Corpus-Paul

["Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>]

on 1/26/01 11:13 PM, moon-ryul jung at moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr wrote:

> Dear co-interpreters,
> 
> Ever since I came convinced that the so called New Perspective on
> Paul was on the right track, I tried interpret "hUPO NOMON" that
> occurs in Galatians and Romans so that it simply refers to the covenantal
> nomism. I understand that the covenantal nomism has at least three
> important aspects: (1) the Law is the identity marker of being Jewish,
> i.e. the people of God, and (2) keeping it is necessary to stay in the
> covenant which the people of Israel got into by the grace of God (though
> the perfect keeping was not required), and (3) Gentiles should obtain the
> identity of Jews by keeping the Law, specifically, getting circumcision in
> order to get in the convenant.
> 
> I understand that Paul fought againt this "hupo-nomism", i.e. the
> covenantal nomism by saying that God is the God of Gentiles
> as well as the God of Jews and so the Gentiles can receive God's
> grace without becoming Jews, that is, without being circumcised.
> 
> But there are some verses which seem difficult to interpret by the
> premise that hUPO NOMON = covenantal nomism. They are Rom 6:14-15.
> So I would like to open a discussion on these verses.
> 
> 
> 6:14 hAMARTIA GAR hUMWN OU KURIEUSEI. OU GAR ESTE hUPO NOMON ALLA
> hUPO CARIN.
> 6:15 TI OUN; hAMARTHSWMEN hOTI OUK ESMEN hUPO NOMON ALLA hUPO CARIN;
> 
> 
> Cranfield takes hUPO NOMON to mean "under the condemnation of the Law".
> It is a traditional understanding. It seems to fits in the context well,
> if we assume that "sin ruled over us through the condemnation of
> Law". 
> 
> James Dunn, in his commentary on Romans, takes hUPO NOMON to refer
> to the covenantal nomism. But he does not clearly explain why
> being under the covenantal nomism makes sin rule over "us",
> and not being under it makes sin not rule over "us".
> 
> So, do we have better interpretations?

Moon,
You ask such good questions! I am surprised that you have not have some
feedback. 

You will probably not be surprised to learn that I do not think Paul's
argument implies your last deductions, or find that the law "condemns" to
sin in the language of this passage (pace Cranfield).

Instead, I imagine that Paul is arguing from a premise that (almost?) any
Jewish person would agree with (although not writing to any Jewish person,
but to gentiles). That is, that the motivation for doing righteousness is
not law but the appropriate response to God's grace, which the law helpfully
explains the details for doing. But in this case he states what (almost?)
any Christ-believing Jewish person would agree with: that the motivation for
doing righteousness for these gentiles who have now become righteous ones is
the appropriate response to God's loving-kindness (grace) toward them (just
as it is for Jews), not simply because of commandments to that effect. The
law is defined, as Paul continues the argument, by the example of the
commandment against coveting (7:7). One does not escape coveting because the
Law says not to covet; one escapes coveting by responding appropriately in
gratitude to the merciful acts of God toward oneself (chs. 7--8). The law is
holy, righteous, good, even spiritual (7:12, 14). The problem is not with
the law, but with the one who is defined by it (because of God's grace
toward them in Moses) yet fails to observe it; for a Jewish person doing law
is the appropriate response to God's grace.

To get away from the universals that drive the received reading, and focus
on the situation of this letter, the conundrum Paul confronts in Romans is
not one that arises so much for a Jew in a Jewish environment, but for a
gentile in Christ in a Jewish environment who may be either 1) uncertain of
their standing apart from becoming a Jewish proselyte, or, alternately, 2)
resentful of not having the standing they claim by way of Christ confirmed
by Jewish people who do not share their faith in this person. Or some
combination of these problems!

The statements you cite are merely part of Paul's much larger argument
(several chapters), small steps along the way to explaining the standing of
these gentiles apart from becoming Jews as nevertheless equal and thus in
the same way obliged, just as Jews, "not to yield your members to sin as
instruments of wickedness" (v. 13), but instead, being ruled by grace, as
slaves of the one whom you obey (vv. 14-16), to "yield your members to
righteousness." What Paul directs these gentiles to do for God (the
righteous master) as righteous ones of God, apart from identity as
law-people however, is the same things to which the righteous ones of God
who are law-people are directed by the law, in keeping with appropriate
response to a gracious God (righteous master).

