Moving on to Rom. 12-15, Campbell rightly notes that Rom. 12-15 rather than being a grab bag of instructions that are unrelated to what goes before says rather they are the implications of Rom. 1-11 and the culmination of his arguments. I agree. Campbell suggests that 12.1-2 is the reversal of the note about false worship in 1.16-17 i.e. idolatry. He adds that Paul sees these Gentile Christians as the body of Christ, a corporate entity paralleling Israel. The problem... Read more
In Romans 8.4 and 10.4 the language of fulfillment comes up. Campbell suggests. the verb to fulfill does not mean to observe. He argues since it is passive in Rom. 8 ‘might be fulfilled’ that it refers to the indwelling work of the Spirit, not to human effort or accomplishment or observing. But fulfill is also the language originally applied to prophecy— something said in the past is fulfilled at some point thereafter and if it is fulfilled it has... Read more
The most commented on section of the entire Bible, especially since the Reformation, is Romans 7. I tell my students, don’t even think about doing a thesis on that. You’ll drown in the voluminous publications on it. Let’s talk about Rom. 7.1-6. Here we have an analogy between a married woman whose husband dies, and those who are under some sort of law. The problem with this analogy, as read by Campbell is that the person who has died is... Read more
Campbell’s discussion of hilasterion in Rom. 3.,25, usually translated sacrifice of atonement (and literally referring to the spot where the blood of the sacrifice was to be applied to make atonement) is interesting but inadequate because this word does not stand alone in its use to describe what happened by means of Christ death. For example, in 2 Cor. 5 Paul said God made Christ to be sin, who knew no sin, so that we might become the righteousness of... Read more
On pp. 123-24 Campbell make the interesting point that Jews and Gentiles are judged differently, and Gentiles are in a dire situation since they have no covenantal relationship with the true God and so no means of atonement and forgiveness, whereas Jews are guilty of disobedience to the law and will be judged by the Mosaic law, but they have a means of atonement and so of forgiveness. The problem with making a sort of blanket statement like that about... Read more
I am unconvinced that Paul’s citations of the Psalms in Rom. 3.10-20 can be said to be mainly about people living under the cloud of Roman oppression. To the contrary the verb is not about living under sin like some dark cloud, or living under somebody else’s sinful ways, namely the overlords, no it is about ‘all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory’. And this means both Jews and Gentiles. I agree that Jews are not particularly... Read more
One of the big problems for the Paul within Judaism folks is, no matter how hard Nanos and Fredriksen and others try, they cannot squeeze Galatians into their paradigm for Paul. Paul argues that the Mosaic covenant was pro tempore until the time had fully come for the Messiah to be born of woman. Here’s what Gal. 4 actually says: “But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the... Read more
Bill Campbell is right that the thesis statement in 1 .16-17 is certainly related to what comes before and after it. But Campbell wants to consistently translate the word ‘pistis’ as trust, which is only one definition on the spectrum of meanings of this word, and it can be doubted that is what it means in 1.16-17— ‘from pistis to pistis’ he translates as from God’s trustworthiness to human trust’ which is not unlike from God’s faithfulness to human faith.... Read more
While Bill Campbell and I quite agree that the focus of Paul’s ministry is Gentiles, and that Galatians talks about the basic division of labor between Peter and Paul, with the former focusing on Jews, the circumcised, and the latter focusing on Gentiles, this in itself was not some sort of strict limitation. Peter came to Corinth after Paul had already planted a church there (see 1 Cor. 1-3) and Paul went to places which were within the purview of... Read more
In regard to diatribe, I believe Stan Stowers is right in his important study of diatribe in Romans. The interlocutor, the imaginary dialogue partner with the author of the document, does not need to be representing a single person or a single group throughout. The reason Campbell argues this is because he believes, wrongly, that Paul is only addressing Christian Gentiles in Romans. I would Paul he is mainly aiming his discourse on them, but also makes points that Jewish... Read more
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In