Corpus-Paul

["Tim Gallant" <tim AT rabbisaul.com>]

> > This leads Esler to the conclusion that Paul's heart
> > is not in his indictment of all (Jew and Gentile,
> > Greek and Barbarian) in sin...the conclusion that
> > Paul's 'heart is not in the production of such a
> > list' for Judeans p 153, undermines the power of
> > the epistle to the point that one might wonder why
> > it had any effect in Rome, let alone in history.
>
> Well Bob, we should certainly appreciate the "comic
> nature" (as Esler puts it) of Paul's disparity. On the
> one hand the Gentiles are idolatrous, God-hating,
> lustful, greedy, wicked, envious, murderous,
> malicious, treacherous, violent, merciless, and
> senseless (1:19-2:6) while the Judeans commit
> adultery, steal and rob temples (2:17-24)! "The signs
> of Paul's straining to produce a Judean analogy to
> non-Judean sinfulness for the purpose of his argument
> is quite visible." (153) Stuff like this is amusing,
> if you have a perverse sense of humor as I do. Whether
> or not Paul's "heart was in the matter" is another
> question. I tend to be of the mind, against Esler,
> that Paul's heart was perhaps too much in these
> matters.

Mind you, the above assumes that Paul's charge against his fellow Jews 
actually comes in 2.17-24. That's the more common reading, but I don't think 
that's the case. For one thing, he does not *say* that "the Judeans commit 
adultery, steal, and rob temples." He posits the rhetorical question, and we 
need to ask why. The truth is that nowhere in 2.17-24 does Paul attempt to 
make a charge against his fellow Jews.

My own position is that 3.1-8, which is usually treated as a strange 
digression, in fact contains Paul's charge. I cannot go into all the 
exegesis here. I have an article on the passage which I hope to get 
published soon. But essentially, I see Paul's charge having to do, not with 
generic law-breaking, but with rejecting the Messiah. This he calls being 
unfaithful (or unbelieving, depending how you take apistos) with the oracles 
(logia) of God (3.2). His previous mention of God's word goes back to 1.2, 
which refers to the prophecies concerning God's Son. There are a great many 
reasons why this makes sense of the rest of the passage, but I will simply 
note here that we are probably not going to "get it" unless we are willing 
to think in terms of intertextuality.

What then is going on in 2.17ff? I suggest that Paul is *setting up* for the 
charge by saying something that most Jews would in fact agree with: that 
radical sin could have the effect of genuine covenant-breaking. The specific 
radical sin that he is actually concerned with, however, is not adultery, 
theft, or temple-robbing/sacrilege (unless perhaps on some metaphorical 
leve), but failure to submit to the righteousness of God in Christ (as in 
10.3).

When we recognize this, btw, I think 3.5 makes much more sense in the 
context: "if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God" can 
now be linked to the same kind of language later in the chapter. It was 
precisely because Jesus was rejected and in fact handed over to death that 
He accomplished "the righteousness of God" (which I take to be rooted in the 
saving promises of Isaiah 40-55). He has become "propitiation" (3.25). So 
paradoxically, the sin has also been the occasion of the accomplishment of 
salvation.

tim

Tim Gallant
Pastor, Conrad Christian Reformed Church

http://www.timgallant.org
tim | gallant site group