In the flow of the argument, the GAR/GAR of the two clauses in v. 14, which
follow to clarify the point made in the preceding verses, and set up the
next verses, suggest a translation that may help you escape the received way
to read this verse without the implication that being under the law would
logically lead to sin ruling over you (as though some universal truth,
although defying logic; e.g., why do we tell our children how to behave if
it is such a destructive force by nature?):

Following "Let not.... Do not... but" of vv. 12-13:
"For [GAR] sin will not become master of you [KURIEUSEI: fut. ind.];
confirming [GAR]* you [gentiles] are not under law but under grace.

*[Cf. BDAG 1.c: "GAR is sometimes repeated. It occurs twice... to have one
clause confirm the other," including Rom. 6:14 in the examples of this
case.]

This verse simply restates in the course of his argument what Paul has
declared earlier, such as in 3:21, to explain the inclusion of gentiles:
"but now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law,
although the law and the prophets bear witness to it...." (NRSV). And they
are thus equally responsible to the implications of this manifestation of
the righteous God! (for there is no distinction, 3:22).

The gentiles are to confirm who they are under God's grace by how they
behave. That is the point of the argument here in ch. 6. Even though they
are not law-people they have chosen the same master, which for these
gentiles is another master than before, God instead of sin, and they must
thus live another way, to God instead of to sin. The contrast is not between
law and God, but sin and God (cf. 6:10-11), even for people not under law;
naturally, the service of God instead of sin by way of law observance is
obvious.

Then 6:15ff. communicates in effect the logical implications: must you Roman
gentiles become law-people (place yourself under law/ become Jewish
proselytes) in order to understand that since your new master is righteous,
that you are obliged to be righteous rather than sinners (to give the
members of your body to righteous living instead of sinful living)? Of
course not. You know that without becoming law-people; sin will (should) not
rule over you, for you are under grace (just as are law-people). Even though
you have not become law-people, you are like law-people in the sense that
you are righteous ones of the master too. You are under grace; do not sin
any longer, just as Israel is under grace, and is directed by the law not to
sin any longer. You do not need to become Israel to grasp this
responsibility. You are equally obligated, and will be equally judged
according to the responsibility that you have been given. This is the case
whether some important Jewish people who do not share your faith in Jesus
agree and treat you accordingly, or not; trust God, and do righteousness,
for God is the ultimate, righteous and gracious Judge.

Note too the implications of the question of v. 15, whether, because these
gentiles are not under law, they are to sin. But the received view is that
being under law would have led to sin, so this question would not logically
emerge! Rather, in spite of the fact that they are not under Law (not Jews),
which would have logically led them away from sin had they been under it (as
it does for Jews), they are still not thereby to sin, for they are, like
Jews, under grace, which is the compelling force that turned them from lives
enslaved to sin to lives enslaved to God/righteousness (just as is the case
for Jews). That is the point Paul labors to communicate, however, without
treating them as under Law, i.e., as Jews, for whom he could just rely on
the message of Torah to get this point across.

I believe that this reading allows for the continued understanding of being
"under Law" with which you set out the issue, but without the leading back
to the problems of the pre-new-perspective(s) views, which universalized
this language apart from historical context, and asserted negative things
about the dynamics of Jewish Law-identity and observance (often as though
this was a virtue). Law-identity is for Jews, not gentiles, but it does not
mean, Paul here explains, that gentiles are not to live in the same
righteous way as do Jews (for it is compelled by their identity as those to
whom God has shown the same grace!). Sure it would be an advantage "in every
way" to have the Law too (read 3:2), but that does not limit the
possibilities for these gentiles to live in the righteousness to which they
have been called, and with grace toward those Jewish people who may see the
present situation differently, and thus give the addressees cause for some
confusion, and complaint, for they have what they have only because of the
grace shown to themselves.

What do you think? 
(sorry to say I will probably not be able to follow this up after Sunday, so
I have tried to clearly state my view).

Regards,
Mark
-- 
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com