William Campbell’s Romans– The Dialogue Part Thirteen

Last updated on: June 13, 2023 at 1:40 am by Ben Witherington

William Campbell’s Romans– The Dialogue Part Thirteen 2023-05-17T13:44:12-04:00 Ben Witherington

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Q. I was a bit surprised by your take on Rom. 7.7-25. Speech in character, from a rhetorical point of view or prosopoeia requires that one be speaking as a well-known historical person recently mentioned, as Quintilian stresses. In this case the person in question is Adam, mentioned less than 5 minutes before Rom. 7 in the continuous reading of the text of Romans likely by Phoebe. Notice the change in verb tenses from 7.7-13 to 7.14-25. Also, only Adam was given a single commandment which is all that is mentioned in 7.7-13, and interestingly in early Jews interpretation of the Genesis story, the rabbis speculated that the single commandment given to Adam was a form of the commandment about covetousness. The personification of Sin as a creature fits the talking serpent as well. So, this would mean that the ongoing issue in 7.14-25 is with those who are in Adam, but outside of Christ. For sure you are right that Paul is not describing his own autobiography, or for that matter devout Jews. I did wonder about why one has to take the word ‘nomos’ to always be a reference to the Mosaic Law, when it fact it seems to be used otherwise— there is a ruling principle of the mind and there is another and different ruling principle, namely the bondage to sin, described in Rom. 7.14-25. In neither case do we need to identify these with the Mosaic Law. And when we turn the page to Rom. 9— the ruling principle of the Spirit which sets a person free from the bondage to sin, is again surely not the Mosaic Law. The problem with the Law was that it could tell a person what they ought to do, but could not enable them to do it. That required the Spirit, which is not the Law. I do agree with you that Paul is no antinomian, as Rom. 12-14 makes clear. But I don’t think he views the new covenant is simply a renewal of the Mosaic one. Why not? Because in the first place there is his references to the Law of Christ, for instance in Gal. 6 where he is alluding to a couple of teachings of Jesus, not the Mosaic Law. The new covenant seems to involve taking over some of Mosaic commandments, some of the teachings of Jesus (for instance his teaching that declares that nothing that enters one’s mouth defiles a person, but rather what comes out of the mouth), and perhaps some apostolic teachings of Paul and others. I am unconvinced by your suggestion that in 2 Cor. 3 is not a comparison between the glory of Christ and the new covenant, as opposed to the fading glory on the face of Moses and of the old covenant. This all the more the case because of what Paul says in Gal. 4— namely that the Mosaic covenant was pro tempore, until the coming of Christ. Explain why you think this is all wrong.

A. I think speech in character in Paul does not necessarily follow the pattern of schoolbook rhetoric. Paul’s habit is to be flexible with well-known Hellenistic rhetorical patterns. He is well enough educated to be able to show his competence in that milieu, having most likely picked it up as general knowledge rather from any formal rhetorical education. Thus, his selective use of rhetorical patterns renders it difficult to draw precise conclusions from Quintilian as this would be far too static for a creative writer and thinker like Paul. This why I think Adam is not in view here. My take on Rom. 7.7-25 is that what follows in chapter 8.1 ff is the answer to the problems Paul seeks to address in the previous chapter. But Paul in Romans has not yet properly introduced the Spirit, note the unusually few references up to this point in a letter which tends to deal with topics in layers or in sequence. The last reference to spirit in 7.6 reveals chapter 7 as practically devoid of references to the Spirit which is completely reversed from the beginning of chapter 8. This indicates that in Rom 7.7-25 Paul is only dealing with life with the Law and without the Spirit whereas this is rectified in chapter 8. This suggests that Rom 7.7-25 is an artificial scenario depicting a persona with the Law and without the Spirit which has its main purpose to demonstrate that only by the Spirit of God can the Law be properly observed and its function realized. Theoretically one could argue that this also applies to the Jews, but Paul in 7.9 clearly states the this persona ‘once lived outside the sphere of the Law’ which could not apply to Jews, but only to former pagans. This coheres with Paul’s clear indications that this letter is addressed to gentiles. The reasons why it must be the Torah that Paul here refers to with nomos is because he affirms that “the nomos is holy and just and good” (7.12), that the nomos is spiritual” (7.14)and that the persona delights in the nomos of God (7.22). Although he might use nomos in a more general sense elsewhere, here he clearly refers to the Torah in my view.

You raise further questions here, that are not focusing on Rom 7.7-25 but which in my mind are not contradicted by my approach to this chapter since I am not here dealing with anything related to covenant renewal or even with the Law of Christ drawn from the arguments of other letters. I am simply trying to keep focused on the questions I have to answer.

Uncategorized

Who is the I in Romans 7?

Previous Post

June 12, 2023

William Campbell's Romans-- The Dialogue Part Twelve

Next Post

June 14, 2023 William Campbell's Romans-- The Dialogue Part Fourteen

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz