Setting the Mind on the Spirit - The Vanishing Verb

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I know that I already responded to this in my previous post, but this particular sentence seems unclear to me.

When you say "justify the Apostle's thought" it seems that you are saying that there is a precedent for what he said. But I think that what you are actually saying is that Isaiah provides enough parallel that it would justify implying a verb on the part of the Apostle even though none is actually found.

To bring Isaiah along to reread Romans is an exercise in applying some kind of precedence or parallel structure to assert that something not said is actually said. To justify Paul's thought seems more like trying to find something that causes us to accept what he has said that otherwise seems unusual or not expected. In this case, it would seem that you actually do not expect what he said and think that it should be read as if he said something else. Not a bad something else, just not what he actually said.

But in any case, even if we think the parallel in Isaiah causes there to be the implication of "set," it surely cannot then become the primary point of the verse (which is what Nigel is saying Lee has asserted). Surely the primary point of the verse cannot be what was omitted.

Your post is a little unclear to me.

I believe Paul quoted Isa. 26.3 in Romans 8.6. My question would be what is the verb in the original Hebrew language in Isaiah, or even in the Septuagint.

The goal here in both Isaiah and Paul is God's perfect peace.