> > Roma 7:5 (GNT) hOTE GAR HMEN EN THi SARKI, TA PAQHMATA TWN
> > hAMARTIWN TA DIA TOU NOMOU ENHRGEITO EN TOIS MELESIN hHMWN,
> > EIS TO KARPOFORHSAI TW QANATW:
>
> It makes some sense but not, I think, for the reasons you think it does.
> No where does Paul express anything about anyone's (especially
> his own) inability to keep the law, or that he ever perceived the Law as
> something which would break those who attempted to keep it. In fact his
> testimony in Phil 3 is quite the opposite. And his statement about the
> Law being a "tutor" unto Christ - a statement that is often used as a
> prooftext for the idea that the Law exists to break us, to make us
> realize that we fall under condemnation if we try to earn "salvation" by
> following its demands, and therefore as a filter through which this
> passage in Romans is read - misunderstands what PAEDAGOGOS
> meant in 1CE and in Paul's intention. Perhaps the passage needs to
> be read, as Krister Stendhal implies, as the sufferings that Paul
> inflicted upon Christians before his "call", suffereings which arise not so
> much from trying to follow the itself Law (which, after all, is holy, just,
> and good), as what now appears to Paul as a misreading of what
> the Law demands.
I think there is need to distinguish. In Philippians 3:6, Paul does
say that he is blameless in regard to the law. This ought not, I
think, to be taken any further than to mean the external ceremonial
requirements the law. Paul's use of NOMOS is quite flexible, shifting
in meaning from instance to instance at times.
Romans 7 seems abundantly clear to the effect that the natural man,
and even the Christian, is unable to obey the law, as it was
exegeted by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. It also seems to me
that with reference to the natural man, Romans 8:7 is fairly clear
in this regard:
DIOTI TO FRONHMA THS SARKOS EXQRA EIS QEON
TWi GAR NOMWi TOU QEOU OUX hUPOTASSETAI
OUDE GAR DUNATAI
(Romans 8:7)
The sense of hUPOTASSETAI here, it seems to me, is just equivalent
to obedience. The "devils are subject unto us" (Luke 10:17) seems
to mean "the devils _obey_ us." And "the church is subject unto
Christ" (Eph. 5:24) seems to mean that the church obeys Christ.
But the mind of the flesh is at enmity unto (hi Jonathan;-) God
because it _does_ not obey the law, and _cannot_ obey the law.
The inability is a moral inability, not a natural one. It is not
of the essence of man to be unable to obey, but is an accidental
property of fallen man, who is non posse non peccare.
> In any case, here is an instance of a question of exegesis that
> cannot be settled on grammatical grounds alone. It needs to be
> answered within the wider context of Paul's view of the
> "keepability" of the Law.
Isn't this the norm rather than the exception? No verse is a
linguistic island. One must look both to verses of similar
grammatical construction and to places where relevant words which
are obscure or ambiguous are used to help narrow the range of
possible meanings. Then the sense of a proposition must always
be fit into the local context to ensure that the argument or
narrative flows properly. And the more remote context can never
be ignored either. One's understanding of other verses [i.e.
his theology] necessarily comes to bear in all exegetical work.
In Christ,
Jim Beale