Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: The theme of Rom 5 - 8

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "moon-ryul jung" <moon AT sogang.ac.kr>
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: The theme of Rom 5 - 8
  • Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:31:59 -0400


Loren,
I am fully enjoying my thanksgiving break by reading and responding to
corpus-paul posts. Along the way, I read through Galatians and Romans
again.

About the theme of Rom 5-8, I suspect that I failed to express
myself clearly enough.

Loren:
> You and I (for the most part) agree on how the theme
> of "no distinction" is laid out in Rom 2-4. We
> disagree on how the theme is presented in Rom 5-8. I
> would say these chapters show "no distinction" by
> virtue of the fact that all people -- Jews and
> Gentiles -- are under the power of the old epoch, and
> will not escape that epoch until their mortal bodies
> are completely liberated (resurrected).


These chapters
> do NOT show "no distinction" on account of the fact
> that Jewish badges of covenant membership are optional
> for Gentiles; that is the argument of Rom 2-4 and
> parts of Rom 9-11 (esp 9:30-10:4). This is why I
> disagree with the restricted (and strained)
> interpretations of Rom 7 offered by Dunn, Segal, and
> Nanos.
>
I haven't read Segal. But as far as I read, Dunn and Nanos
cannot be grouped in the same camp at all. Dunn thinks that
Paul criticizes the Jewish religion, i.e. the life under the Law,
as fundamentally problematic. In his commentary on Romans (p. 365)
he said about Rom 7:6 ("but now we have been released from the law"):
life in the old epoch as life under the law in the double sense-
(i) life as regulated by the law at all points (what Paul's
contemporaries
would have regarded as a true and positive description of covenant
status), and (ii) life dominated by the sinful passions and headed
for death as so determined by the law.
Dunn's view seems quite close to yours.

But as Mark emphasizes repeatedly, we need to pay attention to what
is the practical purpose of each section of the letter, before trying
to derive some universal truths from the letter. It seems worthwhile
to read Romans with the assumption that throughout the letter,
it somehow deals with various Gentile believers' issues in relation
to the Jewish religion, in particular the law, and these issues are
practical in nature.

So, please be patient to my experimentation.
Here are my comments on your comments.

> >(1) The implied audience of Romans is
> >primarily Gentiles, though many
> >Jewish issues are addressed in the letter
> >because the main theme has to do with
> >Jew-Gentile issues. See for the Mystery of
> >Romans for the audience of Romans.
>
> I believe the implied audience depends on the passage
> in question.: the Christian Gentile majority in the
> Roman church/synagogue (Rom 11:13-32; Rom 14:1-15:13);
> the Jewish minority in the Roman church/synagogue
> (non-Christian, predominantly); the Christian Jewish
> apostles in Jerusalem, whom Paul would shortly visit
> (Rom 9:1-11:12). I've argued that Rom 7:7-13 has an
> implied audience of both Jews and Gentiles, whereas
> Rom 7:14-25 has an implied audience of primarily
> Gentiles (Jews only rhetorically). We need to be
> careful about assuming a singular implied audience for
> the entire letter.

Because the issues of Romans are Jew-Gentile
issues dealt with a Gentile viewpoint, even when Paul talks
about Jewish issues, its implied audience is Gentile.
For example, the theme of chap. 11 is about whether
God repudiated his people. This is a Jewish issue, but
Paul talks about the Jewish issue to the Gentile believers.


Note that Paul says in Rom 11:13,
> "Now I am speaking to you Gentiles..." -- which
> clearly implies, to me, that much of what came before
> was NOT primarily aimed at the Gentiles in Rome.
>
When Paul says in 11:13 "I am speaking to you Gentiles",
it does not mean that much of what came before was NOT primarily
aimed at the Gentiles. But it seems to mean that from there on,
Paul wanted to speak to them directly by using "you". From there on,
Paul advises them directly. E.g. "If you boast, it is not the case
that you sustain the root, but the root sustains you."
"Do not cherish proud thoughts", etc.

> >(2)Romans 5 has many allusions to this
> >Gentile "orientation" of the letter...
> >5:6 "While we were still weak, at the right
> >time Christ died for the UNGODLY" This
> >"we" the UNGODLY are none other than
> >the Gentiles.
>
> Good point. And I agree that Rom 5-6,8 targets the
> Gentile majority in Rome (as Mark argues). Only
> rhetorically does it speak to the Jewish minority. Rom
> 7 is a bit different (where Paul speaks to those who
> "know the law" (7:1)) -- but I've said more than
> enough on the subject and audience of Rom 7:7-13 and
> 7:14-25.
>
My point was that in chapter 5, Paul did not talk about
individual believers, but about "we", the Gentile, the UNGODLY.
That is, he is still struggling with the issue of inclusion
of the Gentiles, the UNGODLY, the SINNERS, the ENEMIES,
into the grace of God. Note 5:2 "Through him
we [the Gentiles] have OBTAINED ACCESS to THIS GRACE".
I suspect that all the issues of Rom 5 are related to this
inclusion of the UNGODLY into the grace of God one way or
another. It is because Paul does not address the issue of how
an individual adam can get access to the grace of God, but
the issue of how the UNGODLY Gentiles can obtain access to the
grace of God.

> >(3) Chapter 6 also has several allusions
> >to the Gentile "orientation" of the letter.
> >"you who were ONCE SLAVES OF SIN have become
> >OBEDIENT from the heart to the standard of
> >teaching to which you were committed."
> >... "Just as you once yielded your members
> >to IMPURITY (AKAQARSIA)
> >and LAWLESSNESS (ANOMIA) unto LAWLESSNESS, so .."
> >Impurity and lawlessness reminds me of
> >typical Gentile sins.
>
> Again, good point. Impurity and lawlessness do,
> indeed, point to the sins of the godless nations.



