No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Psalm 143 and the Logic of Romans 3
... Consider Ps 143, which likely influences Rom 3 (cf. Hays 1980). Precisely because God is righteous, David asks God not to judge him, although "no one" (David included) is righteous before God (143:1-2, 11; cf. ...
... Moreover, Ps 143 (142 LXX ) likely shapes Rom 3 (cf. Hays 1980). Psalm 142:1, 11 LXX explicitly appeal to God's "truthfulness" (ἀλήθεια) and "righteousness" (δικαιοσύνη) in praying for salvation "because every living soul will not be vindicated before you" (cf. ...
The relationship between Romans 3:4 and Psalm 51:4 (Psalm 50:6 in the Septuagint) has long puzzled scholars. Many suggest that Paul's use of Ps 50:6LXX either seems not to fit the logic of Romans 3 or does not reflect the psalmist's meaning. This article offers an interpretation of Romans 3:4 that eliminates the apparent tension between the two texts. It clarifies Paul's meaning in Romans 3 by reinterpreting Psalm 51:4 in its context. Both Psalm 51:4 and Romans 3:4 refer to God's saving righteousness. The conclusion that Romans 3:4 speaks of God's saving righteousness is not unique to this study. However, typical arguments in favour of this view are susceptible to significant criticism. Specifically, they do not demonstrate how the whole of Psalm 50LXX shapes Paul's argument, and/or they do not explore the possibility that Psalm 50:6LXX also refers to God's saving righteousness.1 This article addresses both issues. After reviewing the theological and exegetical significance of Romans 3:4, four major questions that challenge readers today will be surveyed. Next, an integrated exegesis of both passages, showing how Psalm 50:6LXX sheds light on Romans 3, will be presented.
In the ongoing discussions of Gal 3.10–14, interpreters have underappreciated the connection between Paul's argument in 3.10 and his use of Ps 143.2 in 2.16. This article argues that Paul bases his denial of justification by works in 2.16 on the confession of humanity's universal sinfulness in Ps 143.2. Given the rhetorical function of 2.15–21 as well as the close verbal and logical ties between 2.16 and 3.10, it contends the same thought underlies Paul's charge in 3.10 that those of works are under a curse. On this basis, the article assesses various interpretations of Gal 3.10.
The New Cambridge Companion to St Paul - edited by Bruce W. Longenecker July 2020
The New Cambridge Companion to St Paul - edited by Bruce W. Longenecker July 2020
Romans 1:18-4:25 is usually structured in three steps: (1) revelation of God's wrath, the negative face of God's justice (1:18-3:20); (2) justification by faith, the positive face of justice (3:21-31); (3) Abraham as an illustration of justification through faith (4:1-25). For my part, with the analysis of the enunciative device of the text (Benveniste), I distinguish seven successive discourses that adopt different points of view regarding God's justice discourses that are juxtaposed and articulated together, correcting each other: (1) God's wrath (1:18-32); (2) God's impartial judgment (2:1-29); (3) God's justice, truthfulness, and faithfulness challenged (3:1-8); (4) God's case against a monstrous humankind (3:9-20); (5) the strange manifestation of God's justice, outside the law (3:21-26); (6) the universality of the divine election (3:27-31); (7) a midrashic commentary on Gen 15:6 and Ps 32:1-2 (4:1-25). The multiplicity of these voices sustains interest and animates the text, but also destabilizes the reader through its presentation of many facets of God and many concepts of God's justice, as with a cubist artwork. God's justice is not simple and it eludes any single conventional interpretation.
