Corpus-Paul

["moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>]

> 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. 

Me, too. Amen.

> 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. 

Actually, my complaint to Dunn is that he is not consistent throughout
his exposition of  Romans.

>
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.
>

He talks about the curse of the law. He did not deride the law as a curse.
 
> 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.
> 

I said though the Gentiles were NOT directly under that regime, they
were Actually confined or constrained under that regime in the sense that
they were not allowed to become the people of GOd without becoming
the citizen of the regime. 

Moon

 
> 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