Paul's Gospel in Romans. A Discourse Analysis of Rom 1.16–8.39 (Linguistic Biblical Studies, Vol. 3)

Paul’s Gospel in Romans Linguistic Biblical Studies Series Editor Stanley E. Porter Professor of New Testament at Mc...

Author: Jae Hyun Lee

196 downloads 1069 Views 6MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Paul’s Gospel in Romans

Linguistic Biblical Studies Series Editor

Stanley E. Porter Professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College Hamilton, Ontario

VOLUME 3

This series, Linguistic Biblical Studies, is dedicated to the development and promotion of linguistically informed study of the Bible in its original languages. Biblical studies has greatly benefited from modern theoretical and applied linguistics, but stands poised to benefit from further integration of the two fields of study. Most linguistics has studied contemporary languages, and attempts to apply linguistic methods to study of ancient languages requires systematic re-assessment of their approaches. This series is designed to address such challenges, by providing a venue for linguistically based analysis of the languages of the Bible. As a result, monograph-length studies and collections of essays in the major areas of linguistics, such as syntax, semantics, pragmatics, discourse analysis and text linguistics, corpus linguistics, cognitive linguistics, comparative linguistics, and the like, will be encouraged, and any theoretical linguistic approach will be considered, both formal and functional. Primary consideration is given to the Greek of the New and Old Testaments and of other relevant ancient authors, but studies in Hebrew, Coptic, and other related languages will be entertained as appropriate.

Paul’s Gospel in Romans A Discourse Analysis of Rom 1:16–8:39

By

Jae Hyun Lee

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2010

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lee, Jae Hyun. Paul’s gospel in Romans : a discourse analysis of Rom 1:16–8:39 / by Jae Hyun Lee. p. cm. — (Linguistic biblical studies, ISSN 1877-7554 ; v. 3) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17963-9 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. N.T. Romans I, 16-VIII, 39—Language, style. 2. Greek language, Biblical—Discourse analysis. 3. Bible. N.T. Romans I, 16-VIII, 39—Theology. I. Title. BS2665.52.L44 2010 227’.1066—dc22 2009049474

ISSN 1877–7554 ISBN 978 90 04 17963 9 Copyright 2010 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS Preface ................................................................................................... xiii Abbreviations ....................................................................................... xv Chapter One Toward a Proper Reading for Identifying the Heart of Paul’s Thought in Rom 1:16–8:39 ................................ Introduction .......................................................................................... Various readings of Romans ............................................................. Social-scientific reading .................................................................. Intertextual reading ......................................................................... Narrative reading ............................................................................. Rhetorical reading ........................................................................... Linguistic discourse reading .......................................................... Conclusion ............................................................................................ Chapter Two Methodology ............................................................. Introduction to discourse analysis .................................................... What is discourse analysis? ........................................................... Some characteristics of discourse analysis .................................. Consideration of the whole process of communication ...... Consideration of context as a significant factor for understanding discourse ........................................................ Consideration of the level beyond the sentence .................... Sequentiality and hierarchy ....................................................... A proposed analytical method .......................................................... Grouping ........................................................................................... Overall scheme ............................................................................ Criteria for determining discourse units ................................ External criteria: Boundary markers ................................... Internal criteria: cohesion and coherence .......................... Conclusion ................................................................................... Topicality .......................................................................................... How should one approach the topic? ..................................... Information structure ................................................................. An analytical frame for topicality ............................................ Ideational meaning ................................................................. Interpersonal meaning ........................................................... Textual meaning .....................................................................

1 1 3 4 7 12 17 22 23 25 25 25 26 26 27 29 30 33 33 33 34 35 40 49 51 51 51 54 54 57 59

vi

contents Focality ............................................................................................ Focality and prominence ......................................................... Degrees of information and linguistic features ................... Various linguistic devices for prominence ........................... Prominence features within the sentence level ............... Prominence features beyond the sentence level .............. Conclusion: Synthesis of grouping, topicality, and focality ...

