[Thanks to Alan G. for sending in the post below. Alan sent this to me exactly a week ago, but it's taken me this long to climb out from under last week's pile of email. Sorry.]

I think this material is less rich than some of the surrounding passages, so I am having a hard time coming up with useful comments. Paul initially is addressing the notion that if Christians are released from the law of Moses, are they then free to become libertines. Paul wants to combat that perception: “shall we sin, because we are not under the law?” (Romans 6:15). Jim says here that from an Old Testament context “a sinner is someone who has not succeeded in keeping the Mosaic law” (p. 315). I have a sense that Paul is primarily concerned with the backdrop of the law of Moses, but that his comments are also inclusive enough to apply to Roman law. So I would be interested to see how applicable these comments are to a broader range of law expanded beyond the law of Moses. Does Christian grace fulfill (as in move beyond) other legal frameworks also? Read the rest of this entry »

[David G. has stepped up and written the "double" post below, covering two weeks of our reading schedule—last week's and this week's readings. Thanks, David.] Read the rest of this entry »

I will say a few words about the word “reign” as Paul uses the term (5:17) and as Jim discusses it, then I will make a few other miscellaneous comments about this week’s reading. Read the rest of this entry »

There’s been a lot of discussion about virtue recently (e.g., here). And for good reason.

If you haven’t been following, here’s the skinny. In a letter to his son (Moroni), Mormon describes horrible acts being committed against the daughters of the Lamanites (Moroni 9:9). Recent events, esp. pertaining to Elizabeth Smart, bring to light the sense in which Mormon’s words are apt to perpetuate wrongheaded attitudes about chastity, rape, and “that which [is] most dear and precious” regarding (young) women.

Because this issue pertains to scripture, and because scripture is the explicit focus of this blog, and because this is such an important and serious issue, I feel compelled to say something. Actually, I want to say two things—the first without elaboration, the second with. (I’ve also included a longish footnote with some of my own thoughts about how we might think about Mormon 9:9 itself.) Read the rest of this entry »

[Thanks to Alan Goff for sending in the post below.]

Jim aptly singles out the two most important issues for discussion from these two verses: (1) what Adam’s fall means and (2) the typological relationship between Adam and Jesus. In the two translations themselves (p. 238) note that the KJV translates the Greek typos as “figure” while in Jim’s alternate translation Jim has “type.” This is handy to have the two versions for comparison Read the rest of this entry »

[Thanks to Alan Goff for the post below. Note: I've updated the intro page for this series with links to all the posts so far. Also, for the record, Alan sent this to me last Friday—tax day yesterday, some webpage editing glitches, and other weekend craziness are my (lame) excuses for not getting this posted sooner....]

I have to admit that doing commentary on a commentary is a strange literary genre that I have never taken up before. It makes me feel rabbinic. Read the rest of this entry »

Having covered the first seven verses in about 70 pages, Jim covers the next 7 verses in a mere 20 pages (give or take). This change in speed is a bit jolting, and I think it’s a nice effect: having grown accustomed to a very ponderous and leisurely pace, really savoring the flavors of the first 7 verses, it feels like we’re approach these next 7 verses fast-food style. I’m not sure if Jim planned this effect, but I’m guessing he’ll be pleased with it, especially the way it effects a yearning for slow and careful reading. Read the rest of this entry »