¹ Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975) 1. 167.Google Scholar

² Thus resembling its cognate ίεροσυλία (see Schrenk, G., TDNT 3. 255).Google ScholarMichel, O. (Der Brief an der Römer [14th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976] 131 n. 14) finds three distinct applications of the term: (1) rob temples (2 Mace 9. 2); (2) commit an act of desecration against a sanctuary (Sib Or 3. 47 f., 578); (3) misappropriate temple funds (cf. Josephus Ag Ap 1, 310 f). For further refs., see BAGD 373; LSJ 822.Google Scholar

³ As is evident enough from 2. 17–20. In particular, to ‘call oneself a Jew’ (v. 17) signifies ‘den religiösen Selbstanspruch gegenüber dem Nichtjuden’. Indeed, ‘Jude-Sein ist ein heilsgeschichtliches Privileg, begründet in der Gabe des Gesetzes, auf das sich der Jude als auf das Zeichnen der Erwähltheit des Gottesvolkes “stützen” darf, weil die Tora dem Gerechten das Recht zuspricht, “sich auszuruhren” aufgrund seiner um des Gesetzes willen auf sich genommenen “Mühen”’ (Wilckens, U., Der Brief an die Römer [Zürich/Neukirchen: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1978] 1. 147–8).Google ScholarOn the predicate ‘Jew’, see Zeitlin, S., ‘“The Names Hebrew, Jew and Israel”. A Historical Study’, in Studies in the Early History of Judaism (New York: KTAV, 1974) 500–14.Google ScholarCf. the following studies of ‘Judaism’: Y. Amir, ‘Ιουδαϊσμός (Ioudaismos). A Study in Jewish-Hellenistic Self-identification, Immanuel 14 (1982) 34–41;Google ScholarHengel, M., ‘Die Synagogeninschrift von Strobi’, ZNW 57 (1966) 178;CrossRefGoogle ScholarDunn, J. D. G., ‘The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2.11–18)’, JSNT 18 (1983) 26–7.Google Scholar

⁴ The identity of the ‘Jew’ as affirmed above militates against F. Watson's attempt to make Paul's language specially applicable to the Roman Jewish leadership (Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986] 114). Paul, no doubt, was sensitive to the Roman situation. Nevertheless, his mode of argumentation in the letter is conditioned by the whole of his missionary enterprise.Google Scholar

⁵ Romans 1.169. He notes that such confidence was expressed already in Jdt 8.18.Google Scholar

⁶ Cranfield, ibid.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ As illustrated by S-B. 3. 113 f. Cf. Acts 19. 37; Josephus, Ant IV. 8. 10 (207). In Ag Ap I. 248 f. 310–11, 318 Josephus rebuffs the charges of Jewish temple robbery stemming from the anti-Semites Manetho and Lysimachus, who whimsically derived the name of Jerusalem from ίερόσυλα — ‘city of temple robbers’.Google Scholar

⁹ Romans 1. 170. Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London: A & C Black, 1957) 57, similarly takes the term in its broader signification and interprets the Jew's sacrilege as his exaltation of himself as a judge over his fellow creatures. However, 2. 22 seems too far removed from w. 1–11, which discuss the matter directly, to have been at the front of Paul's mind.Google Scholar

¹⁰ In spite of Michael, Römer 131; Schlier, H., Der Römerbrief (Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 86;Google ScholarZeller, D., Der Brief an die Römer (Regensburg: Pustet, 1985) 72;Google ScholarSchrenk, , TDNT 3. 256 (even conceding to Schlier, Zeller and Schrenk that ίερσυλεîν was one of the worst crimes in antiquity);Google ScholarWilckens, , Römer 1. 150;Google ScholarLeenhardt, F., The Epistle to the Romans (Cleveland: World, 1957) 87;Google ScholarMurray, J., The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960) 1. 84;Google ScholarBlack, M., New Century Bible Commentary: Romans (London: Oliphants, 1973) 60;Google ScholarHenriksen, W., New Testament Commentary: Romans (London: Banner of Truth, 1980) 1. 105;Google ScholarWatson, , Paul 114. To be sure, temple robbery was not unheard of in the first century. The question, however, is whether it was sufficiently widespread to warrant Paul's accusation in this place (cf. Cranfield's remarks, Romans 1. 168). Certainly such an obvious piece of anti-Semitism as that of Manetho and Lysimachus is not to be taken as objective historical evidence that the Jews characteristically were given to being the marauders of temples. Thus, it is difficult to believe that Paul is chiming in with a Gentile criticism of Judaism (Zeller).Google Scholar