Intertextual study reveals new ways of interpreting Rom 3: 1-9. The story of David's sin (recalled by the quotation of Ps 50: 6 LXX) serves as a background to the four lawsuits, which can be detected in this dialogue between Paul and his interlocutor (a lawsuit against the Jews, against humanity, against God and against Paul). When read in this perspective the text aquires a new emphasis : if forgiveness is not at the heart of God's justice, then we can question God's righteousness. By putting God on trial, the text is in the process of redefining divine righteousness in Rom 3: 21, and "deconstructs" the way righteousness was described in terms of impartiality and condemnation in Rom 1: 18-2: 29. The well-known translation difficulty of v. 9 can possibly be resolved when we read the verse in a judicial context, as the conclusion of the series of lawsuits. Finally, the lawsuit metaphor is not only the basis of Rom 3: 1-9, but also a major theme that runs through the entire letter.
The justice of God and Rom 12,17-13,7 usually live separate lives in Romans studies. Yet two neglected features in these verses show that they should be taken into account in debates about the justice of God in Romans: the use of the-vocabulary, which is part of the vocabulary of justice; and the use of the Song of Moses, widely recognized as defending God's justice and from which the-vocabulary is taken. Yet these two features are almost universally neglected. This article first justifies reading Rom 13,1-7 in its immediate context. It then examines the-vocabulary used by Paul as well as his use of the Old Testament, especially of the Song of Moses. It then offers a short commentary of Rom 12,17-13,7 and concludes with some short comments on the implications of the suggestions developed here for reading Romans. © 2013 by Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. All rights reserved.
In this article I pursue two interrelated goals. First, and more narrowly, I argue that the in Rom 5:1 plausibly refers to Christ's (conventionally translated as faith or faithfulness) and not to the of Christ followers; and certainly not to the of Christ followers that is specifically in Christ. To my knowledge no modern commentator identifies the in Rom 5:1 as Christ's own. Several scholars suggest it in passing, and one presents a partial argument turning on several claims of coherence with his broader reading of Paul. I offer a more thorough case for the plausibility of this suggestion, especially by demonstrating how my reading of Rom 5:1 makes sense as an encapsulation of Paul's emphases in Rom 3:21-4:25.
The fundamental problem of the law in Paul, posed with fresh urgency by the work of E. P. Sanders, remains the separation
of the law in Paul’s theology from its gracious covenantal context. Paul’s claim of the impossibility of righteousness through
the law depends upon a disjunction of law and covenant which appears both logically incoherent and radically un-Jewish. The
solution, I propose, lies in a crucial but neglected aspect of Jewish covenant theology. According to a widespread strain
within Jewish thought, apart from the grace and forgiveness found within the covenantal relationship, there is no one who
is righteous or who can stand before God’s judgement. Through echo of Psalm 143:2, Paul’s pivotal formulation within Romans
3:19–20 explicitly draws upon this feature of Jewish covenantal thought. Accordingly, the ‘works of the law’ in Romans do
not refer to the law within the gracious framework of the covenant (a covenant which in Paul’s thought was operative throughout
Israel’s history, and had now reached its climax in Christ), but rather to the law’s observance apart from the covenant and its promise of mercy in Jesus Christ. The distinction between the law’s fulfilment considered within or apart from the covenantal relationship of faith is the
key which unlocks the coherence and profoundly Jewish character of Paul’s theology of the law.
Douglas Campbell’s recent work The Deliverance of God represents a major rereading of Paul’s letter to the Romans, especially its early chapters, and through this offers a broader reinterpretation of Pauline soteriology, deliberately set in dialogue with theological traditions, particularly those founded on forensic understandings of atonement. This article evaluates the key elements of Campbell’s argument, particularly (1) his depiction of Jewish soteriology (2) his suggestion that much of Rom. 1.18–3.20 utilizes the rhetorical device of ‘speech-in-character’, and therefore represents the opinion of Paul’s opponent rather than that of the apostle himself, and (3) his treatment of historical theology. The Deliverance of God is found to be stimulating and provocative at points, and to be a significant contribution to the field, but unconvincing in its major moves.
The claim of the early church is one that the creative and saving power of God, embodied in the Lord Jesus, calls into being a community which is always trying to live out the implications of the divine refusal to accept cultural, ethnic, political, or other boundaries.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.