>
> >So, chapter 6 does not talk about the sin
> >of an abstract Adam, but concrete Gentile
> >experience.
>
> It does both. Or rather, it relates one directly to
> the other. In so doing, it reminds Gentiles that their
> bodies remain tied to the old epoch (despite having
> undergone baptism into Christ's death) and will not
> fully escape the powers of that epoch until the end of
> all things. This is why they must be on guard against
> sin, fulfill the law, and become "slaves of
> obedience", etc.
> This is a very different argument
> from why they need to fulfill the law in Rom 2-4.
> There they must uphold the law because they are part
> of the monotheistic covenant community and must thus
> abide by minimal Torah standards. Here they must
> uphold the law because they are still subject to the
> powers of the old epoch -- sin, temptation, and death.
>

I once read Rom 6 like you. I am trying to read it
"consistently" from the New Perspective.
My point was: Once Paul insisted that the Gentiles be
included into the grace of God without becoming Jews
on the common basis of faith in Christ, he needed to
solve the problems associated with this claim. Chapter 6
talks about HOW the former UNGODLY should behave, once
admitted in the people of God, without becoming Jews, that is
without being under the law. In 6:15, Paul says that even though
they are not under the law (unlike the Jews), but under grace
(in Christ), they should not sin. They should forsake
the former life as slaves of sin, and be obedient to the
standard of teaching (6:17). So, in chapter 6, Paul
deals with an issue of behavior associated with the inclusion of
the Gentiles into the people of God. The issue is very practical
in nature. We should be very careful not to overinterpret
statements used to make practical points.

As UNGODLY, they were once slaves to sin, but now
included into the people of God, they should be slaves to
God, obeying the "standard of teaching". Even "set free from sin"
(6:18) can be naturally taken to mean "set free from UNGODLY
PAGAN sinful life", rather than "set free from the power of sin,
the power of Adamic epoch".




> Of course, Paul runs into trouble when he stirs "the
> law" into this mixture of sin and death -- which is
> why I believe Rom 7:7-25 shows a troubled man
> extrapolating the law out of that odious mix.
>
> >(4)we can understand chapter 7 not to address
> >the universal plight of Adam's race,
>
> But that is precisely what is being addressed.
> Consider Rom 7:9-10: "I was once alive apart from the
> law, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I
> died. The commandment which promised my life proved my
> death, because sin, seizing opportunity in the
> commandment, deceived me, and through it, killed me."
> What do you do, Moon, with the transparent allusions
> to Gen 2:7-9, 2:16-17, 3:1-5, 3:13, and 3:19,22-23?
>

If one takes those statements in isolation, it is quite expected
that one would get the interpretation similar to yours. But
again assuming that chapter 7 also deals with some issues
associated with the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of
God, I think I can make sense of those passages without invoking
the "universal plight of Adamic epoch". Allusions to Genesis
do not necessarily imply that these statements are about
universal human plight. Paul can use such biblical language to
talk about very concrete practical issues.

I admit that Rom 7 is difficult to make sense of from any
perspective. But from my perspective, Rom 7 is closely
related to the theme of Rom 3, whose key statements
are "by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified
before Him" and "apart from the law, the righteousness of God
has been revealed to all who believe". Rom 7:1-6 explains
how that happened. This is how: "You were also put to death
in relation to the law through the body of Christ, in order
that you might become another's". (7:4) In the old day,
God ordained the Jews to serve him through the Law. Gentiles
were required to become Jews by doing the law, to get admitted
to the covenant, i.e. to get access to the grace of God.
Now in Christ, the righteousness of God is revealed apart from
the law, so that the Gentiles become the people of God without
being under the law. It means that the Jews should admit
Gentile believers as equal, even though they do not observe
the law. It means none other than violating the law. It can
happen only when the Jews "are put to death in relation to the
Law". Paul also said in Galatians "he died to the law through
the law". In Rom 7, Paul wanted to justify being put to death
to the law in order to belong to another's. The Jews should be
put to death to the Law, because otherwise, they could not
accept Gentiles as equal. In fact, when "we" [the Jews] were
in the flesh (i.e. relying on the works of the law, boasting
of them, cf. Galatians 3 for "works of the law" = "flesh"),
the passions of sin that is due to the law, i.e. the passion
of pride caused by the fact that they possessed the law,
the passion which excluded Gentiles as Gentiles from grace,
worked in "our body" to bear fruit to death.

So, "being released from the law" does not need to mean
"being liberated from the power of the law as the power of the old
age". It could mean that the exclusivsm of the law is
lifted by the body of Christ. The rest of the chapter
(7:7-25) is a digression devoted to defend the law,
because Paul's statement might be interpreted so that
the law is somehow connected to the sin of exclusivism.

Loren, my idea and explanation are mature yet. But you would
be able to understand what I am up to. You might say that my
attempt is forced, not taking the language as it is.
But I would say that without having some idea of what Paul
is trying to say in a given paragraph, it would be difficult
to interpret Paul's language.

I would guess that many occurrences of "flesh" in Rom 8
are related to the Law-observance of Israel that excluded
Gentiles as Gentiles from the grace of God.

In sum, my conjecture is that Rom 5-8 have to do with the
inclusion of Gentiles into the grace of God, as do
Rom 1-4 and Rom 9-11, and the rest.

Sincerely yours,
Moon
Moon R. Jung
Associate Professor
Dept of Digital Media
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea
://phone.yahoo.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page