Romans 1:13-17 Transitions from Proem to Letter Body
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BIC Volume 09 Romans Lorin L Cranford Letter Body-01: San Angelo, TX Topic 10.3.3-10.3.3.2.1.2.3 325 703 1664 [email protected] Rom. 1:16-32 © All rights reserved Quick Links to Study 10.3.3 Letter Body, 1:16-15:33 10.3.3.2.1.1.2 Defense of Declaration, 1:19b-23 10.3.3.1 Body Opening: the Gospel, 1:16-18 10.3.3.2.1.2 God’s Response to this Rejection, 1:24-32 10.3.3.2 The Gospel as God’s Righteousness, 1:18-4:25 10.3.3.2.1.2.1 God handed them over to uncleanness, 1:24-25 10.3.3.2.1 God’s Wrath against Human Sinfulness, 1:18-32 10.3.3.2.1.2.2 God handed them over to degrading passions, 1:26-27 10.3.3.2.1.1 God’s Wrath revealed but rejected, 1:18-23 10.3.3.2.1.2.3 God handed them over to a debased mind, 1:28-32 10.3.3.2.1.1.1 Basic Declaration, 1:18-19a THEOLOGICAL AND INTERPRETIVE OBSERVATIONS 10.3.3 Letter Body, 1:16-15:33 The determination of the boundaries of the letter body are Romans 1:13-17 somewhat challenging, particularly the beginning point. The travel plans section in 15:14-32 stand as a fairly typical ancient Transitions from Proem to Letter Body letter closing section coming at the close of the letter body and Letter Body helping to transition into the Conclusio segment. But consid- 1:16-17 erable difference of opinion exists regarding the beginning of Rom. 1:16-15:32 the letter body after to Proem section. As I argued above, my conviction is that seeking to define a clear beginning point re- 1:14-15 The bridge building tendencies of Jewish scribal writing flects modern western desires for precision. And the letter writ- techniques that Paul reects becomes challenging to many ing in Paul’s world shows much less concern for such precision. modern interpreters who desire clean breaks between sec- Proem 1:13 tion A and section B. Paul’s mind and the modern interpret- Add to that Paul’s scribal Jewish training where units of thought ers’ mind do not coincide with one another at all. One more often need to be linked together by connectors of some kind, Rom. 1:8-15 example of the dierence between then (Paul’s 1st century and one thus encounters a situation like in Rom. 1:13-17 where Praescriptio way of thinking) and now (modern western based thinking). small internal units form a transition from the Proem to the letter True exegesis is building understanding bridges between the two. Not imposing the now down on to the then. body as reflected in the ve chart. Rom. 1:1-7 Grammatically, the causal γὰρ conjunction repeated for both sentences in vv. 16-17 link this unit of text back to vv. 14- Page 1 15 as a conceptual how important for interpretation is the structural arrangement of ideas in foundation for the the biblical text. axiomatic principle What can be said then about any structural arrangement of ideas in of Paul’s sense of 1:18-5:13? First, let it be said that in Romans, more so than any other Pau- 1:8-12 ==> 1:13 ==> 1:14-15 ==> 1:16-17 indebtedness. But line letter, a traceable progression of thought surfaces from careful analy- also clearly, vv. 14-15 provide a conceptual basis for vv. 8-13. His prayer sis. It doesn’t fit any kind of western outline using a I., II., II kind of pattern. requests along with repeated earlier attempts to travel to Rome reflect his Thinking in any of the first century cultures that Paul had exposure to sim- thanksgiving for the witness of the Roman Christians. But all of this emerg- ply does not follow this kind of logic. es out of his sense of divine calling to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. What we do encounter is the core concepts in 1:16-17 providing a Now in vv. 16-17 that sense of divine calling to preach the Gospel rests on launch pad for a large number of expansions stitched together very loose- the basis of what that Gospel message is and the pride in it that Paul pos- ly, and sometimes incoherently, over the remainder of the letter body. One sesses. Additionally, vv. 16-17 serve to set up the discussion of the Gospel should know that the four listings below under the general caption The that encompasses the rest of the letter body down through 15:33. So just Gospel as... will bunch together often more than one of these launch pad like a linked chain, each of the small units leads to the next unit in vv. 8-17. topics for the sake of keeping the posted units of commentary relatively The precise structure of 1:18-15:13 is also debated among modern equal in size. This periodic ‘spurting out’ of a new topic can drive a modern scholars. For most of the modern era until the last few decades, the older reader up the wall in trying to follow the apostle, simply because we crave dual division of doctrine (1:18-11:36) and practical (12:1-15:13) has dom- logical, smooth progression from section to section. And we’re not going to inated the understanding. Although highly questionable literarily, the influ- get that in the original Paul. For that pseudo-Paul you have to turn to many ence of this perspective has been enormous. Earlier commentators have of the post-enlightenment commentaries on Romans where what you actu- tried to make this twofold structure a template for virtually all of Paul’s let- ally get is the distorted thinking of the commentator, not Paul. My objective ters -- something utterly false and misleading. But beyond this the impact for this commentary is to explain to the best of my ability the original Paul of this twofold structure on theological training in seminaries and divinity and then seek to connect him up to modern thinking in the clearest manner schools for the past four hundred or so years is seen in the dividing of de- possible.1 Only then can the actual voice of Paul flow through this text into gree curriculum into a twofold division of ‘classical’ and ‘practical.’ Out of our Christian experience today. And it is solely through that authentic voice this has often come a priority on the classical / doctrinal over the practical. of Paul that the voice of God flows in inspiration to us today. To be sure distinct directions can be easily seen between theological edu- cation in North America and in Europe and the UK. But the dual structure is 10.3.3.1 Body Opening: the Gospel, 1:16-18 foundational to both sets of traditions. The so-called Practical Theological 16 Οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν studies has generally struggled to gain recognition and anything close to παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι. 17 δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν equal standing with the so-called classical studies side. Such impact sub- αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, καθὼς γέγραπται· ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ sequently shows up in much of church life where how one behaves is not πίστεως ζήσεται. nearly as important as what one believes. Of course, the clear teaching of 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation the New Testament flatly denies and condemns such understanding, as is to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the seen in Jas. 2:14-16; Mat. 7:22-25 et als. Amazingly, the beginning root of righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “The one all of this lies in this very questionable early modern viewing of the struc- who is righteous will live by faith.” tural contents of the letter body of Romans. This should be a reminder of The internal structure of this pericope is clear from the above diagram. 1The many proposals made in recent times by commentators with orientation toward the literary side of ancient texts are interesting and often helpful, but most seem to impose too much of some modern methodology onto the text for the analysis. More balance in the methodology used is needed. This seems to be especially problematic for American commentators with a penchant for fadism. Thankfully not all are so oriented. From my observation, the more familiar the commentator is with literary patterns in the ancient world, along with ways of thinking in that world, the better the insights of the commentator. Page 2 Letter Body: θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν, ἀμήν. And may the 1.16 γὰρ God of peace be with all of you, amen. Do you desire to 8 Οὐ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, know the meaning of τὸ εὐαγγέλιον? Rom. 1:18-15:33 γὰρ gives you the most detailed explanation anywhere 9 δύναμις θεοῦ ἐστιν inside the NT. And this explanation is summarized in εἰς σωτηρίαν Rom. 1:1b-6 in anticipation of the letter body. παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, Each of the three declarations needs to be carefully Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον examined since this pericope plays such a pivotal role καὶ Ἕλληνι.