Corpus-Paul

[Loren Rosson <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>]

Jason, you addressed your post to Moon, but I'm going
to jump in here.

> I would agree that the phrase hUPO NOMON
> refers to those with which God had made
> a covenant through the Law.  This was 
> however a conditional covenant that Israel 
> was not able to keep.  

Do you have in view Rom. 9:30? Just be careful as to
WHY Israel was unable to succeed in fulfilling the law
-- because it was “based on works”, that is, based on
Jewish nationalism, and Israel failed to acknowledge
that the eschaton had been inaugurated with Christ’s
death and resurrection (9:32-33). Indeed, “Christ is
the end of the Torah, so that there may be
righteousness for everyone who believes” (10:4), Jew
and Greek alike (10:12-13). 

If there is one passage from Dunn’s commentary I agree
with wholeheartedly, it is his commentary on Rom.
10:4. “In saying that Christ is the end of the law,
Paul is not denoting a timeless sequence which
subsequent generations of people might expect to find
repeated in their lives, as if everyone must go
through a ‘law phase’ and experience futility and
despair before finally accepting Christ as a gracious
savior”. However true that would be for Augustine and
Martin Luther, that’s not what Paul has in mind.
Christ is the end of one stage of dealings (with
Israel) and and the introduction of a new stage (with
Israel and the pagan world). The role of the law as a
badge of priveleged election is over.

> The standard the Law sets is perfection
> (Gal 3:10).  This, of course, is 
> impossible (Gal 3:21).

No it doesn’t, and no it isn’t. Gal. 3:10 doesn’t
imply perfection, and no Jew -- least of all Paul --
would have maintained this. Paul himself “obeyed all
that was written in the book of the law” as a
pre-Christian and, “as to that kind of righteousness,
he was blameless” (Philip. 3:6).

> Even if Romans 6:14-15 could be
> interpreted according to the new
> way of understanding
> Paul and the Law, Romans 7:1-6 
> could not.  These verses state that
> the law was bondage (vs1 - hO 
> NOMOS KURIEUEI TOU ANQRWPOU) and 
> required death to escape it (vs 6).
> Since the interpretation that our
> relationship to the Law and sin is
> directly proportionate does fit
> Rom 6:14-15 and the
> 7:1-6, there is no reason to search
> for another meaning.

> Romans 6 speaks of our death to sin
> and it bondage.  This message 
> would have been sufficient for the
> Gentile believers in Rome.  But for
> the Jews, it would have been 
> incomplete had Paul not written
> chapter 7.  If a Jewish believer
> was free from sin, then what of the
> law?  Chapter seven shows that we
> are dead to the Law as well as sin,
> because the two are
> inseparable in relation to us.


Jason, you show no acknowledgement in your posting
that the law is still to be fulfilled. For that
matter, I see little evidence that you realize that
the law is a good and holy thing, which is a point of
Rom. 7. Keep in mind that Paul believes the law must
still be fulfilled, in two different senses:

1. From the perspective of Rom. 2-4 (and 9-11) the law
must be upheld as usual, just as before, save that
Jewish commandments (like circumcision, holy days, and
some food laws) are optional for Gentiles. Jews,
presumably, should go on just as before, keeping all
the commandments -- the Mosaic law -- while Gentiles
should abide by an implicit “Noahide law”
[anachronistically speaking]. This is what “the law of
faith” (Rom. 3:27) is all about.

2. From the perspective of Rom. 5-8 the law must be
upheld on account of the fact that believers (whether
Jew or Gentile) have only died with Christ at baptism
(Rom. 6), not yet risen with him (Rom. 8). Ideally
they have “died to the law”, but actually they must go
on fulfilling the (Mosaic or Noahide) law until the
end of all things.

> All this to say that, if Scripture
> supports this interpretation, and it
> is the most natural one, why try 
> to find another that is less attested
> by scripture?
        
Your question pretty much begs the question. It’s
evident that the New Perspective on Paul is confirmed
by Paul’s own letters. And given what we know of
first-century Judaism(s), what do you really think is
the “most natural” interpretation?

Loren Rosson III,
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com


__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/