61 61 62 67 68 80 84

Chapter Three Rom 1:16–17: Gospel as God’s Power for Salvation to all Believers .............................................................. Text analysis of Rom 1:16–17 .......................................................... Topicality ............................................................................................. Analysis of structure ..................................................................... Analysis of semantic domains ..................................................... Analysis of logical relations ......................................................... Focality ................................................................................................ Grouping ............................................................................................. External evidence .......................................................................... Internal evidence ........................................................................... Summary .............................................................................................

87 88 89 89 90 92 96 97 97 97 98

Chapter Four Rom 1:18–2:11: Universal Sinfulness of Humans and God’s Impartial Judgment ................................... Rom 1:18–32: The revelation of God’s wrath against all sinful humans ............................................................................ Rom 1:18–23: God’s wrath as a response to human sinfulness ................................................................................ Text analysis of Rom 1:18–23 ............................................ Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Rom 1:24–27: God’s wrathful response to the behavioral dimension of human sinfulness ......................................... Text analysis of Rom 1:24–27 ............................................ Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................

99 101 103 103 104 109 111 113 114 114 115 119 120 122

contents Rom 1:28–32: God’s wrathful response to the cognitive dimension of human sinfulness ......................................... Text analysis of Rom 1:28–32 ............................................ Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Rom 2:1–11: Inexcusable sinful situation of humans from God’s impartial judgment ........................................................ Rom 2:1–5: Inexcusable sinful situation of ‘you’ ................ Text analysis of Rom 2:1–5 ................................................. Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Rom 2:6–11: God’s impartial judgment according to human works ......................................................................... Text analysis of Rom 2:6–11 .............................................. Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Conclusion ...................................................................................... Chapter Five Rom 2:12–3:20: God’s Righteous Judgment and the Sinful Jews Who are Under the Law ........................... Rom 2:12–29: The law and the sinfulness of Jews ................... Rom 2:12–16: The law and God’s impartial judgment ...... Text analysis of Rom 2:12–16 ............................................ Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Rom 2:17–24: The law and the hypocrisy of the Jews ........ Text analysis of Rom 2:17–24 ............................................ Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................

vii

123 123 124 126 127 128 129 129 129 130 138 139 140 141 141 142 147 149 150 151

155 156 156 156 157 164 165 166 167 167 168 173 174 175

viii

contents

Rom 2:25–29: The law and the true symbol of Jewish identity .................................................................................... Text analysis of Rom 2:25–29 ............................................ Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Rom 3:1–20: Objections and Rejections with regard to Jewish sinfulness and God’s judgment .................................. Rom 3:1–8: Jewish sinfulness and the righteous judgment of God ..................................................................................... Text analysis of Rom 3:1–8 ................................................. Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Rom 3:9–20: Universal sinfulness of humans including Jews and Gentiles .................................................................. Text analysis of Rom 3:9–20 .............................................. Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Conclusion ...................................................................................... Chapter Six Rom 3:21–4:25: God’s Righteousness Through Human Faith: A New Salvific Interactive Paradigm ............... Rom 3:21–31: A revelation of a new salvific interactive paradigm: God’s righteousness by faith in Jesus ................. Rom 3:21–26: The theocentric description of a new salvific interactive paradigm: God’s initiative through Jesus and human response by faith ................................... Text analysis of Rom 3:21–26 ............................................ Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Rom 3:27–31: The importance of faith ................................. Text analysis of Rom 3:27–31 ............................................

176 176 177 182 183 184 185 185 185 187 193 195 196 198 198 200 206 207 209 210

213 216

216 216 217 227 229 230 231 231

contents Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Rom 4:1–25: Abraham as an exemplar of justification by faith to all humans .................................................................... Rom 4:1–8: Faith and God’s justifying grace to sinners .... Text analysis of Rom 4:1–8 ................................................. Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Rom 4:9–12: Superiority of faith to circumcision ............... Text analysis of Rom 4:9–12 .............................................. Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Rom 4:13–25: Faith and the fulfillment of God’s promise Text analysis of Rom 4:13–25 ............................................ Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Conclusion ...................................................................................... Chapter Seven Romans 5: Jesus as the Center of God’s Salvific Process and its Result ..................................................... Rom 5:1–11: Jesus and the overall salvific interactive paradigm between God and humans .................................... Text analysis of Rom 5:1–11 ................................................... Topicality .................................................................................... Focality ........................................................................................ Grouping .................................................................................... Summary .................................................................................... Rom 5:12–21: Jesus as the center of transferring salvation from the realm of sin to that of grace ................................... Text analysis of Rom 5:12–21 ................................................. Topicality ....................................................................................

ix 232 237 237 239 240 240 240 242 247 248 249 250 250 251 254 255 256 257 257 259 266 267 268 270

273 274 274 276 287 288 289 291 291 293

x

contents Focality ........................................................................................ Grouping .................................................................................... Summary .................................................................................... Conclusion ......................................................................................

Chapter Eight Rom 6:1–7:25: The New Interactional Paradigm in the New Salvific Realm ......................................... Rom 6:1–7:6: A new interactive paradigm between God and humans in the new salvific realm .......................................... Rom 6:1–14: Believers’ union with Jesus’ death and resurrection and their new life ........................................... Text analysis of Rom 6:1–14 .............................................. Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Rom 6:15–7:6: Sin, the law, and a new life in the new salvific realm .......................................................................... Text analysis of Rom 6:15–7:6 ........................................... Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Rom 7:7–25: Sin as the core reason of the human problem, and the relationship among the law, sin, and the unregenerate person ................................................................. Rom 7:7–12: Interrelationship among the law, sin, and the ‘I’ ....................................................................................... Text analysis of Rom 7:7–12 .............................................. Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Rom 7:13–25: The tyrant power of sin and the vulnerable ‘I’ .......................................................................... Text analysis of Rom 7:13–25 ............................................ Topicality ............................................................................... Focality ................................................................................... Grouping ................................................................................ Summary ................................................................................ Conclusion ......................................................................................

303 304 306 307

309 310 310 310 313 321 322 324 329 329 329 341 342 343

346 346 346 346 357 358 360 361 361 364 373 376 378 378

contents Chapter Nine Rom 8:1–39: The Holy Spirit and Believers in God’s Salvation ......................................................................... Rom 8:1–17: The Holy Spirit and believers’ new identity and life in the new realm ......................................................... Text analysis of Rom 8:1–17 ................................................... Topicality .................................................................................... Focality ........................................................................................ Grouping .................................................................................... Summary .................................................................................... Rom 8:18–30: The hope of future salvation and the present aids of the Holy Spirit and God ............................................. Text analysis of Rom 8:18–30 ................................................. Topicality .................................................................................... Focality ........................................................................................ Grouping .................................................................................... Summary .................................................................................... Rom 8:31–39: Assurance of God’s salvation ............................ Text analysis of Rom 8:31–39 ................................................. Topicality .................................................................................... Focality ........................................................................................ Grouping .................................................................................... Summary .................................................................................... Conclusion ...................................................................................... Chapter Ten Toward a Peak(s) of Paul’s Gospel in Romans: Summary and Conclusion ........................................................... Contour of Paul’s gospel in Rom 1:16–8:39 ................................. A description of salvation through an interactive framework The interactive paradigm between human sinfulness and God’s wrathful judgment .................................................... The interaction between human faith and God’s salvation A description of salvation through a contrast of two realms The relationship between interactive and two-realm frameworks ............................................................................ Some characteristics of the two-realm framework .............. Toward the peak point(s) of Paul’s gospel in Rom 1:16–8:39 ... Conclusion .......................................................................................... Appendix I Analysis of Rom 1:16–8:39 According to the Frame of Topicality .......................................................................

xi

383 384 384 387 397 400 401 403 403 405 414 415 416 418 418 419 425 426 427 427

431 431 431 432 433 435 435 436 440 443

445

xii

contents

Appendix II Analysis of Rom 1:16–8:39 According to Semantic Domains ........................................................................

