Posted by jimB on 6/9/2009, 10:03 am, in reply to "Some implications"
68.164.7.155
Ray,
+Wright suggests strongly that the second chapter falls outside the actual letter. Sanders seems to think it was a sermon, probably by Paul, that was a scribal insertion. If that is so, we have to be a bit careful about conclusions between 2 and 3. I am not saying you are wrong, merely that care is a good idea.
With that caveat, here is my thought.
I think Paul is trying to deal with a particular problem. I think he sees Jesus in a Jewish context. That means the goal of Jesus's ministry was the statement in 3 Isaiah: My house shall be a house of prayer for all people.1
Jesus is "inclusive" into Israel but Israel in proper relationship to God and God's creation.2 But in Paul's day, Jews don't seem to be joining up so Paul has a problem.
In Romans then, he is explaining that Jews are potentially in relationship via their existing law based system. Then what of converts? That is Paul's problem and Romans 2 and 3 seem to be his working out the solution. His taxonomy of various converts and their relationship to the law is in large part because the various classes are contained in his universe.
What then does that mean to us? Hmmm.... I suppose it means we should recognize the goal is not some 'pie in the sky by and by'3 vision but rather right relationships with God and creation, which taken together are being Israel. That is what living in the kingdom means and as we might approach it by being either devout Christians or observant Jews, Paul is not on board with the Christian triumphalism view, thus his taxonomy.4
FWIW
jimB
************************
1 3rd Isaiah KJV Isaiah ch 56 v 7. (See also Mathew 21 v 13 and Mark 11 v 17)
2 This is not an original thought. Cf.+Wright in his "Christian Origins" series, almost anything by John Dominic Croisan and Jesus: Two Views by Marcus Borg and +Wright.
3 From the American folks song, "Salvation Army." See the IWW songbook circa 1933 for full text.
4 This is of course NOT an Evangelical viewpoint. It is actually not that far from an RC one, and it is rather Episcopalian. 
cf. Jesus: Two Views
Message Thread:
« Back to thread