¹¹ τά εἳδωλα are clearly pagan idols (for refs., see Schlier, , Römerbrief 86).Google Scholar

¹² Stowers, S. shows that each of the four indicting rhetorical questions has a participial phrase describing an activity of the interlocutor followed by a verb which poses a question to the interlocutor about his own participation in that activity (The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans [Chico: Scholars, 1981] 97). Wilckens is to be exempted, since he takes ίεροσυλεîν is its broader meaning and refers it to involvement with idolatrous images and temple goods (Römer, 150).Google ScholarSimilarly, A Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1935) 106, entertains the possibility that the Jew secretly appropriates for himself what is holy to the Pagan. Nevertheless, only Diaspora Jews, as a rule, would be liable to such a charge, and even then it hardly seems likely that the practice was so prevalent that Paul would single it out as a fundamental grievance against the Jewish people.Google Scholar

¹³ E.g., Zeller, , Römer, 72.Google Scholar

¹⁴ NTS 6 (1959–1960) 297–306;Google Scholar cf. idem, ‘A Further Note on Romans 1’, NTS 13 (1966–1967) 181–3.

¹⁵ Cf. Dunn, J. D. G., Christology in the Making (London: SCM, 1980) 101–2;Google ScholarMilne, D. J. W., ‘Genesis 3 in the Letter to the Romans’, Reformed Theological Review 39 (1980) 10–18. As a matter of interest, in Rom 7.11 Paul apparently describes his own experience of the awareness of sin in Eve-like terms (see Dunn, Christology, 103–4). Perhaps by identifying himself with the woman rather than the man he wishes to avoid the connotations of apostasy associated with Adam. Milne wrongly thinks that it was Adam who was misled into believing the Serpent's lie (‘Genesis 3’, 16).Google Scholar

¹⁶ ‘Adam’, 301.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See, e.g., Goodrick, A. T. S., The Book of Wisdom (London: Rivingtons, 1913) 398 f.;Google ScholarSanday, W. and Headlam, A. C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1895) 51–2;Google ScholarEllis, E. E., Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957) 77 f.;Google ScholarZimmerman, F., ‘The Book of Wisdom: Its Language and Character’, JQR ns 57 (1966–1967) 134;Google ScholarRomaniuk, C., ‘Le livre de la Sagesse dans le Nouveau Testament’, NTS 14 (1967–1968) 505 f.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Nickelsburg, G. W. E. perhaps is too cautious in accepting the specific influence of Wis on Paul at this point (Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981] 185). Nevertheless, he is right that the parallels between the two establish a common milieu in Hellenistic Judaism. Certainly, the attitude of Wis toward idols, etc., did not exist in a vacuum.Google Scholar

¹⁹ ‘Adam’, 299.Google Scholar

²⁰ Hooker, ibid.

²¹ I.e., as ‘ungodly’, ‘sinners’, ‘enemies’ and under ‘wrath’ (5. 8 f.) — all synonymous expressions for the old creation.Google Scholar

²² Cf. 4 Ezra 3. 33–36; 7. 37.Google Scholar

²³ Cf. Alonso-Schökel, L., ‘The Vision of Man in Sirach 16. 24–17. 14’, in Gammie, J. G. et al. , eds., Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien (Missoula: Scholars, 1978) 243.Google Scholar

²⁴ See further Alonso-Schökel, , ‘Vision’, 236 f.Google Scholar

²⁵ The phrase also occurs in 45. 5 and is derived from Lev 18. 5; Deut 30. 11–20; cf. Bar 4. 1–4. Of course, for Ben Sira (and Bar) the law was directly tantamount to divine wisdom.Google Scholar

