EarlDoherty

I’ve decided to respond directly to this, as I see now that my long post does not address your fundamental misunderstanding of what this is all about.

Of course “brother” has a literal meaning. But in your example it is not being applied literally. It is not being understood literally. I can say that “I regard you as a brother” but you are still NOT my brother if you are not actually my sibling. You are a symbolic brother, or whatever term you want to use. So if Paul says you are “regarded as a seed” that does not make who he is addressing the actual seed of Abraham. Therefore, the term is not being applied literally. It is being used metaphorically or symbolically. Those he is addressing are not the literal seed of Abraham. They are “descendants” not in a literal sense but in some kind of symbolic sense.

When President Kennedy in 1963 went to democratic West Berlin, which was at that time still surrounded by Communist states and separated from East Berlin by the infamous Wall, he stood on a balcony before a great plaza, as I still see it in my memory, filled with thousands of Berliners, and he declared at the climax of his speech: “Ich bin ein Berliner!!” It represented the solidarity which he and the West felt for those isolated but defiant people. In other words, “I regard myself as a Berliner—in spirit!” He was still not an actual Berliner, and he did not use that name literally. He meant himself as a symbolic Berliner. Surely you can see that you cannot use Kennedy’s declaration to prove that in some other situation, someone else labeling himself as a “Berliner” has to mean an actual Berlin citizen, rather than a symbolic Berliner in a similar manner to Kennedy. That would make no sense. That Paul in that passage is using the term “seed of Abraham” in a non-literal way—he spells it out—is just as clear as Kennedy using the term “Berliner” in a non-literal way.

This is the only point that matters in regard to interpreting Romans 9:6-8. By the time he gets to verse 8, Paul has created a non-literal category of “Abraham’s seed”. The gentiles are regarded as that seed, even though they literally are not. My larger argument was (as I recall) that if Paul could create a non-literal category for gentiles being some ancestor’s “seed”, he could create a non-literal category for Christ being some ancestor’s “seed”, as in Romans 1:3. Yes, they are not identical, one being a category created for humans, the other for a spiritual entity, and I know that this is one of your bases for arguing the impossibility of the latter. But this, in essence, as I have repeatedly said, can simply be boiled down to you saying “I can’t conceive of a category of ‘seed’ being able to be applied to a spiritual being by anyone”; in other words, an argument from personal incredulity and the applying of your own personal standards. But I have maintained, against your argument of personal incredulity, that if scripture, where Paul’s circle got all its information about Christ, informed Paul that Christ was of the seed of David, and if Paul regards Christ as being just as “real” as humans, then he could invent or envision such a “seed” for Christ in his mind in some mystical, non-literal way.

The other aspect of my argument was that you could not use Romans 9:6-8 as you wished: that this is a passage wherein “seed” is used literally in the final verse, which you then want to have your desired effect on the “seed” of Romans 1:3. I have demonstrated that you are wrong and that it is NOT used literally. That particular argument is neutralized and cannot stand in the way of regarding 1:3’s “seed” as symbolic/mystical.

And just because in 9:8 we can ‘plug in’ symbolic “descendants” of Abraham (since it feels OK, as we are clearly talking about humans on both sides), does not mean that we are forced to ‘plug in’ the word “descendant” in 1:3, since this implies human descent to what is not clearly a human figure--unless one begs the question. I prefer to leave in a symbolic/mystical “seed.”

Earl Doherty

Johnny Skeptic

But Ben, battles are what God intended. He has deliberately and needlessly withheld the kinds of evidence that would have eliminated any need at all for this forum. Getting down to reality, just like everyone else, your beliefs have been determined by secular factors, most of which are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period. This has been well-documented. Regarding geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, Kosmin and Lachman discuss these factors in their book that it titled "One Nation Under God (or via: amazon.co.uk)." The authors provide lots of documentation that shows that in the U.S., the primary factors that influence religious beliefs are those factors. I added time period because obviously when in history you are born is a major factor. Do you not find it to be quite odd that a loving God would allow religious beliefs to be primarily or solely determined by the aforementioned factors?

It may seem to you that I am getting off-topic, but it is you who complained about the simplest point being a battle. It doesn't have to be that way, right? Well of course it doesn't if God were to do his job properly. Or, is it your position that the Bible was written clearly and simply, as well as it should have been written, leaving little doubt that Jesus existed, and that he said and did what the New Testament says that he said and did?

Ben C Smith

Just to be clear, I am not disputing that there are figurative uses of seed in Paul.

But Romans 9.8 is not one of them.

If I say that you are my brother (and in fact you are not my literal brother), then brother is metaphorical. If I say that you are like a brother to me, then brother is not metaphorical; what we have is a simile, not a metaphor, and brother is literal; if brother were not literal here, I would be saying that you are like a symbolic brother to me, and that is clearly not my meaning. What I mean is that you are a symbolic brother to me, which is the same thing as saying that you are like a literal brother to me.

In the case of Romans 9.8, the word regard functions just like the words like and as would. IOW, it is a simile, not a metaphor. Paul regards the gentiles as (if they were, but they are not) descendants of Abraham. He does not regard them as symbolic descendants; they are symbolic descendants.

Correct. In fact, the term regard tells us outright that you are not my literal brother, unless we are speaking ironically. IOW, that you are not my brother is part of the expression here. It makes no sense, except ironic, to say to my real blood brother: I regard you as a brother, just as it makes no sense to point to a real bluebird and say: That bird is just like a bluebird.

So for Paul to regard the gentiles as descendants of Abraham implies that they are not... but not what? Not symbolic descendants? No! Paul insists they are exactly that. What they are not is literal descendants. This means that in the expression, I regard gentiles as descendants of Abraham, descendants can only be literal: I regard gentiles as (if they were literal) descendants of Abraham (even though they are not).

That is correct. And the word that tells us that they are not the actual seed of Abraham is regarded.

I agree. Kennedy is here using a bonafide metaphor, not a simile. Had he said: I am just like a Berliner, it would have been a simile.

A Pauline parallel to this kind of usage (that is, metaphorical) is Galatians 3.29, where Paul declares that his gentile readers, so long as they belong to Christ, are the seed of Abraham. No as or like or as if or regarded as or considered to be intrudes here. This is a true metaphor (one that he has awkwardly, but purposefully, set up in 3.16-19).

If this all seems too picky to you, so be it. The distinction between metaphors and similes is real, and I think it is important to maintain it in order to be clear about what we are saying.

This is what your very, very long post had to say about Romans 9.8:

Do you see what you did there? I trust it was accidental, but you removed the words regarded as in this verse, which actually reads:

You turned the simile into a metaphor; no wonder you could write that seed here is clearly not literal lineage. That is true only on the way you worded it; Paul worded it differently.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Well, Earl, when I tried to answer your posts on the original thread point by point, you left out significant parts of my responses (some of which you have still not addressed). When you posted a long OP about the topic, I tried to change strategies and slow things down so as to give each response its proper due. I explicitly said I wanted to take things one step at a time, and I responded to only two (IIRC) of your points, in hopes of settling them before tackling the rest. Your response was to add a post of some 6000+ words that I have only now finished reading, and in that post everything I said about one of my two chosen points to try to settle, namely Romans 9.8, fell by the wayside to the point that you did not even include the words regarded as in your quotation of that verse.

I am truly sorry, but I simply do not have the time to answer everything in your recent long posts. That is why I was trying to slow things down a bit, take them one step at a time.

Let me just give you, then, my broadest impression of your recent monograph. It makes some good points and strikes off in some directions that look fruitful. I like the idea, for example, of your typology of sorts (humans relating to other beings in flesh and in spirit; ethereal beings relating to other beings in flesh and in spirit); it would be interesting to fill out all the slots and see where we stand.

But I think that your handling of this typology (my word for it, not yours) skates right by what is most crucial in all of this, namely literal and figurative language. Let me give you an example of what I mean.

