More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
December 7, 2023 - January 2, 2024
But there is another way to understand the identity of the tortured speaker in Romans 7, namely that Paul is speaking as someone else. In other words, the move to the first person singular is Paul imagining himself as a character for the purpose of rhetoric.
There are good reasons to assume that Paul is using speech-in-character.
Third, Paul says that he was once “alive apart from the law” (Rom 7:9). As Origen pointed out, it makes no sense that Paul would say such a thing. Since we know he was a Jew from birth, there is no time when he was “alive apart from the law.”
There is near consensus among modern scholars that Paul is using speech-in-character in Romans 7, but there is dispute about who the identity of the character
Many still think the text is autobiographical, reflecting an earlier time in Paul’s life, before his conversion, when he speaks as a “Jew.”
Recently, however, a new proposal has been made. Stanley Stowers has proposed that Paul speaks as a Gentile, and this seems to me a likely option if we take seriously Paul’s Jewish identity together with his mission as Apostle to the Gentiles.
We saw earlier how Jews stereotyped Gentiles as unable to control their sexual appetites, while Jews saw themselves as those who conducted their bodies appropriately, crediting Torah observance as the means by which they accomplished this.
Like other Hellenized people around the Mediterranean basin, Jewish writers argued that their way of life was the way to address the problem of desire, so
The law was not given by God in order to be an agent of condemnation, not for Jews, not for Gentiles, not for anybody. It was given as a guide to living in accord with the law of God, as is obvious from Hebrew Scripture.
No it was given because the chosen people disobeyed God Galatians 3:19 Exodus 20:20; 32; 34
The nations, having worshipped other gods, have not lived in accord with the divine law, so their sins have heaped up upon them.
No Deuteronomy 32:8 (LXX and Dead Sea Scroll against MT) makes clear God appointed lesser gods to the nations
It is possible, however, that by “works of the law” Paul does not speak of human activity, but of how the Torah affects Gentiles.
the Greek phrase ex ergon nomou is probably best translated “from the workings of the Torah” or perhaps even “from prescriptions of the Torah.”
No Romans 2:15 (not 14 as she writes) follows on verse 14: ta tou nomou poiôsin. They/the gentiles do the things of the law. That's to ergon tou nomou that is written on their hearts
at least not in the way it benefits Jews.
No! Look at Romans 2:17-24 The Law has NOT benefitted the Jewish people
Paul is exaggerating the situation in Romans 3:10–18 much as the psalmists (whom he’s quoting) did. It is no revelation that human beings sin. The fact that Paul relies on the psalms to make his point makes that clear.
That's some significant unexamined interpretive license!
Paul’s speech about there being no one who is righteous is largely for rhetorical effect.
No! See Habakkuk or Amos. Were they exaggerating for rhetorical effect as well?
It is important to understand that Paul is not literally condemning all of humanity as hopelessly mired in sin
so the pursuit of good works is a hopeless endeavor.
Without Christ and God's grae, it is
Whatever issues Paul may have had with other Jews, idolatry was not one of them. Idolatry and its attendant moral corruption is one of the features that distinguishes Gentiles from Jews.
Um...see Deuteronomy 32:21 and Romans 10:19
(I want to stress that I am in no way endorsing Paul’s damning view of Gentiles. It is important to realize that this is just a bias of Paul’s.)
His view of Gentile morality was the same before and after his encounter with the risen Jesus.
That’s why Paul can say that if certain Gentiles, the “uncircumcised,” observe the law, then they will be regarded as if they are Jews, “circumcised,”
Actually At Philippians 3:3 he redefines circumcision entirely in reference to faith in Jesus
Romans 2:12–13 may be the most puzzling verse of all for those who adhere to the traditional paradigm.
Nope because as the continuation in vv. 13ff shows it echoes OT prophets: Israel isn't keeping God's law
doers of the law would be justified.
John 13:34 and 14:15, 21
As Rabbi Akiba said, “All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given; and the world is judged by grace.”43 From the perspective of systematic theology, of course, this is problematic, but neither Paul nor other ancient Jewish writers were systematic theologians.
