1. This chapter functioned, I thought, on a deeper level than just exegesis. Longenecker begins by sketching the basic situation of sin in Romans. At times it reminded me of some of the more existential interpreter-theologians of an earlier day. Paul focuses in the first three chapters of Romans primarily on the "anthropological" dimension of human sinfulness--what in the Wesleyan tradition we have called "sin acts." Then Romans 5-8 shifts to speaking primarily of Sin as a power, the "cosmological dimension of Sin as a discernable and independent entity of some kind" (34).
Together, Longenecker sees these two "foci" making up the "hamartiological matrix" of Romans. They constitute something like a "two-level drama," "converging in the concrete action of individuals" (35). With regard to the power of Sin, he inclines "toward the view that these powers were objective entities in Paul's mental universe" (37).
2. The precise origins of our sinful situation are seen as vague. We both have a problem of our individual hearts and yet Sin lurks in the cosmological wings. Bruce's chapter catalyzed a parallel that I don't think is unintentional. There is currently a divide, it seems, between those who say the church either should focus on individual sin and responsibility, along with personal salvation OR the church should focus on social justice and the problems of systemic evil.
There is a parallel, it seems to me, in Paul's treatment of sin. Paul is clearly concerned with individual sin--the dominant focus of the first three chapters of Romans. But Paul is also concerned with Sin as an enslaving power over humanity in general (chapters 6-8). Systemic evils like oppressive economic systems or systemic racism are analogous to Sin as a power. Bruce refers to these dynamics as "social Darwinism."
3. The first part of his chapter reaches four conclusions: a) Paul does not give a clear view of sin and Sin's origins, b) nevertheless, Sin has mastery over humanity, c) the power of Sin must be removed, but that is not enough if individual sin is not addressed, and d) human sinfulness must be removed but that is not enough if the power of Sin is not broken.
The chapter ends with some thoughts on God's sovereignty. Satan will be crushed, but Longenecker argues that God does not forcefully crush Satan. Rather, that is the end result. "In the theological discourse of both Jesus and Paul, the modus operandi is self-giving, and the result of that strategy is the conquering of any other strategy and all other power bases" (45). I'm not so sure if this last train of thought fully works with either Jesus or Paul, but it does seem to capture how Jesus and Paul expect us to live in this "in-between" time.
Previous posts
- Nijay Gupta, "Sin in Context: hamartia in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature"
- Martinus de Boer, "Sin and Soteriology in Romans"
No comments:
Post a Comment