In Romans 8.8-9 Paul says that those who are in the flesh cannot please God; only those who are in the spirit can. Here in the flesh, to use your typology, relates humans to something human or earthly (you say the earthly world of Romans 8.13, which is similar and in the same context). But in 2 Corinthians 10.3 Paul admits that all of us, humans qua humans, walk in the flesh (same phrase as in Romans 8.8-9). Here in the flesh also relates humans to something human or earthly.

Yet the difference between Romans 8.8-9 and 2 Corinthians 10.3 is profound. In the former Paul says that we can attain a state in which we are no longer in the flesh; in the latter Paul takes for granted that we are in the flesh by virtue of being human (and he makes the point that we do not wage war according to the flesh).

Both of these verses would fall into the same category, so to speak, that you gave; both relate humans to something about the human world. The difference is that the former is metaphorical while the latter is literal. We literally walk in the flesh, but metaphorically we are in the spirit and not in the flesh. A subsidiary difference, of course, is that in the former, metaphorical use of flesh Paul intends a derogatory or negative connotation, while in the latter, literal use of flesh the intent is apparently neutral; it is just a biological fact that humans bear flesh.

This brings up something important, I think. Paul can use flesh both literally and metaphorically, and with either a neutral or a negative connotation (I do not think it is ever positive, but I would welcome correction there). I have given one instance that is literal and neutral and another that is metaphorical and negative. There may be instances that are literal and negative (such as 1 Corinthians 10.18, though perhaps we are simply reading the metaphorical, negative uses of flesh into a verse like this). But the question of the day is: Are there any metaphorical uses in Paul that are neutral (or even positive, though that seems unlikely for Paul)? Does Paul ever use flesh figuratively, but in a nonderogatory fashion?

I ask this because in Romans 1.3 I do not think that according to the flesh, applied to Jesus Christ, can be negative. It has to be neutral at worst. If it is neutral, however, can it also be figurative or metaphorical in any way for Paul? Does Paul ever (let alone habitually) use flesh in a figurative, yet neutral, sense? If it should turn out that he never elsewhere does this, then what would this mean for Romans 1.3? If it is not figurative, is it literal? What would a literal reading of Romans 1.3 entail, in your view?

These are exploratory questions, not hard conclusions. I would be interested in how you answer them.

One more item. You opined that according to the flesh was an odd way to refer to human lineage (and I may have more to say on that later), and went on to say that the very oddness of the expression could work in your favor, even when Paul uses it quite mundanely to refer to his own lineage or kinship. But you were writing that with only Romans 1.3 and related instances of according to the flesh in mind, I think. How would this work on Galatians 4.4, our other principal passage in this debate? I believe I have shown amply that the expression born of a woman is a quite common way of referring to ordinary human life; you once questioned the verb that Paul used, but I gave you a solid instance in Josephus of that same verb and, at any rate, the of woman is just as important as the verb.

If your proposed oddness of the expression according to the flesh works in your favor, how does the mundane ordinariness of the expression born of a woman work? Does that also work in your favor somehow?

That is enough, indeed too much, for now. I have other matters to attend to. Ciao.

Ben.

EarlDoherty

I truly do not understand what you think you are accomplishing here. Of course there is a linguistic difference between similes and metaphors, but they have no effect on the object being employed, or my argument. If I say,

Simile: Your cheeks are like apples
Metaphor: You are the apple of my eye

is the "apple" in either case real? Is not the term "apple" understood in both cases to be symbolic (or whatever term you want to use)? Do we have a real apple in either case?

Whether I left out "regarded as" (it was sort of accidental) in Romans 9:8 has no effect on whether the "seed" referred to is real or not. As Paul has defined things and laid them out in those verses 6-8, the "seed" is not literal, actual seed/descendants of Abraham whether he is providing a simile or a metaphor.

To repeat your final word:

How, if it is a simile as you point out, does this make Paul say that the seed is something literal? Why is a simile more literal than a metaphor? (Linguistically, it's actually the other way around!)

