Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

Moon and Mark,

Good topic, guys. 

In commenting on Rom. 6:14 Dunn notes, "As in 5:20-21
the law is put together with sin and death as a way of
characterizing the dominant powers of the old age, the
age of Adam" (Vol I, p. 339)..."Here, for the first
time in his letter, Paul depicts the law as a power
over [humanity]" (p. 352). I agree with these
statements.

But he also says: "Being under the law therefore
characterizes the form of life under the old age as it
has been experienced within Judaism (2:1-3:20)" (p.
339). I disagree with this particular thrust, and I
believe that mixing the arguments of Rom. 5-8 and Rom.
2-4 is misguided. In chs 2-4, the law is indeed spoken
of in terms of what Sanders has called "covenantal
nomism". But in chs 5-8 the law is dealt with in a
phenomenological sense -- "commandment" in general --
as 5:20-21 and 7:7-13 make plain. I appreciate your
cautionary remarks regarding universals, Mark, but in
chs 5-8 Paul is intending to be nothing BUT universal
with his argument! (The implications I draw from these
chapters can easily enough apply to the situation in
Rome as you outline in "Mystery of Romans").

Put another way: Rom 2-4 focuses on "works of the
law", covenantal nomism, and argues that Gentiles need
not become Jews in order to benefit from the covenant
promises of redemption (esp. 3:21-31). Rom 5-8 focuses
on law in general and universal terms -- whether
Noahide commandments or Jewish commandments -- and
argues that because a believer's body hangs suspended
between the epochs of Adam and Christ, he/she has died
to sin and the law (whether Noahide or Jewish) but yet
must still fulfil the law until Christ comes again and
inaugurates the full eschaton. Dunn of course
recognizes this argument of the eschatological tension
in chs 5-8, but he confuses the argument by also
injecting into it the (very different) argument of chs
2-4.

In other words Moon -- to answer your initial question
-- being "under the law" in 6:14-15 has not much to do
with being under covenantal nomism, or being under the
epoch of Abraham/Moses, as it does with being under
"commandment" in general, and the epoch of Adam in
general.

(See also my post from November, where I discussed
Rom. 7:7-25).

Loren Rosson III,
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. 
http://auctions.yahoo.com/