Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Comments on the Mystery of Romans by Mark Nanos

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>
  • To: corpus-paul
  • Subject: Re: Comments on the Mystery of Romans by Mark Nanos
  • Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 21:32:31


Mark, I am very excited by the turn of our discussion.
Please see below for my comments.

> >[Moon]
> >It occurs to me that a somewhat akward syntactic structure of verse 10:5
> >might serve my interpretation. Literally it says,
> >"For Moses wrote, WITH RESPECT TO THE RIGHTEOUSNESS which is FROM THE LAW,
> > that the man who does those things shall live in them."
> >
> >So, the implied dialogue between Paul and the "opponents" might have been
> >as follows:
> >Paul: Christ is the goal of the Law for righteousness to EVERYONE that
> >believes, regardless of whether they are the people of the Law or not.
> >Opponents: But, then what about THE RIGHTEOUSNESS which is FROM THE LAW,
> >which the Gentile believers do not have? Can they be righteoused without
> >the
> >RIGHTEOUSNESS which is from the LAW?
> >Paul: Good question. But the righteousness from the Law does not falsify
> > my position.
> > With respect to that righteousness which is from the Law, Moses
> > wrote that the people of the Law shall live in the Law. That is
> > the Law is the way of Israel. Please continue to serve God
> > by the righteousness of the Law.
> > But the Law is not given to the Gentiles, and so the righteousness
> > which is from Law cannot be required of them.
> > But there is another
> > righteousness, the righteousness which is from faith
> > in Christ. Have you not heard that "EVERYONE who believes in him
> > shall not put to shame"? (Rom 10:11)?
> >
> >The point is that the syntactic structure of Rom 10:5 indicates that Paul
> >answers here the implied question,i.e. what about THN DIKAIOSUNHN THN EK
> >TOU NOMOU? What do you think?
>
> Dear Moon,
>
> I like your case, and I am excited by your work. You are making excellent
> points. Why shouldn't Paul be easy to read; he was not writing to or for
> seminary or graduate students in Rome, was he?
>
> I would not assume any "opponents" per se, that is, I don't think Paul is
> writing to those who disagree with him, but Paul's imaginary dialogue
> partner with whom he communicates in order to clarify matters for the
> gentile audience in view. These gentiles in Rome are confused. Paul is
> seeking to explain that, while they have the desired result without the
> means of proselyte conversion, and while this might be contested on the
> basis of the claim to which it appeals (faith in/of Christ) by other
> Israelites, that they are nevertheless not supplanting or superior to those
> other Israelites. At this point in chs. 9 and 10 of his overall argument he
> is making the case for the secure place of these gentiles. In ch. 11 he
> will begin to make the transition to the continuing place of those of
> Israel who at the present moment disagree, and then on to explaining the
> attitudes and behaviors that should characterize these gentiles expression
> of gratitute rather than smug self-congradulation.
>
> Regards,
> Mark Nanos


Our recent discussion about Rom 10:5 (Lev 18:5) triggered another thought
about
Rom 10:6-7 (Deut 30:11-14). I found James Dunn's treatment of the passages
in
his Word Biblical commentary quite insightful, but still unsatisfactory.
He said about Rom 10:6-7, first paragraph, p. 614:

The point of the contrast with Lev 18, then, is that Deut 30 emphasizes
BOTH levels of obedience, heart as well as mouth, inward as well as
outward
, whereas Lev 18 seems to emphasize only the "doing", only the one level
which consequently can too easily become merely the level of works.
So once again Deut 30 can be said to provide a deeper insight into what
the law is about, whereas Lev 18 tends to encourage the shallower
interpretation
which in Paul's view characterized most of his kinsfolk's current
understanding of
the law (that keeping the statues and ordinances of the law was the way of
living
appropriate to the covenant, which the covenant required, p. 612).

As you also noted in one of your posts, this reflects that Dunn is mixing
the "old perspective of Reformation" and the "New Perspective by E. P.
Sanders".
It indicates that it is really difficult to completely avoid generalizing
what was concrete and "technical" statements.

There seems to be an interpretation in which we can avoid the "contrast"
and the "mixing". Here is a scenario:

Paul: Christ is the goal of the Law for righteousness to EVERYONE that
believes
(PANTI TWi PISTEUONTI)
(Christ came as the end-result of the Law, in order to give
righteousness
to everyone that believes), regardless of whether they are the people
of the Law or not.
Opponent: I do not understand. Righteousness is for us, who have the Law.
Can Gentile-believers be righteoused without the RIGHTEOUSNESS
which is from the LAW?
Paul: Good question. With respect to that righteousness which is from the
Law,
Moses wrote that the people of the Law shall live in the Law (Lev
18:5).
That is, the Law is the way of Israel. Please continue to serve God
by the righteousness of the Law.
But the Law is not given to the Gentiles, and so the righteousness
which is from the Law cannot be required of them.
But there is another righteousness, the righteousness which is from
faith
in Christ. That is also what the Law says (Rom 10:6-7 =Deut
30:11-14,
Rom 10:11=Isa 28:16, Rom 10:13=Joel 3:5).

So, the argument of Rom 10:3-13 is not so different from Rom 3:21-22,
where
the language and the theme of the present passages are repeated:

The righteousness of God appeared, apart from the Law, being
witnessed by the Law and the Prophets (Rom 3:21),
the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to
EVERYONE THAT BELIEVES (EIS PANTAS TOUS PISTEUONTAS).
For there is no distinction between [the Jews and the Gentiles].

Here "apart from the Law" means "outside the boundary of the people of the
Law".
So, "apart from the Law" says the same thing as
"there is no distinction [between the Jews and the Gentiles]"

The Law speaks to the Jews and also to the whole world.
The Law talks about the righteousness which is from the law,
which is specific to the Jews, and it also talks about
the righteousness of God, which goes beyond the boundary of
the Law-people.
There is righteousness "that is from the Law" (Rom 10:5 (Lev 18) ),
which is specific to the Jews.
There is righteousness "that is apart from the Law", which is
witnessed by the Law (Rom 10:6-7 (Deut 40)), which is universal.
Both are good and acceptable to God.

In sum, it seems that there is no "contrast" between Lev 10:5 and
Deut 30:11-14. They address different things and are
"complementary" to each other. What do you think?

Yours,
Moon-Ryul Jung
Assistant Professor
Soongsil University
Seoul, Korea




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page