What are you thinking? I simply don't understand you. :huh:

Earl Doherty

No Robots

And Mary was sort of a virgin, right?

Ben C Smith

I am reading the text for how it is meant to be read. I do not care on this level whether it proves my overall point right or wrong or does nothing at all. I simply believe you are incorrect on what a simile does and what a metaphor does, and am pointing it out.

Real is not a helpful word here, but the apples are literal apples in the first instance but metaphorical in the second instance.

No. I do not wish to say that your cheeks are like symbolic apples. I wish to say that your cheeks are like actual apples. But, when I call you an apple (or the apple of my eye), I do wish to say that you are a symbolic apple.

This is why the term real is not helpful here. When I write that Alice ate an apple and discarded the core, I do not have a real apple; they are just words on a page. Yet the meaning is literal. I am claiming that Alice had a real apple, I suppose (if this is nonfiction and not just a story), but in a simile I am also claiming that your cheeks are like real apples in some way. I am certainly not claiming that your cheeks are like symbolic apples.

You quoted Paul as saying that the gentiles are the seed. Romans 9.8 actually says that gentiles are like the seed, or regarded as the seed.

The former does not necessarily imply that the gentiles are actually not; the latter necessarily does.

The seed in both cases is actual descendants of Abraham. The seed in Galatians 1.29, OTOH, is figurative descendants of Abraham.

A simile is not more literal than a metaphor. A simile is the entire expression, not just one of the items within it.

The bottom line is this: It seemed you were trying to compare Romans 9.8 with Romans 1.3 somehow. In the former, Paul says that gentiles are like the seed of Abraham; in the latter, he says that Jesus is (not is like) the seed of David. For Paul to say that gentiles are like descendants of Abraham is to imply that they are not; but for Paul to say that Jesus is from the seed of David carries no such necessary implication. This is simply not a good comparison on your part.

Ben.

gstafleu

To follow up on my transcendence/immanence posting--and since this seems to be the night of the long postings--I have here a list of all occurrences (I think) of kata sarka in Romans, Corinthians and Galatians. My point here is to go through them and see if they fit my transcendence/immanence hypothesis.

To summarize, Paul thought that god had decided to do something about his separation from man, caused by his super immanence. God decided on a two-step approach. First, he would send a mediator down (being super-transcendent he could hardly come himself), and that mediator would have more (than god himself) earthly attributes. Paul describes these earthly attributes as "kata sarka," in contrast to the transcendent attributes, which are "kata pneuma."

The second step was that humanity had to become more spiritual, more kata pneuma, so that it could, so to speak, meet the mediator half way. Compare this to the Sumerian ziggurats, along whose long stairways the deities could descend and the worshippers ascend.

I have mostly used the New King James Version here, as they actually say "according to the flesh," rather than come up with all kinds of fancy translations. Sometimes I abbreviate "according to the flesh" as ATTF. This posting is in part complementary to Earl's (we must have been working on it more ore less at the same time), but stresses the immanence/transcendence aspect more. In general I use "earthly" (or something like it) for immanence, or as a replacement for "according to the flesh."

One more note. Paul often refers to "the law," and how it is now obsolete. As I mentioned in a post above, when the deity is completely transcendent there is nothing one can do to reach him. The only thing left is to order your earthly affairs in a manner that you hope pleases the deity--although not to much effect. This was what the Jewish law was, a vain earthly attempt to contact the deity, and clearly it is now obsolete with the coming of the mediator. So forget about the earthly law, concentrate on becoming more spiritual so you can reach the mediator.

Rom 1:3-4
3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness,

Here we see a clear opposition of a bit of earthliness, being a descendant of David, explicitly contrasted with the spiritual holiness of the transcendent god. This bit of earthliness has been attached to Christ, who thus has both earthly and spiritual attributes, and so can mediate, re-establish contact, between the transcendent god and the earthly believers.