503

Bibliography ........................................................................................

547

Index of Authors ................................................................................ Index of References ...........................................................................

563 567

PREFACE This study is a linguistic discourse analysis of Paul’s gospels in Rom 1:16–8:39. The major objective is to answer the following three questions: Where is Paul’s central point(s) or peak(s) in Rom 1:16–8:39? What is the content of the peak point(s)? And how can one identify the central point(s)? In order to investigate Paul’s arguments, this study suggests a discourse analytic methodology principally based on the Hallidayan systemic-functional model. With the premise that a discourse unit is a topical unity, this methodology regards a ‘subunit,’ which is often called a paragraph, as the basic analyzing unit, and proposes to examine the external boundary markers and internal unity in order to determine the boundary of each discourse unit. In addition, the concepts of topicality and focality are introduced as a way to identify the topic of each unit. The analysis of topicality covers the areas of (1) the structure, including topical participants, (2) semantic domains, and (3) logical relations. Focality is related to the vertical emphasis placed in the horizontal flow of a discourse. Yet, with regard to the topic of a discourse unit, this study especially focuses on how the emphatic expressions work to stress the topical issues in each discourse unit (sub-unit). Based on this methodology, this study analyzes Rom 1:16–8:39 by grouping Paul’s arguments into various discourse units (sub-units, units, and sections), and identifying the topical issues and topic of each unit. As a result, this study concludes that Paul’s arguments in Rom 1:16–8:39 are delivered by two descriptive frameworks: (1) interactive framework between God and humans; and (2) two-realm framework. According to these frameworks, his gospel about God’s salvation has one peak point (Romans 5), which shows the central role of Jesus and its result in God’s salvation, and two subpeaks (Rom 3:21–26 and Romans 8), which elucidate salvation with the stress on the role of God and the Holy Spirit. This work is a revision of my dissertation at McMaster Divinity College. Even though I wrote this work, the product is not my own because it is an outcome of countless tears, sweat, and prayers of those who support me. I wish to thank Dr. Stanley E. Porter and Dr. Cynthia Westfall, for their many excellent suggestions and diligent attention to their task of guiding me through to the completion of my dissertation.

xiv

preface

Especially, Dr. Porter has always stood behind and encouraged me in my study at McMaster Divinity College for seven years. I am grateful to my family in Korea: Hoo Yul Lee (father), Soon Haeng Cho (mother), In Soon Lee (mother-in-law), Hyun Duk Lee (brother) and his family, Joo Ok (sister-in-law) and her family, and four other sisters-in-law and their families. They always loved us, and provided financial support when I lived in Canada. I also owe many thanks to a senior pastor Myeon Kyu Lee and the members of Hamilton Korean Immanuel Dream Church. They always prayed for me and anticipated this work. I would like to express my deep gratitude to deacons Dong Joo Park, Young Hae Shim, and Sun Im Kang. They always showed Christian love to my family. Actually, they are our new parents in Canada. Special thanks go to my wife So Young Kim and two daughters Soo Bin and Eun Bin (Carroll). They have endured the entire journey with me. It is to them that I owe the most.