²⁶ Elsewhere these two are co-joined in specifically Jewish terms: 24. 23; 28. 7; 39. 1–8; 42. 2, 5. In addition, 17.14 probably alludes to the ‘book of the covenant’ (Exod 21–23).Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. Gen R 14. 6: ‘I will make Adam first: if he goes wrong Abraham will come to restore everything again’.Google Scholar

²⁸ Contra Watson, , Paul, 109–10, the discussion does not take a specifically Jewish orientation until v. 17.Google Scholar

²⁹ The combination of trust in the law and boasting in God is not surprising in view of Sir 32. 24–33. 3, where faith in the Torah and faith in God are placed on a par with each other. Similarly, 1 Mace 2. 59, 61 commend faith in Yahweh, while in 2. 64 Mattathias exhorts his sons to ‘grow strong in the law’. The rationale here is simply that the Torah was the divinely given expression of God's will and, with the Lord himself, must be an object of trust. In the words of 2 Bar 48. 22: ‘In you we have put our trust, because, behold, your law is with us.Google ScholarLührmann, D., then, is right that the stem πιοτ- (in 4 Mace) is ‘eine selbstverständlich Bezeichnung der rechten Halten deren, die sich an Gott und sein Gesetz halten’ (‘Pistis in Judentum’, ZNW 64 [1973] 34).CrossRefGoogle ScholarAs contra Nygren, A., Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1949) 131–2, the Jew did not stop with merely knowing the law, nor was his mistake that he put his trust in the law. Rather, his boast in God implies faith in God, in keeping with the pattern of God and the Torah as the twofold object of faith. As we shall see below, his mistake, according to Paul, was that he made his distinctive ethnicoreligious identity, derived from his reliance on the law and his boast in God, the paradigm for measuring all men's acceptability to God.Google Scholar

³⁰ Barrett, (Romans 57 n. 1) notes that theft, adultery and sacrilege often appear side by side in lists of vices (e.g., Philo, Confusion of Languages, 163). Cranfield, however, senses the problem occasioned by Paul's application of these three sins to Israel and opts for the view that Paul is radicalizing the law in much the same manner as Matt 5. 21 f. (Romans 1. 168–9).Google ScholarWatson, , Paul, 114, on the other hand, understands Paul literally and thinks that his charges are directed toward immoral Rabbis in Rome.Google ScholarPresumably, Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 123 f.Google Scholarand Räisänen, H., Paul and the Law (Tübingen: Mohr, 1983) 97 f., also interpret in actual terms and would take the same dim view of Paul's questions as they do of 1. 18–2. 29 as a whole. However, in view of Paul's stress on the circumcision of the heart (w. 28–29), Cranfield's proposal is not at all far-fetched.Google Scholar

³¹ Cf. recently Lull, D. J., ‘“The Law was our Pedagogue”: A Study of Galatians 3. 19–25’, JBL 105 (1986) 481–98.Google Scholar

³² Whether τελός is ‘goal’ or ‘termination’, the point remains unchanged, although it is not improbable that it means both at the same time.Google ScholarOn Rom 10. 4, see Badenas, R., Christ the End of the Law (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985). Badenas, however, has overemphasized the former meaning to the virtual exclusion of the latter.Google ScholarA convenient summary of interpretations of τέλος, νόμον is provided by Seifrid, M., ‘Paul's Approach to the Old Testament in Rom 10. 6–8’, Trinity Journal 6 (1985) 6 f.Google Scholar

³³ By way of corollary, Paul's quarrel was not with his ancestors but with his contemporaries. Unlike them, the light of the new creation has dawned on Paul (2 Cor 4. 6), convincing him that he should no longer be a ‘zealot’ for the paternal traditions (Gal 1. 14). Accordingly, the Jew's reliance on and boast in the law, as well as his boast in God, are to be understood in terms of the on-going nationalistic dimensions of these activities. I am assuming that Israel's boast is not in her supposed efforts at self-salvation but in her status and privileges as the chosen people, the concrete expression of which was, to borrow the phraseology of J. D. G. Dunn, the ‘boundary’ and ‘identity’ markers of the covenant (circumcision, etc.).Google ScholarSee Dunn, , ‘The New Perspective on Paul’, BJRL 65 (1983) 95–122;Google Scholaridem, ‘Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3. 10–14)’ NTS 31 (1985) 523–42; cf. Räisänen, , Paul, 170.Google ScholarContra Hübner, H., Law in Paul's Thought (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1984) 113 f.Google Scholar