Rom 4:1
What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? (NKJV)
or
What then shall we say was discovered by Abraham, our forefather kata sarka? (Earl Doherty)

Paul is in the middle of arguing that man is not "justified" by the law or by works, but by faith. He uses the example of Abraham to point out that he too was justified via faith: "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." The NKJV ATTF here simply means "while going on with his earthly business." Remember that the issue is that while humans remain earth bound, their god has disappeared into the untouchable realm of super transcendence. Paul uses Abraham as an example of this: Abraham still was very ATTF. We will later see another example of this. 1 Cor 10:18, where Paul points to Israel in its ATTF ways.

Of course in Earl's version it is the forefatherness that is ATTF, not Abraham himself. If this is the correct translation, then Paul is pointing to the general earthliness of the Israelites, much as in 1 Cor 10:18, below.

Rom 8:1-5
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

In order to solve the problem of the too large separation between god and man, Paul is starting to give god more earthly attributes, but he is certainly not positing him as a completely earthly creature: even the mediator who is supposed to accomplish the task, doesn't make it completely down to earth yet. Hence humans have do their bit and become more spiritual, more transcendent. Even if god gets more earthly attributes, those humans who remain completely earth bound will never reach him. So god starts the process by sending down a mediator with some earthly attributes, by "sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." We humans then have to do the complement, we have to become more spiritual, the kind of people "who do not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

An example of the now obsolete earthly way of contacting god is the law. Note that Paul says that the law is "weak through the flesh." The law was a completely earthly thing, and as such not effective in reaching the transcendent god: all this carrying-on about sin and death simply didn't help in reaching god.

Rom 8:12-13
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

This part of the same argument as under Rom 1-5. If you concentrate on earthliness you will get nowhere, you will die, but if you add some spirituality you will contact god (who, via Christ is doing his bit), you will live.

9 Rom:1-5
1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

In 3 Paul uses ATTF in something that looks almost "natural:" the Israelites who are his countrymen according to the flesh, i.e. by descent. But at the same time this points to the earthly trap that the Israelites are in with respect to their transcendent god. That the more earthly Christ came from the Israelites can of course be seen in an HJ fashion, but it can, I think, also mean that the idea sprang up in their midst, or simply that he came from the god of the Israelites, and in that sense came from their midst (the latter is what I think Earl says).

1 Cor 1:26
For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,

Let us look first at what Paul said just before this:
I have bolded the important bits.
Here we see clearly stated that worldly ways, or worldly wisdom, don't work for contacting god. The Jews are singled out as requesting a sign, i.e. expecting some earthly manifestation of their transcendent god, which of course does not happen. Rather believers and god have to meet in the middle, via Christ who has been made more earthly via the crucifixion. So again, as believers we should forget about the earthly ways and concentrate more on the spiritual, so that we can meet god, who is doing the reverse (we preach Christ crucified), halfway. In 26 Paul emphasizes this by pointing out that many brethren are not wise in the ways of the world in any case, which is a good thing as that "wisdom" just gets in the way.

1 Cor 10:18
Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

Let us first consider the bit just above this verse:
Here we see some very earthly things, blood and bread, used to contact Christ. This works because Christ, who is supposed to mediate between the super-transcendent deity and the earthly world has, in order to make him more earthly, been given the earthly attributes of "blood" and "body" in some form. In 17 we then see an almost full-blown return to the old immanent world view: everything is one because it all partakes of the same divine element.

When Paul then goes on and asks us to look at Israel according to the flesh, he doesn't so much refer to just the people of Israel, rather he wants us to look at them in their earthly ways. As we have seen before, although the deity of these people was transcendent, the people themselves were still firmly stuck in the earthly world. These poor souls made a rather inefficient attempt to connect with their deity via sacrifices (fleshly, very kata sarka), and Paul compares that attempt to the similar but much better way in which his believers could communicate with Christ. The original attempts were rather inefficient because a transcendent deity can't be influenced by sacrifices: these are a way to influence immanent deities via sympathetic magic. What Paul is saying, though, is that at least the Israelites gave it a try. But Paul's way is much better, communicating with an at least partly earthly Christ rather than with the wholly transcendent god.

2 Cor 1:17
Therefore, when I was planning this, did I do it lightly? Or the things I plan, do I plan according to the flesh, that with me there should be Yes, Yes, and No, No?

Paul is explaining here why he didn't show up in Corinth again. He was planning to do so, but didn't make it. He is pointing out that planning in an earthly way is a rather dubious thing, hence the yes yes and no no. He is, in other words, using the ineffectiveness of earthly things as an excuse for his earthly failure to show up. Plus, being an earthly thing, it doesn't matter.

Just above, in 12, Paul introduces this excuse with "For our boasting is this: the testimony of our conscience that we conducted ourselves in the world in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom but by the grace of God..." Again: ignore the ineffective earthly wisdom and concentrate on the spiritual, so that you can meet Christ, who is doing the reverse, half way.

2 Cor 5:16
Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.

The usual exhortation, this time focussing on how we should regard each other: not in an earthly way but in a spiritual one. That we "have known Christ according to the flesh" points to the old Jewish way of the law, but we should no longer do that.

Just below this, in 19, we have the following, which spells out the whole thing: "that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation." God is using Christ to get back in contact with the world, and the old law ("imputing their trespasses") is no longer the way to contact god.

2 Cor 10:2-3
2 But I beg you that when I am present I may not be bold with that confidence by which I intend to be bold against some, who think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds,...

We have seen "walking ATTF" above. Paul adds here that the "weapons" of the believer are not earthly but spiritual.

2 Cor 11:18
Seeing that many boast according to the flesh, I also will boast.

Paul is talking here about other, false, apostles, who "boast." Of course these false apostles still have the old earthly message, so they are boasting ATTF.

Gal 4:23-29
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. [...] 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.

See Earl's post." One birth represents the of earthly way of communicating (or vainly trying so) with god, the other the new way where humans have the become more spiritual in order to meet the mediator half way. Note that in 24 Paul clearly says "which things are symbolic." In other words we are not talking about literal flesh, but flesh that symbolizes the earthly way. In 29 Paul gets in a nice dig about the current crop of earthly stick-in-the-muds.

Eph 2:14-16
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

This passage doesn't contain kata sarka as such, but I include it because Earl mentioned it. Paul is here talking about uniting Jews and gentiles. What stood between them was the law, that very earthly way of relating to god. This law has now been abolished as the path to god, via the earthly mediator. So the enmity (caused by the law) has been "abolished in [or via] His flesh," via the mediator with earthly attributes.

Gerard Stafleu

EarlDoherty

This is what happens when one takes refuge in semantic arguments. Not only is a lot of time wasted, it covers up the real issue.

Simile: Your cheeks are like apples
Metaphor: You are the apple of my eye

It matters not if "apples" in the simile are actual. Of course they are. The question is, are the cheeks actual apples?. They are not. Substitute "children of the promise" for "cheeks", and "Abraham's seed" for "apples". Just as the cheeks are not literal apples, so the children of the promise are not literally Abraham's seed. It is like you are trying to say that Paul says, "You are regarded as literally Abraham's seed," just as if you would say, adapting your earlier analogy, "I regard you, Earl, as literally my brother" (meaning blood sibling). Saying that is simply wrong, and if you believed that, your sanity would be doubted. I am not your blood sibling, no matter how you think you "regard" me. I don't doubt Paul's sanity because he is not saying "the children of the promise are literally Abraham's seed." They are not. Eisenbaum in her article seemed initially to be saying that, as gentiles descended from Isaac (so she claimed), they were literally Abraham's seed. Later she seemed to contradict herself.

The simile doesn't say, nor do I claim it does, that "your cheeks are like symbolic apples". It says "your cheeks are like apples". Period. The symbolism idea comes in when describing the simile from outside. The word "symbolism" is used to describe the application of the word "apples" to "cheeks".

Then why have you bothered with a pointless argument over semantics? The real problem is that you are again reading an argument or reference of mine improperly. Your second sentence above shows that. 'I was trying to compare 9:8 with 1:3 somehow'? What does the "somehow" mean? You would need to define that, to show that you have understood my argument.