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD AC AnBib ANTC ATANT

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Acta Classica Analecta Biblica Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bib Biblica BibInt Biblical Interpretation BibIntSer Biblical Interpretation Series BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester BLG Biblical Languages: Greek BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CCC College Composition and Communication CurBS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies EDNT H. Balz and G. Schneider (eds.), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 3 vols., 1990–1993 EFN Estudios de Filología Neotestamentaria EKKNT Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament ETS Studies Evangelical Theological Society Studies ExpTim Expository Times FN Filología Neotestamentaria FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments HNTC Harper’s New Testament Commentaries HDR Harvard Dissertations in Religion HTR Harvard Theological Review IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching

xvi

abbreviations

IBR Institute for Biblical Research ICC International Critical Commentary Int Interpretation JB Jerusalem Bible JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JGRChJ Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism JL Journal of Linguistics JPTS Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series JTC Journal for Theology and the Church JTS Journal of Theological Studies JTSA Journal of Theology for Southern Africa KJV King James Version KNT Kommentar zum Neuen Testament LEC Library of Early Christianity LLC Literary and Linguistic Computing LNTS Library of New Testament Studies LS Louvain Studies LTPM Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs LXX Septuagint MeyerK Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament MNTC Moffatt New Testament Commentary MNTS McMaster New Testament Series MSS Manuscripts MTS Marburg Theologisch Studien NA26/27 Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, 26/27th ed. NAC New American Commentary NASB New American Standard Bible NCB New Century Bible NEB New English Bible Neot Neotestamentica NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

abbreviations NIV NJB NLT NovT NovTSup NRSV NSBT NTS PFES PNTC REB RelS RSV RTR SEÅ SB SBG SBLDS SBLSBS SJT SNTSMS SP ST StBL TEV TJ TDNT

TLZ TNIV TNTC TPINTC TU TZ UBS3/4 UNT WBC

xvii

New International Version The New Jerusalem Bible New Living Translation Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum Supplements New Revised Standard Version New Studies in Biblical Theology New Testament Studies Publications of the Finish Exegetical Society Pillar New Testament Commentary Revised English Bible Religious Studies Revised Standard Version Reformed Theological Review Svensk exegetisk årsbok Studia Biblica Studies in Biblical Greek Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monographs Series Sacra Pagina Studia theologica Studies in Biblical Literature Today’s English Version Trinity Journal G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. trans. G.W. Bromiley. 10 vols., 1964–76 Theologische Literaturzeitung Today’s New International Version Tyndale New Testament Commentaries TPI New Testament Commentaries Texte und Untersuchungen Theologische Zeitschrift The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 3rd/4th ed. Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Word Biblical Commentary

xviii WUNT WTJ ZNW

abbreviations Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren

CHAPTER ONE

TOWARD A PROPER READING FOR IDENTIFYING THE HEART OF PAUL’S THOUGHT IN ROM 1:168:39 I. Introduction Throughout history, Romans has been regarded as a theological treasure of the Bible, and various theological motifs have been found and studied according to issues in the history of interpretation. According to Graydon F. Snyder, at least sixteen major motifs have been identified in the history of interpretation of Romans: faith and works, Christology, church and state, grace and the justice of God, grace and free will (Augustine), the power of the state, justification by faith (M. Luther), the historical purpose of Romans, eschatology, God’s promise thwarted, universal toleration, the word of God (Karl Barth), existence as eschatology (Rudolf Bultmann), agape (Anders Nygren), and the New Perspective.1 These themes could be grouped under certain theological categories. For example, J.A. Fitzmyer suggests five categories to organize forty-one theological themes in Romans: (1) theology proper, or Pauline teaching about God; (2) christology, or teaching about Jesus Christ and his role in God’s salvific plan; (3) pneumatology, or teaching about the Holy Spirit; (4) anthropology, or teaching about human beings with and without the influence of Christ; and (5) Christian conduct, or teaching about the call of humanity to Spirit-guided existence.2 1 Graydon F. Snyder, “Major Motifs in the Interpretation of Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” in Sheila E. McGinn (ed.) Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 42–63. 2 His categorization is (1) about God: God, the love of God, uprightness (or righteousness) of God, the wrath of God, divine plan of salvation, the Old Testament, and God’s gospel; (2) christology: Jesus Christ, names and titles used of Jesus in Romans (Jesus, Christ, the Lord, the son, God), the role ascribed to Jesus in Romans and the effects of the Christ-event; (3) pneumatology: the Spirit and grace; (4) anthropology: body, flesh, soul, spirit, mind, heart, conscience, humanity, Gentiles, Jews, the law, sin, humanity in Christ, faith, love/charity, hope, baptism, body of Christ and church; and (5) Christian conduct: in Christ, prayer, Christian conduct and attitude about civil authority (J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 103–72).