³⁴ ‘Jesus, Judaism, and Paul’, in Hawthorne, G. and Betz, O., eds., Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis (Tübingen/Grand Rapids: Mohr/Eerdmans, 1987) 50Google Scholar. Moule remarks that ‘Paul was caught in the explosion that was the person of Jesus’ (ibid.).

³⁵ Gal 1. 14. The equivalent expression in 2, 3 and 4 Mace, Josephus and Philo is πάτριοι or πατρῴοι νμοι. See Renaud, B., ‘La loi et les lois dans les livres des Maccabées’, RB 68 (1961) 52 f. (although Renaud gives the phrase a too dominantly classical frame of reference);Google ScholarAttridge, H. W., The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula: Scholars, 1976) 126 f.Google Scholar

³⁶ See in detail Garlington, D. B., ‘“The Obedience of Faith”: A Pauline Phrase in Historical Context’ (Ph.D. thesis, Durham University, 1987).Google Scholar

³⁷ Haag, E., Studien zum Buche Judith (Trier: Paulinus, 1963) 82 f.;Google Scholaridem, ‘Die besondere Art des Buches Judith und seine theologische Bedeutung’, TTZ 17 (1962) 300.

³⁸ Judaism and Hellenism (London: SCM, 1974) 1. 307.Google ScholarCf. Arenhoevel, D., Die Theokratie nach den 1. und 2. Makkabäerbuch (Mainz: Matthias-Grünwald, 1967) 4, 16;Google Scholar, Renaud, ‘loi’, 48;Google ScholarSanders, E. P., Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 178;Google ScholarCollins, J. J., The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (Missoula: Scholars, 1977) 195;Google ScholarTcherikover, V., Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: Atheneum), 1985[–1959] 229;Google ScholarKuhn, K. G., TDNT 3. 360;Google ScholarProksch, O., TDNT 1.91–2.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid. Cf. Cazells, H., ‘Le personnage d'Achior dans le livre de Judith’, RSR 39 (1951) 125–37.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Cf. Sanders, , Law, 17 f.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See the penetrating comments of Hengel, , Judaism, 1. 303 f.Google Scholar

⁴² See further Garlington, , ‘Obedience’, 341–2, 358 f.Google Scholar

⁴³ E.g., Sir 50. 22; Tob 14. 7; Jdt 10. 8; 13. 4; Wis 3. 8; 18. 8; 19. 22; Ad Est 11.11.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Dunn, , ‘Works’, 525 f.;Google ScholarSanders, , Law, 102;Google Scholarand the important discussion of Limbeck, M., Die Ordnung des Heils (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1971) 29 f., who shows that the motivation of Jewish zeal for the law was not ‘legalism’ but the preservation of the community.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Cf. Aris 139–42. Gal 2. 15 is indicative of the common Jewish outlook that Gentiles are ipso facto ‘sinners’. Moreover, 2. 17 reflects the allegation that, given Paul's principles, Christ must be a ‘minister of sin’.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The Obedience of Faith (London: SCM, 1971) 48.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (3rd ed.; London: SPCK, 1970) 111 f. The Torah replacement motif also occupies a position of some prominence in the Fourth Gospel.Google ScholarSee Glasson, T. F., Moses in the Fourth Gospel (London: SCM, 1963);Google ScholarPancaro, S., The Law in the Fourth Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 1975);Google Scholarcf. Davies, W. D., The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley: University of California, 1974) 288 f.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Davies, W. D., Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come (Philadelphia: SBL, 1952) 84;Google ScholarBanks, R., Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975) 67 f. (esp. 79–81);Google ScholarRäis¨anen, , Paul, 261.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Paul probably chose this verb (in its broader sense) to avoid the connotations of actual idol-worship inherent in the εἳδωλον family of words.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Schrenk, , TDNT 3.254.Google Scholar