My comparison of 9:8 with 1:3... (quite frankly, by now I'm not sure I can get myself to remember what I said, we've gone down so many paths in this back-and-forth business) ...was certainly not that the meaning of 9:8, as derived from its wording, was identical to that of 1:3, or vice-versa. I can recognize that 9:8 is clearly, by its wording, a simile/metaphor (take your pick) and doesn't mean that the "children of the promise" are literally descendants of Isaac. However, this does not mean that 1:3, just because it does not clearly use wording which spells out a non-literal simile/metaphor, has to be taken in a way which is exactly opposite to the meaning of 9:8. First of all, we are dealing with two different planes of existence. 9:8 involves entirely human figures. 1:3 involves a human figure and a spiritual one. I spent one of those "very, very long" postings laying out the diverse ways relationships can be viewed in both spheres of flesh and spirit. One cannot just blithely assume that the language and understanding used in one sphere, the earthly, can simply be applied to the other with no differences or qualifications.

Besides, "literal" has to be further described and assigned. Linguistically, you are right. Romans 1:3 does say that Christ is of David's line, not "like" or some kind of metaphorical connotation. The questions is, what did Paul understand by this direct statement? We don't know exactly. If he believed it because it said so in scripture, and given that heavenly things could mirror earthly things (or whatever mythological/philosophical standard he chose to think by), then for him, Christ was literally of the seed of David--but in some heavenly fashion, just as Christ was a "man" in some heavenly fashion. So for him, it was not a simile, or metaphorical, and so he didn't use the same kind of language in 1:3 as he did in 9:8.

My only comparison between those two verses, using one to 'support' the other, would be that as Paul could describe a situation or relationship by using a term like "seed" that was not meant literally in regard to the human level, so Paul could have been using the same term for Christ and not be meaning it literally as it would be applied to humans. But he could have viewed it 'literally' as it applied to the relationship between a divinity and a human. (Did he understand it? Not necessarily; he believed it because scripture said it was so.) He could have employed “seed” just as he used "flesh" in ways which had one understanding when used of humans, and the same word "flesh" in ways which had a different understanding when used of divinities. Here we get into that question of the "flesh" of gods and “non-human entities” (Bauer), and the "flesh" of the mystical Christ in all those examples I gave which clearly do not refer to human flesh or a human body. If "flesh" has a dual application, so can "seed". The bottom line is not whether it makes sense to us, or whether we would express ourselves that way; it is a question of whether there is reason and evidence to suggest that Paul could have thought that way and employed his language that way.

By the way, you now say "For Paul to say that gentiles are like descendants of Abraham is to imply that they are not", but haven't you been arguing precisely the opposite, that the gentiles were literally the seed of Abraham in 9:8? Please make up your mind.

Earl Doherty

Amaleq13

By no means should the following be taken as an invitation to continue down this nightmarish path of Similes and Metaphors 101 but I'm going to try to clear up the misconceptions. I can't help it. I've worked in education too long to just ignore it because confusion to me is like blood in the water to a shark.

No, that is not the question. Ben's been trying to explain that, just as the apples in the example are actual apples, the seed of Abraham to which Paul refers are Abraham's actual descendants.

But you can't forget to include the word "like" since it is clearly central to the statement.

The "cheeks" are like "apples".

IOW, the cheeks are like actual apples in that they are round and red.

The "children of the promise" are like "Abraham's seed".

IOW, the children of the promise are like actual descendants of Abraham in that they are to obtain what was promised to Abraham's descendants.

Ben's focus has been on showing that "Abraham's seed" in Paul's simile was a reference to the literal descendants of Abraham just as the "apple" in the example was a reference to a literal apple.

The cheeks are, however, like literal apples just as the children of the promise are like literal descendants of Abraham.

No, he was trying to explain that Paul says "You are regarded like Abraham's literal descendants."

IMO, Ben should focus only on the two paragraphs just before your final paragraph as they appear to me to respond to his actual point.