tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post1252889071615232682..comments2023-10-16T04:58:53.689-04:00Comments on Verily Verily: "weak[ness]" in Rom. 8.3Rafaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-47760033779056894152012-02-08T10:30:36.087-05:002012-02-08T10:30:36.087-05:00Dr. Rodriguez,
I must admit that this is now bothe...Dr. Rodriguez,<br />I must admit that this is now bothering me that I cannot find a satisfactory solution. I had to read your second paragaraph to my comment multiple time until I saw what you were seeing. It led me to dive into the resources that are immediately available to me and I still bump up to the same results...not two laws, two ways to refer to one law. It was there, I wasn't seeing it.<br /><br />However, Harrison and Hagner say something that, because of your article, caught my attention in referring to v. 2..."The problem is not caused by something intrinsic to the law but is rather the result of the flesh and sin. The law makes demands, and it condemns when those demands are not met, but it cannot overcome sin." (EBC)<br /><br />The reason this catches me is because it seems that they take a similar position that every commentator has taken in that the law is not weak, but the sinful nature of man is. Then, the last statement "but it cannot overcome sin" is thrown in. If it cannot overcome sin, doesn't that mean that it is weak? <br /><br />I feel like I am now working in circles with this passage, but I also appreciate the post because I would not have paid attention to this detail otherwise. It is, however, leading me to more questions than answers. What a great letter!<br /><br />Nick PannoneAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13824225856142471975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-54745791031601599252012-02-08T06:47:18.770-05:002012-02-08T06:47:18.770-05:00Nick,
Thanks for these thoughts. Romans is well w...Nick,<br /><br />Thanks for these thoughts. Romans is well worth the wrestle. For what it's worth, I'm surprised by how much my understanding of Romans has changed just since the last time I taught it at Johnson.<br /><br />I'm not so sure, however, that Paul refers to two different νόμοι (<i>nomoi</i>, "laws) in v. 2. Given my interpretation of 7.23, 25 (which I haven't put online, but perhaps I should do so), I read 8.2 as referring to two different ways of referring to the one νόμος, the Torah of God. The one, characterized by the Spirit (which was almost completely absent from Romans 7), leads to life; the other, characterized by the flesh, leads to sin and death. This, of course, is exactly what Torah itself promised (see Deut. 30!).<br /><br />Notice, then, how Mounce's comment (which you quoted) actually <i>denies</i> that Paul attributes any weakness to Torah, but it doesn't explain, then, what Paul is saying in 8.3. I'm not sure how helpful this is. Either Paul is attributing weakness to Torah (which Mounce denies), or he doesn't (which Mounce does not explain).<br /><br />Whatever the precise meaning of 8.3a, I think you're exactly right that Paul is highlighting the role and function of the Spirit, which achieves what Torah had intended to achieve for Israel (again, Deut. 30). The Spirit, which is <i>the</i> difference between Romans 7 and Romans 8, explains the dramatically different tone between these two chapters.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16959378.post-79862557170530346742012-02-07T10:57:17.777-05:002012-02-07T10:57:17.777-05:00Dr. Rodriguez,
This particular article intrigued m...Dr. Rodriguez,<br />This particular article intrigued me because I am leading a Sunday School class that is trudging through the book of Romans. We are roughly half way through chapter 9. We spent about 3-4 weeks working our way through chapter 8. We sat on verse 3 for a long time discussing this very issue. I make no claims that I can satisfy your questions, but that we wrestled with your last question with "energized" discussion. We landed on the previous verse that names 2 different nomos - one of the pneumatos and one of hamartia kai thanatos. Could it be that the latter is weakened because it is absent pneumatos?...this was our question.<br /><br />Mounce said it this way: "The problem, however, did not lie in any inherent weakness in the law itself. Its demands were thwarted by the debilitating influence of our fallen nature."<br /><br />Again, I am not pretending to actually address the questions that you are asking, I am merely intrigued and wanted to offer my two-cents. I am interpreting this v.3 in the context of v.2 and v.11...that I believe Paul's intent is to highlight the work of the Spirit (pneumatos). At least that is how I taught it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13824225856142471975noreply@blogger.com