Corpus-Paul

["Loren Rosson III" <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

Moon,

To follow up on my last post:

I want to emphasize that I agree with your interpretation of Rom. 3:21-31.
This is where Paul really intends to speak to both Jews and Gentiles, and
Gaston’s arguments just don’t work. The equivalent to this text would be
Gal. 2:15-21. How he and Gager can claim that in these texts Paul doesn’t
engage with Jews -- or enter into dispute with them -- is beyond me, since
Paul does so explicitly. One reason, I think, why the subject of “Paul and
the law” is so widely disputed is that theories which work well for some
passages fail for others. For instance, Gaston’s ideas work for Gal. 3,
but not Gal. 2; Dunn’s work for Rom. 3, but not Rom. 7. It might help to
list key texts and ask whether Paul is including Jews/Gentiles or only
Gentiles in his scope.

1.  Gal. 2:15-21 = Rom. 3:21-31.  These texts explain “Paul’s basic
doctrine of justification”, whereby he argues that Jews and Gentiles are
justified by faith apart from works, because God is also the God of
Gentiles, and in light of the eschaton inaugurated by Christ’s death and
resurrection, justification must be based on a common ground. “Works” are
thus optional -- and they contribute nothing to salvation -- though Jews
should naturally still keep them. The texts thus address Jews and Gentiles
alike.

2.  Gal. 3:6-9 = Rom. 4:1-17.  These are proof-texts of the above
passages, respectively. They address Jews and Gentiles alike.

3.  Gal. 3:10-14 = (No parallel in Romans).  I explained my view of this
text in my last post. Paul shifts gears, turning up the rhetoric full
blast, deriding the law as a “curse”. The text really applies to Gentiles.

4. Gal. 3:23-29 = (No parallel in Romans). I explained my view of this one
in an earlier post. Paul mounts an attack on the law as a “pedagogue”,
addressing Gentiles. In your Monday post, Moon, you disputed this, writing

> Before Christ the Gentiles were guarded under the regime of the
> law of Moses; they were not directly under that regime.

But a pedagogue was precisely that -- a “guard”, that is, a slave-tutor,
as opposed to, say, a “parent”. (I earlier elaborated on the implications
of "pedagogue".)

It’s hardly any coincidence that the “nasty” texts targeting Gentiles find
no parallel in Romans, which has both a Jewish and Gentile audience.

Moon, perhaps this is a way of recognizing that we’re both right. What do
you think?

Loren Rosson III,
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com