And being obedient to God’s commandments is the embodiment of faithfulness.
But Israrl never did that, hence Exile then foreign conquerors even in Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple
When Luther chose to add the word “alone” to Romans 1:17, so that it read “the one who is righteous shall live by faith alone,” he imposed an opposition between works and faith into the theology of Paul that is not otherwise there.
living one’s life in accord with the will of God is integral to the statement: “the one who is righteous shall live by faith.”46 As we already noted, living one’s life in accord with God’s commandments is the expression of one’s devotion to God. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:19, “Keeping the commandments of God means everything!”
Agreed there. It's just that Israel wasn't doing the law. Its society was unjust, not dikaios; the law doesn't bring dikaiosyne, Jesus does
point there is not that each and every commandment must be observed to be good.
Galatians 3:10!!!!!
the nations have not fulfilled the Torah. They’ve been vicious, violent, licentious idolaters, and moreover they have no covenantal relationship with God.
Neither has Israel
The Pauline notion of justification by faith does not mean that one is justified by one’s own faith in Jesus; rather, Jesus’ faithfulness puts right Gentiles and incorporates them into the family of God.1
It must remain something of a mystery exactly why Paul (and presumably other followers of Jesus) came to understand this particular act by this particular individual as able to achieve this profound reconciliation, but it is what Paul believed, and it is what he preached.
It is not as if a follower of Jesus has nothing to do in response to God’s grace.
But that response is one of emulating the same kind of faithfulness that Jesus demonstrated, not having faith in Jesus the way that would later become essential for Christians.4
Belief, insofar as it is a kind of mental assent to a particular theological doctrine, is not what Paul meant by faith, and it was not simply belief that would ensure one’s justification.
To put it boldly, Jesus saves, but he only saves Gentiles. By that I do not mean that Paul believed that Jesus is irrelevant for Jews.
Good, because Romans 9-11 flatly contradict that idea
But the significance was not that Jews needed to be saved from their sins. The efficacy of Jesus’ sacrificial death was for the forgiveness of the sins of the nations.
In other words, traditional interpreters understand Romans 3:22 as just another way of saying that a person is justified by his or her faith in Jesus. The phrase, however, is better understood as referring to God’s own righteousness.9 Thus, when Paul tells us that “the righteousness of God has been made manifest through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ,” he means it is through the faithful act of Jesus that God’s righteousness has been made known.
Paul is speaking to Gentiles. One must always keep this in mind: Gentiles, Gentiles, Gentiles!
That is not to say that Israel did not behave badly at times, sometimes very severely and arguably often, as we know from numerous biblical stories and the indictments against the people by prophets like Jeremiah.
Understatement of the book
As E. P. Sanders said, “the covenant was not earned, but…obedience to the commandments is the consequence of the prior election of Israel by God.” He goes on to cite a passage from the Talmud:
In other words, one is first a subject in the kingdom of heaven, and then one is subject to the commandments. Faith first, works second. It’s classic Jewish theology, which makes Paul’s argument about faith something less than unique.
The rabbi cited is a fourth gen Tanna, so definitely 2nd century. Hardly proves anything relevant about the originality of Paul's emphasis on pistis
My point in rehearsing the relationship between the election of Israel, the covenant, and the observance of commandments is to demonstrate that Israel belongs to God on the basis of grace, not because of obedience.
no one really knows why God chose Israel; God just did.
Jews could be confident of their status as righteous before God.
What about Jesus's parables about trees chopped down, the fig tree he cursed?
Jews are “justified” by virtue of the covenant.
Romans 3:22-24
Remember, the letter is addressed to Gentiles.
Romans audience includes both Jewish and gentile Christians
For ultimately there is no distinction between people. All have sinned and lack the glory God intended for humans.
What we share, however, is the same basic orientation toward Paul, and that orientation involves more than a new perspective; it’s a radical new perspective. Indeed, it’s a new paradigm.1
even those who have been convinced to step into this new paradigm or who are at least sympathetic to it will ask, What about this text? How do you explain that verse? I admit that there remain a few stubborn passages, but really very few.
One of the texts that remains to be addressed is Romans 9–11.
