 • ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν • Circular lexical pattern (ἐκ + A + εἰς + A) – frequently found in Greek texts between the Homeric era to 600 A. D. – Quarles notes in approximately 340 cases. • The idiomatic use and meaning may vary emphasis, repetition, range, or duration (in time or space, of thing or person), iteration, or even cycle. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox (1) "from faith to faith" in Romans 1: 17 Five possible meanings for ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (1) from God's faithfulness to man's faith, (2) from one's faith to the other's faith from a person to person, from preachers to hearers, from Old Testament believers to New Testament believers, from OT faith to NT faith, from Abraham to Rahab as a panoramic or spectacular array of the faithful people from one end to the other end. (3) dispensational interpretation (from OT to NT) (4) “from faith to faith” as growing and intensifying. "from faith" as the source or the origin of faith cf. John 1: 37 => 2: 11 => 16: 30– 31 => 20: 8 => 20: 31 (5) through faith and faith alone, or simply faith. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (1) "from faith to faith" in Romans 1: 17 • The same lexical pattern (ἐκ + A + εἰς + A) is found twice in • 2 Corinthians 2: 16 with "death" and "life, " and • Psalm 84: 7 with "strength" (LXX) • Two cases in 2 Corinthians 2: 16 should settle the recent debate for the case of Romans 1: 17. – Faith vs Faithfulness – Barrett (1970) points out, "to ascribe different meanings to the same word in one phrase is very harsh, " as it is similarly noted by Black (1988), to be ruled out. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox (1) "from faith to faith" in Romans 1: 17 • For the case of God's faithfulness, – it could be better meant if one takes it as "from God's faithfulness to Christ's faithfulness" instead of "from Christ's faithfulness to man's faith. " – Further within Paul's theological framework of God's sovereignty (ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα) in Romans 11: 36. • Note that Jesus Christ is not only divine, but also fully a man of faith, and is faithful to God (cf. Galatians 3: 25) SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (1) "from faith to faith" in Romans 1: 17 • The spectrum of the various kinds of faithful people is exemplified by those in the Old or New Testaments. 1. Those who preached (including Jesus Christ himself in Matthew 4: 23) or received, 2. Those prophets or the apostles, 3. Those highly or lowly regarded moral representatives ranging from Abraham to Rahab. 4. From OT believers to NT believers, or 5. Faith in/from OT Law to NT Gospel SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox (1) "from faith to faith" in Romans 1: 17 • The one-and-only-one answer (? ) is still debatable for what this circular expression (ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν) in Romans 1: 17 may mean exactly. • Within the framework of circular rhetoric, various proposals noted by the early church fathers and commentators could be considered viable within a permissible and creative framework of a preacher or a commentator (e. g. , an interpretive model-set). – Matthew 22: 15 -22 To pay tax to Caesar or not SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (1) "from faith to faith" in Romans 1: 17 • With this understanding, ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν as a circular and idiomatic expression, • faith (πίστις) in Romans 1: 17, is then – emphatic, intensive, repeating, iterative, perpetual, continuing, complete, thorough, arrayed, being panoramic, or overarching (in various aspects of faith) – that is, nothing but faith and faith alone. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Part 5 • Circular Rhetoric and Exegetical Challenge in Romans (1) “From faith to faith" in Romans 1: 17 (2) Romans 3: 4 with the Liar paradox in Titus 1: 12, (3) “In Christ" and "Christ in you" in Romans 8: 10, (4) “Already" and "not yet" in Romans 8: 29– 30, and (5) Romans 9: 15– 18 in the light of Exodus 33: 19. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (2) Romans 3: 4 with the Liar Paradox in Titus 1: 12 • The liar paradox (πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης) Romans 3: 4, citing Psalm 116: 11 ( )כל־האדם כז cf. The Liar paradox in Titus 1: 12 • Circular Rhetoric with Self-Negation –Self-Reference plus Negation –to assert what is true by denying oneself (or itself) • Charge against Paul himself –Misanthropist and very Negative Self-Image –I am a liar and you too, and all of us! –Anthony C. Thiselton, "The Logical Role of the Liar Paradox in Titus 1: 12, 13: A Dissent from the Commentaries in Light of Philosophical and Logical Analysis, " Biblical Interpretation 2 (1994): 207– 223 SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox (2) Romans 3: 4 with the Liar Paradox in Titus 1: 12 • Man’s confession & God’s conviction (John 16: 8 -11) – Romans 3: 9– 18. No one is righteous. – John 8: 44 and 1 John 1: 8– 9 (even for all Christians) • Many paradoxes in the Bible use self-negation despising conventional wisdom. • Much more difficult expressions in the Bible are: – self-denial discipleship to deny oneself and to follow Jesus Christ (Mark 8: 34), – saving by losing one's life or losing by saving one's life (Mark 8: 35), and – the first to be the last and the servant of all in servant-leadership (Mark 9: 35). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Part 5 • Circular Rhetoric and Exegetical Challenge in Romans (1) “From faith to faith" in Romans 1: 17 (2) Romans 3: 4 with the Liar paradox in Titus 1: 12, (3) “In Christ" and "Christ in you" in Romans 8: 10, (4) “Already" and "not yet" in Romans 8: 29– 30, and (5) Romans 9: 15– 18 in the light of Exodus 33: 19. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8: 10 & "In Christ" • "Christ in you (χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν)" in Romans 8: 10, • “In Christ” and its variants (in Romans) – 21 times ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησου 3: 24, 6: 11, 8: 2, 16: 3 ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ (ἡμῶν) 6: 23, 8: 39 ἐν Χριστῷ 9: 1, 12: 5, 16: 7, 16: 9, 16: 10 ἐν κυρίῳ 16: 2, 16: 8, 16: 11, 16: 12 a, 16: 12 b, 16: 13, 16: 22 ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ 14: 14, 15: 17 SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8: 10 & "In Christ" • This pair-expression ("in Christ" and "Christ in") in Romans – provides a comprehensive conception of Paul – for the mutual-indwelling relationship of Christ and Christians. • The pair-expression in Romans is clearly circular (at least in lexical level), and comparable to what is noted in John (e. g. , John 14: 20; 15: 5; 17: 23, 26). • Question: Is “Christ in” significantly different from “In Christ” in meaning (in Romans, or in Paul, or in NT)? SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8: 10 & "In Christ" • No Difference? : The phrase ("Christ in" [you/me]) has been treated essentially equivalent or parallel to the phrase ("in Christ") among the majority of the contemporary Pauline scholars. • Bultmann voiced: "It makes no difference whether Paul speaks of the believers being in Christ or of Christ's being in the believer. “ Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1, trans. Kendrick Grobel (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951), 328; SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8: 10 & "In Christ" • A handful of scholars have voiced their differences or distinctions between these two phrases. Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. W. Montgomery (New York: Henry Holt and Co. , 1931 [1929]), 122– 25; Ernest Best, One Body in Christ: A Study in the Relationship of the Church to Christ in the Epistle of the Apostle Paul (London: S. P. C. K. , 1955), 9, n. 2, 22; C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: University Press, 1977), 56– 57; J. A. Ziesler, Pauline Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 50; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 45; and Barcley, "Christ in You, " 105– 35. • William B. Barcley, "Christ in You": A Study in Paul's Theology and Ethics (Lanham, MD: University of America, 1999). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8: 10 & "In Christ" • The meanings of the "in Christ" phrase are rich and comprehensive, usually presented with six+ major theses - being in union with Christ (e. g. , Romans 6: 5) or - being baptized into one body of Christ (e. g. , Romans 12: 4– 5; Galatians 3: 27– 28; 1 Corinthians 12: 12– 13; Col 3: 10– 11) (1) Corporate expression of Christians in Christ, (2) the Adam-Christology or Adam-Christ anthropology, (3) Membership in the body (church) of Christ who is the head, (4) Eschatological temple (house, building), (5) typological husband in marriage with his wife (or the virgin), (6) Metaphor of being clothed in Christ, (7) Adoption in Christ, and so on. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8: 10 & "In Christ" • Bousset provides an insightful difference between Paul's Christ mysticism and the Hellenistic religion with similar rhetoric, but pantheistic implication. That is, • The lexical pattern ("X in the Christ" or "the Christ in X" where X is, for example, a Christian or Christians) does not grant a pantheistic or panentheistic implication (to say that "X is the Christ" or "the Christ is X") whether the expression is provided reciprocally or not. – Wilhelm Bousset, KYRIOS CHRISTOS: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus, trans. John E. Steely (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2013 [1913]), 164– 69. Bousset notes the expressions in Hermetic prayers for being completely pantheistic (for example, "Come to me, Hermes, as children come into the body of women. . I know you, Hermas, and you know me. I am you and you are I, " and "For you are I and I am you. Your name is mine and mine is yours. I am your image. ") • Based on this ground, four points are noted. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8: 10 & "In Christ" • First (1), in the framework of Adam-Christ anthology (Adam-Christology), – we note the pair-expression of "in Christ" and "Christ in" in Romans, but always with the phrase "in Adam. " – There is never a phrase such as "Adam in" or with any human being (except the Christ or Satan, or nonhuman object such as sin, death, or the Kingdom of God). – This observation may hint the difference between "in Christ" and "Christ in" for further study. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8: 10 & "In Christ" • Second (2), in the framework of the two-stage coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 17: 17– 24), – a clear difference and distinction exists between the case of the invisible Kingdom of God within a person ("the Kingdom of God in X") – and the case of the visible Kingdom of God on the day of the Son of Man ("X in the Kingdom of God"). – Clearly, the invisible Kingdom of God is present in all those who witness the power of the Holy Spirit (Matt 12: 28; Luke 11: 20). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8: 10 & "In Christ" • Third (3), Satan (or demonic beings) enters into a man ("Satan in X"), as well as a man is in or under the rule of Satan (Eph 2: 1– 2; John 8: 34, 44). – For example, Satan enters into Judah (John 13: 27). – Judah was already in (under the influence of or being tempted by) Satan, who inserted an evil thought into Judah's heart to betray Jesus (John 13: 2). – A similar case of an evil spirit being in and later coming out of a slave girl by Paul is noted in Acts 16: 16– 18. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8: 10 & "In Christ" • Finally (4), in the framework of Temple-House anthropology, – a man is like a temple or a house in which the Holy Spirit or evil spirit(s) may come and dwell (Rom 8: 9, 11; Matt 12: 43– 45). So does Christ (John 2: 19– 22). – Abundant biblical examples exist of a man possessed by evil spirit(s) dwelling in the man, and evil spirit(s) being cast out of a man (Matt 8: 28– 34). – Further, John notes that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit shall dwell in the believer (John 14: 17, 23). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8: 10 & "In Christ" • Based on these four observations, we may conclude safely that a substantial difference and distinction exists between "in Christ" and "Christ in" – in this circular rhetoric and expression in the Bible, and is consistently applied to the letters of Paul and so in the framework of Romans. – Gal 2: 20; 4: 19; 2 Cor 13: 5; Col 1: 27; Eph 3: 17 – as well as in Johannine Literature, and then to New Testament in general. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Part 5 • Circular Rhetoric and Exegetical Challenge in Romans (1) “From faith to faith" in Romans 1: 17 (2) Romans 3: 4 with the Liar paradox in Titus 1: 12, (3) “In Christ" and "Christ in you" in Romans 8: 10, (4) “Already" and "not yet" in Romans 8: 29– 30, and (5) Romans 9: 15– 18 in the light of Exodus 33: 19. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (4) "Already" and "Not Yet" in Romans 8: 29– 30 • The passage in Romans 8: 29– 30 presents another mystery and paradox for those in Christ. • We have already surveyed and discussed extensively with a handful cases of "already" and "not yet" in tension. • In addition, the temporal-modal mystery and paradox in Romans 8: 29– 30 is closely related to the cases in this study – for example, the two-stage coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 17: 20– 30), – the human Christ who was "not yet" come in contrast to the divine Christ who was "already" existed before John the Baptist (John 1: 15, 30), – the Son of God, both human and divine, in the lordship-relationship with David (Ps 110: 1 in Matt 22: 41– 46), and – in the order of priesthood-relationship with Melchizedek (Ps 110: 4 in Hebrews 7). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (4) "Already" and "Not Yet" in Romans 8: 29– 30 • Paul presents the divine providence for those whom God foreknew, predestinated, called, justified, and glorified. • These five verbs προέγνω, προώρισεν, ἐκάλεσεν, ἐδικαίωσεν, ἐδόξασεν • are given in past tense (aorist) as if all are done and completed. • Essentially, God is in His total control and sovereignty from the beginning to the end over all things (Romans 11: 36). • All the passages in Romans 8 clearly for those (in Romans 8: 29– 30) who are either already in Christ or not yet in Christ (or what is already or not yet done or fulfilled). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox (4) "Already" and "Not Yet" in Romans 8: 29– 30 • To avoid any potential exegetical or theological difficulty, one conventional option is to label these divine actions in past tense as prophetic past or gnomic (time-less). • Within this temporal-modal framework, one may explore viable variations or alternatives in exposition, to be flexible and consistent within theological framework of Romans. • Is this acceptable? exegetically and hermeneutically SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min “Already” and “Not Yet” in Tension Classical Examples in Contemporary NT Studies Two-Stage Coming of the Kingdom of God “Already” and “Not Yet” in Tension (Luke 17: 20 -30) Salvation History (Heilsgeschichte) by Oscar Cullmann SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min “Already” and “Not Yet” in Tension The Testimony of John the Baptist (John 1: 15, 30) • The similar circular rhetoric of “already” & “not yet” in the testimony of John the Baptist (John 1: 15, 30) • The passage is composed of three simple and distinctive prepositional phrases, in either temporal or spatial (in rank or order) meaning, to generate an interesting enigma and paradox in exegesis. (1) ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος (2) ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν (3) ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min “Already” and “Not Yet” in Tension Divine-Human relationship in Matthew 22: 41 -46 Christ - Whose son is he? Son of David. Paradox of Lord-Servant (Father-Son) Relationship What is Human vs Divine relationship in crash! SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min “Already” and “Not Yet” in Tension Melchizedek and the Son of God in Hebrews 7 • Melchizedek and the Son of God 1 Οὗτος γὰρ ὁ Μελχισέδεκ, βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ, ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου, … 3 ἀπάτωρ ἀμήτωρ ἀγενεαλόγητος, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων, ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές. … Melchizedek is (made) alike the Son of God 15 καὶ περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλόν ἐστιν, εἰ κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα Μελχισέδεκ ἀνίσταται ἱερεὺς ἕτερος, And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest. 15 SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (4) "Already" and "Not Yet" in Romans 8: 29– 30 • One appealing case for Romans 8: 29– 30 is a temporalmodal framework of: (1) all the five actions are being declared by God before the creation of the world, and (2) the five actions are spread over a linear timeline. • For (2), the first two actions are considered to have occurred before the creation of the world, the next two actions in this present age, and the last action in the future of the eschatological timeframe. • As a result, in the temporal-modal framework of what is divine versus human, various paradoxical and intriguing questions would emerge in the context of Romans. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (4) "Already" and "Not Yet" in Romans 8: 29– 30 • One appealing case for Romans 8: 29– 30 is a temporalmodal framework of: (1) all the five actions are being declared by God before the creation of the world, and (2) the five actions are spread over a linear timeline. – foreknew, predestinated, called, justified, and glorified – προέγνω, προώρισεν, ἐκάλεσεν, ἐδικαίωσεν, ἐδόξασεν • The first two actions are considered to have occurred before the creation of the world, • the next two actions in this present age, and • the last action in the future of the eschatological timeframe. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (4) "Already" and "Not Yet" in Romans 8: 29– 30 • As a result, in the temporal-modal framework of what is divine vs human (declarative vs effectual, promised vs fulfilled, …) • various paradoxical and intriguing questions would emerge in the context of Romans. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Part 5 • Circular Rhetoric and Exegetical Challenge in Romans (1) “From faith to faith" in Romans 1: 17 (2) Romans 3: 4 with the Liar paradox in Titus 1: 12, (3) “In Christ" and "Christ in you" in Romans 8: 10, (4) “Already" and "not yet" in Romans 8: 29– 30, and (5) Romans 9: 15– 18 in the light of Exodus 33: 19. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (5) Romans 9: 15, 18 in the light of Exodus 33: 19 • Two passages in Romans 9: 15 and 9: 18 present an exegetical challenge and theological difficulty in the Bible. • Both passages present God's will and action accordingly in the frame of circular rhetoric and logic. • The passage in Romans 9: 15 repeats what God said to Moses in Exodus 33: 19 that God will have mercy on whom God has mercy, and that God will have compassion on whom God has compassion. • The relational quality of God's compassion and mercy could be good and positive, especially for those in God's compassion and mercy. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (5) Romans 9: 15, 18 in the light of Exodus 33: 19 • The passage in Romans 9: 15 explicitly addresses with regard to those in God's compassion or mercy, but is silent about those not in God's compassion or mercy. • In man's perspective, this declaration in Romans 9: 15 could be understood as being value-neutral, negligible, irrelevant, or even ignorable by those who are not in God's compassion and mercy. • However, the passage in Romans 9: 18 presents not a partial view, but rather a complete view covering not only for those in God's mercy, but also for those not in God's mercy. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (5) Romans 9: 15, 18 in the light of Exodus 33: 19 • We have explored the similar usages of circular rhetoric and tautological logic. • For example, the reply by Jesus in Matthew 22: 21 satisfies two contradictory and contending quests on whether one should pay tax to Caesar or not. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (5) Romans 9: 15, 18 in the light of Exodus 33: 19 • The circular rhetoric with a model-set in its complete form (that is, a reciprocal form) in Matthew 22: 21 resolves 1. so simply, instantly, and wonderfully the conflicting legal demands in a difficult dilemma and legal deadlock and 2. to terminate any further debate. – This similar effect of terminating a debate with circular rhetoric and logic of idem per item is also noted by Lundbom in Exodus 3: 14 and 33: 19. • Further, the circular rhetoric and its complete form in Romans 9: 18 generates potentially an uneasy or damaging concern to question God's righteousness and fairness. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (5) Romans 9: 15, 18 in the light of Exodus 33: 19 • Being so bold or naïve in narrative, Paul speaks aloud and states so clearly both the question ("who resists God's will? ") and the answer ("no one can resist God's will") in Romans 9: 19– 20, to terminate any further debate or question on God's sovereignty and righteousness. • The defense and justification for God's choice of action in Romans 9: 15 is again solely based on God's mercy alone (and not by man's will or effort) as stated in Romans 9: 16. • Additionally, the same line of logic is noted in John 1: 13 and summarized in Romans 11: 36. SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (5) Romans 9: 15, 18 in the light of Exodus 33: 19 • The concept of God's sovereignty and righteousness in Romans seems too much and too overwhelming to be accepted by a man (with his own will, mind, desire, interest, optimism, courage, intelligence, strength, ability, effort, achievement, love, mercy, compassion, courage, and even a conviction to stand before God sooner or later, for or against his own case and destiny, or even to plea for his own loving spouse or children, instead, in his despair or sacrifice). SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min (5) Romans 9: 15, 18 in the light of Exodus 33: 19 • As stated in Luke 16: 27– 31, the rich man finally realized he could do nothing for himself or for his own family. It was too late for the rich man. • The mind-boggling question is then whether this rich man had a chance and an ability to change his own destiny. • Again, Paul provides the metaphor of the potter and his right over his own creation in Romans 11: 21– 23 to terminate the debate or shut the mouth of those questioning against God. • cf. Job 40: 1– 14 SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Part 6 • A New Critical Method SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Richard K. Min A Semantic Difference with Circular Logic • Induction and its Semantics – Here we say “infinite” or “eternal” – but it has no meaning in the frame of Induction or Inductive Logic (in this conventional “finite” worldview). • Coindcution and its Semantics (extending induction) Example: The “chicken or egg” problem (1) a chicken comes out of an egg, (2) an egg comes out of a chicken, and (3) the reproductive cycle between chicken and egg goes on forever. Inductive Logic: No answer Coinductive Logic: 4 possible answers { No answer, Chicken, Egg, Chicken and Egg } SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox A New Critical Method • Circular Rhetoric and Logic of Paradoxes To make sense and do a valid and sound exegesis. Otherwise, to treat it meaningless or invalid, or to treat as if it is not there • There are so many and so predominant in the Bible And each case/its presence simply cannot to be ignored or silenced. • Once understood and applied correctly, it truly makes sense objectively and logical Matthew 22: 15 -46, John 8: 12 -20 with Exodus 3: 14 -15 • To construct a coherent, consistent, and unifying framework in exegesis and its application (and no need of “post-liberal theology or narrative theology”, deconstructionism or “story-telling” [as one may argue that these biblical passages have no valid logic or an objective truth, and thus treat them metaphorically, subjectively, . . . ] SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Richard K. Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox Afterword by Solomon 13 Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. (Ecclesiastes 12: 13 -14 NIV) SBL IM 2015 The University of Texas at Dallas
Скачать презентацию Richard K Min Circular Rhetoric and Biblical Paradox
2a69886c31d934697ad6343341016cc3.ppt