Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The purpose of the law in salvation-history

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: The purpose of the law in salvation-history
  • Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 14:57:01 -0700 (PDT)


Dieter,

Thanks for your clarification. Back in October of last
year, Moon-Ryul Jung and I were engaged in a lengthy
thread over the subject of Paul's use of rhetoric in
Galatians -- especially the rhetorical "we" in Gal
3:10-14, 3:19-25 and 4:1-7. On November 11 I submitted
a follow-up post, focusing on the rhetorical "I" of
Rom 7:7-25; but Moon did not respond at the time. Now
may be a good time to re-open that aborted thread,
since I'm looking to integrate a rhetorical approach
with what I've been developing in the present thread.
In so doing, I hope to show you how the approach you
advocate is important to me as well.

On November 11 2000 I wrote:

_____________________________________________


Rom. 7:7-25 is a controversial text, and I hope to do
justice to it in what follows. As a preliminary
observation, I understand the passage to be the heart
of Rom. 5-8, explaining the role of the Mosaic law --
and, by implication, the Gentile "Noahide law" -- for
a non-believer, prior to baptizing into Christ's death
(Rom. 6) and subsequently fulfilling the law (whether
Mosaic or Noahide) according to the Spirit (Rom. 8).

7:7-13: Paul invokes the rhetorical personage of
Adam, appealing to Jewish tradition. "I was once alive
apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin
revived, and I died. The commandment which promised my
life proved my death, because sin, seizing opportunity
in the commandment, deceived me, and through it,
killed me." Obviously, none of this is
autobiographical. It's exegetical, referring to the
Genesis story (so, for instance, Francis Watson,
"Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles", pp. 152-153) where
Adam, "alive" and newly created, is placed in Eden
(Gen. 2:7-9) and "commanded" by God not to eat of the
tree of life (Gen. 2:16-17), whereafter the serpent
"seizes opportunity" to further its own ends (Gen.
3:1-5) and Eve complains that she was "deceived" (Gen.
3:13). God then "kills" humanity, punishing it with
mortality (Gen. 3:19,22-23). I know that critics
dispute these allusions, but can there really be any
doubt that the Genesis story was in Paul's mind --
especially in light of his preface in Rom. 5:12-21?
Paul deliberately assumes the role of Adam in order to
make a limited point:

Jewish behavior under the Mosaic law (and Gentile
behavior under the Noahide law) is analogous to, and
parallel with, Adam/Eve's behavior under the primal
commandment in Eden.

Like most contemporary critics, I don't believe this
is any kind of existential observation, but rather a
rhetorical one which hints at the perfection to come
when Christ-believers are resurrected at the end of
all things (Rom. 8).

7:14-25: Paul plays on the rhetoric of Gentile
traditions. More so than 7:7-13, this passage
contradicts his Pharisaic experience with a vengeance,
and we get nothing but anguish, futility, and despair.
Those under the law, without the Christ, without the
Spirit, "don't understand their own actions", "doing
not the good they want, but the evil they don't want",
etc. The human plight under the law is so miserable
and wretched that one turns to the messiah for
liberation. Why would Paul characterize (some would
say caricaturize) non-Christians under the law in such
anguished and hopeless terms, if he himself had
experienced it in only positive and robust terms
(Philip. 3:4b-6)? The answer (so Gaston, Gager) is
that he was invoking pagan traditions with which his
Gentile audience would readily identify. Paul takes on
the rhetorical personage of (say) Medea, who, about to
slay her children, wails, "I know what I'm about to do
is evil, but passion is stronger than my reasoned
reflection" (Eurpides). Paul deliberately assumes the
role of a pagan persona in order to make a limited
point:

Gentile behavior under the law (and, rhetorically,
Jewish behavior under the law) results in frustration,
futility, and despair.

Again, not a "timeless" existential observation, but a
rhetorical one pointing to the fact that creation is
out of tune with the creator's original intent, and
that Gentiles "crave the eschaton" as much as Jews, so
they may live to God with perfection.

Unlike Galatians (and other letters), Romans was
addressed to both Jews and Gentiles, and texts
throughout the letter assume various audiences. 7:7-13
has in view both Jews and Gentiles, while 7:14-25 has
in view primarily Gentiles. But the segue between the
two is obvious, and it makes for a unified whole. We
see Paul assuming different rhetorical personas,
linking together Jewish and Gentile "plights",
indicating that both races stand on the same ground,
in equal need of the resurrection. Perhaps he was
beginning to see that the two peoples shared a lot in
common after all.

__________________________________________________


I still believe in everything I wrote in the above
post. The face-value argument of Rom 7:7-25 is the
role of the law (whether Mosaic or "Noahide") for the
non-believer prior to baptizing into Christ's death.
Paul speaks of the law in a phenomenological sense, as
it relates to his eschatological mysticism.

What I'm now suggesting is that underneath the
face-value argument of Rom 7:7-25 lie undercurrents of
Paul's ongoing theological dilemma of how to relate
the law to God's will and sin. In other words, I see
Rom 7:7-25 as both (a) a non-biographical rhetorical
argument as to why both Jews and Gentiles suffer in
"plight" under the law (the face-value argument), and
(b) a defense and exoneration of God (albeit at the
expense of His sovereignty) from the perverse
implications spelled out elsewhere (Gal 3:19-22).
This, to me, naturally integrates rhetorical and
psychological approaches to Rom 7.

Dieter, does this help explain where I'm coming from?
Bob? What do you both think?

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page