Corpus-Paul

["moon r. jung" <moonryul AT hotmail.com>]

Hi, all.

I read Andrew Das' book "Paul, The Law and the covenant".
I enjoyed it. He raised a good question. He said, p. 205:

SInce Rom 4:4-8 are embedded in a broader context that is
addressing the matter of Jewish ethnic heritage as embodied
in the law, the better question would be how vv 4-8 function
within that broader argument. [[Note: Das assumes that
Jewish ethocentrism forms the backdrop for Paul's discussion
of Abraham in Romans ch. 4 as well as 3:27-31. ]


In the footnote in the same page, he writes:
... As demonstrated above, this section of Romans (4:4-8)
is closedly tied to the preceding argument. Paul is here
demonstrating ANOTHER, related reason why the Jewish
and its works are inadequate. [ According to Das, 
Rom 4:4-8 stronly implies that the Jewish works of the law 
are human works. ]


Though Das did not explain it satisfactorily, his basic thesis
is that the ethnic and legal elements are inextricably
interwoven throughout Paul's argument. (footnote p. 207).
I think this observation is valid, though I do not know
how to resolve the tension. Compare 3:28-30 and 3:19-20.
In the former, "man is "righteoused" by faith apart from the
works of the law" (3:28) because God is one and so the
works of the law, which only the Jews or those who become Jews
can do, cannot be the common ground for being "righteoused". 

But in the latter, "no flesh is "righteoused" before God
from the works of the law" (3:20), 
because (1) the law speaks to those
who are in the law [i.e., the Jews] so that so that every mouth may be 
stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God,
and (2) because the law gives knowledge of sin [
although typical Jews would have emphasized that the law  was 
the means and measure of life within the covenant] 

In summary, the works of the law does not "righteous" man
because God is the God of Jews and Gentiles, but the works of the law
are things that only the Jews can do [3:28-30].
But, on the ther hand, the works of the law does not "righteous" man
because the law condemns those who are in the law and the
whole world by giving the knowledge of sin [3:19-20] and so
those of the law [hOI EK NOMOU] do not have any advantage
with respect to being "righteoused".

These two arguments look odd, because one of the arguments 
seems redundant. If those of the law do not have any advantage 
(because the doers of the law not the hearers of the law
are "righteoused"). it gives a sufficient reason for the claim
that faith in Christ is the common ground. Then, why would Paul
bring in another "God is one" argument that the works of the law are only
Jewish things and so cannot be the common ground for being
"righteoused"?. On the other hand, if the "God is one" argument
is sufficient, why would Paul take pains pointing out that those
 of the law do not have  any advantage with respect to being "righteoused"?

Sincerely

Moon
Moon R. Jung
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea


Moon
Moon R. Jung
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea.