Paulos, I am finally catching up on my responsibilities after taking some time off. I wish I would have been able to begin again on bit less difficult passage. But in the providence of God this has not happened. Instead, I find this passage riddled with many difficulties as well. And we may need to have another extended exchange on this passage as we did on vv. 21-26. I am not too confident in what I have written below. I sense that a great deal is missing. What I am finding is as I try to be consistent in the translation of certain words, I find fewer and fewer commentators who see things the way I am seeking to understand them. Thus, as usual any insight you may bring will be much appreciated. Grace to you, and it is good to be writing again! Thankfully, I am able to write without any problem. I only slammed my finger once, and it wasn’t even with a hammer. Instead, I put my DeWalt screw gun into my left index finger. Thankfully it was only a gouge and no serious damage. Grace to you, and I anxiously await your thoughts!
Romans 3:27-31
27 Where, therefore, is boasting? It is excluded! Through what law? The Law of works? No! But through the Law of faithfulness. 28 For we consider a man to be justified from faithfulness apart from the works required by the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews alone? No! Is he not God of the Gentile? Yes, of the Gentile also, 30 since God is one, he will declare the circumcision righteous from faithfulness and the uncircumcised through faithfulness. 31 Do we nullify the Law through faithfulness? Banish the thought! We establish the Law!
In verse 27 Paul returns to the boasting theme which he mentioned in 2:17 (But if you call yourself ‘Jew’ and you rely on Law and you boast in God) to show that we he just discussed in the previous verses brings an end to the boasting of the Jew, who possess the Law. Boasting is excluded not through the Law of works but through the Law of faithfulness. What is this Law of faithfulness? As I see it there are two options. The ‘Law of faithfulness’ could be another way by which Paul is referring to the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah who suffered and died on behalf of sinful man. Or it could be another way by which Paul is referring to Law keeping Gentiles. That is, the boasting is excluded not by mere possession of the Law but by faithfulness to the Law. I am not sure at this point which one of these makes more sense. Do you know of a better option, Paulos? Or do you choose one of these two? If so, why?
As a brief aside, I should mention that I did not take the ‘principle’ interpretation for nomos (‘Law’) in this section. To do so, to me, seems to do violence to the text, since what is at issue since chapter 2 is the Law of Moses. I don’t think Paul would introduce the connotation of ‘principle’ here, though it would be an interesting paronomasia. Instead, I think he is using nomos throughout to talk about Torah. Verse 28 would seem to tip the scale of how to take the phrase ‘Law of faithfulness’, since v. 28 grounds v. 27, and in verse 28 Paul specifically states, “For we consider a man to be declared righteous from faithfulness,” which is clearly restating the argument of 3:21-26, which regards Jesus’ faithfulness as a substitutionary sacrifice for us as the reason for our vindication and for displaying God’s righteousness in justifying sinners. In other words, it would seem that ‘Law of faithfulness’ would refer to Jesus’ faithfulness. But again, I would like to read your thoughts on this.
The oneness of God is also a reason for the exclusion of Jewish boasting. Why? Because God is the God not only of the Jew but of the Gentile as well. And God will declare righteous both the Jew and the Gentile from faithfulness. That is, the justification of both the Jew and the Gentile alike is apart from the Law of works, and it is from the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah that the circumcised and the uncircumcised will be declared righteous.
This then brings up a potential problem. If one is declared righteous apart from the Law of works, does that mean that Torah is nullified by Jesus’ faithfulness? Paul’s answer to this question is ‘Banish the thought!’ Why? Because the Law is not nullified, rather it is established. To show this Paul will turn to Abraham as one who was declared righteous apart from the works required by the Law.
3 comments:
I'm starting to realize how different the perspective that I'm familiar with is from yours all across the board. Is this what is called "New Perspective" advocated by Dunn and N.T. Wright?
Daniel,
No. The shorter answer is that what Timotheos and I are presenting is not the "New Pauline Perspective." The longer answer is that there are elements of what we are presenting with which some advocates of the so-called "New Perspective" may agree but there are other elements with which they do not agree. For example, take a look at James Dunn's commentary on Romans and and you will discover that he definitely does not agree with our exegesis concerning pistis Christou. His treatment of dikaiosune theou also differs. Likewise, there are elements of what we are saying that correspond with commentaries by scholars such as Tom Schreiner, Douglas Moo, Leon Morris, et al.
We swear allegiance to no particular interpretive view. We swear allegiance to God's Word. Thus, if some of what we say seems different from what Douglas Moo says or from what James Dunn says, this should be sufficient to show that our allegiance is not to some interpretive system. Our commitment is to expound what Paul actually says to get at what he actually means.
Paulos
Paulos,
Thank you for your reply. I whole-heartily argree with your description of our approach. Thanks for responding.
Timotheos
Post a Comment