2

chapter one

It is certain that these issues have been important to readers. However, as far as Paul, the author, is concerned, some important questions should be raised. Did Paul want the reader to catch all the implied theological messages when he wrote Romans? Or did he intend to give all of the theological issues in Romans the same degree of importance? Mὴ γένοιτο (“may it never be”), since Paul did not write a systematic textbook, nor just enumerate all the theological themes. Instead, he wrote a letter that was used to deliver the author’s intention to a specific audience. Thus, reading Romans as the source for a theological encyclopedia is misleading with respect to Paul’s intention.3 Moreover, it is also naive to believe that when Paul wrote Romans, he treated all of the above theological themes with the same degree of importance. Even though the above theological themes are important, it is fully possible for Paul to stress certain theme(s) more than others according to various factors, such as the situation of the audience, Paul’s interest, etc. That is, borrowing J.C. Beker’s concept of contingency and coherence,4 Paul’s emphasis on the theological themes could be different in accordance with the contingency of Paul and his audience. If, then, Paul did not mention every theological issue with the same emphasis, are there degrees of stress in his theological teachings? If there are, what are the relations among the theological issues? These questions also serve as the key to understand two other scholarly debated issues, such as the ‘center’ in Pauline theology5 and the purpose of Romans.6 Whatever the center and purpose of Romans are,

3 Schreiner says that “The danger of reading Paul’s letters as systematic treatises is that one might conclude too much from reading only one letter” (T.R. Schreiner, Interpreting Pauline Epistles [Grand Rapids: Baker book, 1990], 42). 4 J.C. Beker, Paul, the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 11–15. 5 For the debate on the central theme of Paul’s thought, see R.P. Martin, “Center of Paul’s Theology,” in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid (eds.) Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 92–95; T.R. Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 16–19; L.M. McDonald and S.E. Porter, Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), 352–65. 6 For the general survey on the purpose of Romans, see L.A. Jervis, The Purpose of Romans: A Comparative Letter Structure Investigation (JSNTSup 55; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 11–28; A.J. Guerra, Romans and the Apologetic Tradition: The Purpose, Genre and Audience of Paul’s Letter (SNTSMS 81; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 22–42; James C. Miller, “The Romans Debate: 1991–2001,” CurBS 9 (2001), 306–49; and for the bibliography on this issue see Fitzmyer, Romans, 80–84.

toward a proper reading

3

however, the most important question that should be asked is how one can determine the author’s intention, including the main and subsidiary emphases, in Romans. This question includes two other related questions: how can we discern where Paul’s central point(s) is and what the content of that point(s) is? These three important questions help us to move from certain theological themes to the dimension of reading a text per se: how are we to read Romans in order to discern the author’s intention or theological emphasis? II. Various readings of Romans As far as the reading of Romans is concerned, two renowned New Testament scholars suggested their own approaches to understanding Paul’s letter at the annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1992 and 1993. N.T. Wright, one of the two, insists that Pauline letters should be understood within the larger framework of the worldview of first-century Judaism. He focuses on Paul’s ‘symbolic world’ or ‘narrative framework,’ which allows Paul to express his theological agenda in his letters. He suggests that the central matrix of his thought is the realization that “what the creator/covenant god was supposed to do for Israel at the end of history, this god had done for Jesus in the middle of history.”7 His approach could be defined as ‘outside-into,’ a reading of text through the lens of context. On the other hand, another scholar, Leander E. Keck, insists that Romans should be interpreted according to the “inner logic” of the book. He points out that various devices of historical criticism reflect diverse agendas and sensibilities. Sometimes these diverse readings make the reader “not only hear Romans beat differently but inescapably listen for what matters to us, assuming that it mattered equally to Paul.”8 He advises that one should approach Paul’s letter according to its own logical integrity. So, his approach could be understood as ‘within the text.’

7 N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” in D.M. Hay and E.E. Johnson (eds.) Pauline Theology: Volume III: Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 32–34. For his detailed understanding of first-century Judaism, see N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), chapters 3 and 5. 8 L.E. Keck, “What Makes Romans Tick?,” in D.M. Hay and E.E. Johnson (eds.) Pauline Theology Volume III: Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 29.

4

chapter one

The above two approaches seem to be representative of both ends of the interpretive spectrum: at the one end, the context is focused upon; and at the other end, only the inner logic of a text is emphasized. Usually most interpretations of the biblical text are located somewhere between these two extremes, considering both context and textual elements. Within the continuum of these two ends, at least five kinds of reading have been suggested in the area of Pauline studies. 1. Social-scientific reading The first one is a social-scientific reading. As a recent approach, this reading is highly interested in the socio-cultural background that is thought to be behind the text.9 The basic premise of this reading is that Romans is not a timeless theological treatise, but deeply related to its original socio-religious setting in the first century. Based upon this premise, this reading uses various modern social-scientific models as interpretative frameworks for identifying Paul’s theology or purpose. One example of this reading is shown in P.F. Elser’s recent monograph.10 His fundamental frame of reference is the conflict among ethnic groups, which is regarded as a universal phenomenon in human society. According to him, there were a number of ethnic groups in the ancient Mediterranean world in the mid-first century.11 With regard to the Romans, he assumes that the conflict among the Christ-movement (Christianity) in Rome is the crucial occasion in Paul’s writing. He suggests that the cause of the conflict is twofold: one was a domestic factor and the other was an ethnic factor. 9

For the general introduction on this reading and biblical references, see S.C. Barton, “Social-Scientific Approaches to Paul,” in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid (eds.) Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 892–900; idem, “Social-Scientific Criticism,” in Stanley E. Porter (ed.) A Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 277–89; M.A. Seifrid and R.K.J. Tan, The Pauline Writings: An Annotated Bibliography (IBR 9; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 51–57. 10 Conflict and Identity in Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003). 11 According to Hutchison and Smith, there are six common features in identifying an ethnic group: (1) a common proper name to identify the group; (2) a myth of common ancestry; (3) a shared history or shared memories of a common past, including heroes, events and their commemoration; (4) a common culture, embracing such things as a customs, language, and religion; (5) a link with a homeland, either through actual occupation or by symbolic attachment to the ancestral land, as with diaspora people; and (6) a sense of communal solidarity (John Hutchison and Anthony D. Smith, “Introduction,” in John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (eds.) Ethnicity [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996], 6–7). Cited from Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 43–44.

toward a proper reading

5

As to the domestic factor, Esler argues that there is a tension among house churches in Rome. He believes that in light of the architectural evidence, the Christ-movement in Rome had already established a separate community from the “Judeans group” (Ἰουδαῖοι), when Paul wrote this letter. That is, the evidence shows that while Judeans gathered in specific public places, προσευχαί (“prayer halls”), Christ-followers used a house as a meeting place. As a result, it is possible for Christfollowers to have their own identity and unity against Judeans.12 Esler also insists that it is probable that there were some conflicts among the groups of the Christ-movement. Since the community of the Christmovement was based on different house churches, the competition or even conflict within the Christ-movement was possible in the milieu that “houses and households played a central role in the pursuit of honor” and the interactions between families often moved toward a competition or conflict.13 Moreover, Esler thinks that ethnic factors also contributed to the conflict within the Christ-movement in Rome. Admitting C.D. Stanley’s argument on the ethnic conflict between Judeans and Greeks in Greco-Roman society,14 Esler thinks that it is not difficult to imagine that ethnic groups in the Christ-movement (Judean and non-Judean [Greek]) reflect “the wider animosity between Judeans and Greeks that had fomented frequent outbreaks of violence between the two groups by the time Romans was written, and would continue to do so thereafter.”15 And he provides Rom 16:17–20 as evidence of the conflict within the Christ-movement in Rome.16 With the above presumed situation, Esler asserts that the purpose of Romans is that “Paul seeks to reconcile Judeans and Greeks by 12

Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 102–107. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 124. He described the competitive mood at that time as that “Rome was a city where the competitive interaction between persons and groups in the pursuit of honor characteristic (then and now) of Mediterranean culture had assumed a particularly florid shape in the inimicitiae, the publicly announced hostilities between members of the elite, the inception of which was signaled by the men concerned barring one another from their homes. Just as the house of a member of the elite was the venue in which he maintained his relationship of amicitia with friends and clients, paraded his wealth and honor, and may displays of benevolence, so too it could become his headquarters and supply base in the ongoing battle for honor and position, a place from which his enemies were banned as long as hostilities should last” (Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 108). 14 C.D. Stanley, “ ‘Neither Jew Nor Greek’: Ethnic Conflict in Graeco-Roman Society,” JSNT 64 (1996), 101–24. 15 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 124. 16 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 125–28. 13

6

chapter one

reminding them of the new common ingroup identity that they share” by “attempting to exercise leadership over them.”17 His conclusion is summarized as below: In relation to Romans, I argue that central to Paul’s communicative purpose is to strengthen the social identity that his addresses in Rome gain from belonging to the Christ-movement, particularly by emphasizing its supremacy over other identities, ethnic especially, on offer. To this extent his activity can be construed as an attempt to exercise leadership over groups of Christ-followers in Rome, torn by division related at least in part to their ethnic status as either Judeans or Greeks, in order to influence his audiences in a manner that is likely to enhance their contribution to the enhancement of group goals. This is not Paul’s only purpose in the letter, but it is a vital one.18

This reading is very attractive in that, instead of treating Romans as an a-historical theological treatise, it helps to see Romans as an outcome of the communicative interaction between some situational contexts and Paul’s response. However, this reading has some shortcomings in order to be the primary reading in determining the central point of a letter. The first and major shortcoming is that the point of departure of this reading is not the text itself, but an assumed situational context and a theoretical model. The understanding of the text could be different according to the hypothetical situation of a text, because the basic process of this reading is that after reconstructing the situational context, the text is explained according to the suitable framework of the modern social-scientific model. For example, as to the relation between Christianity and Judaism in Rome, Francis Watson insists that both were totally separated in the mid-first century.19 However, Esler thinks that there were some relations between Judeans and the Christ-movement, even though the Christian community has their own group identity.20 Thus, the outcome of this reading of Romans is very different. Watson argues that Paul’s intention is to “legitimate

17

Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 133. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 12. 19 Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach (SNTSMS 56; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 94–105; idem, “The Two Roman Congregations: Romans 14:1–15:13,” in K.P. Donfried (ed.) The Romans Debate (2nd ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 203–15. 20 Nanos claims that Christian community in Rome still belonged to the Jewish synagogue (M.D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996], 41–84, esp. 68, 84). 18

toward a proper reading

7

the social reality of sectarian Gentile Christian communities in which the law was not observed” by persuading “the Jewish Christians to recognize the legitimacy of the Gentile congregation and to join with it in worship, even though this would inevitably mean a final separation from the synagogue.”21 However, Esler insists that Paul’s purpose is to reconcile the conflict in the Christ-movement in Rome by calling to mind a new common identity. Thus, the serious problem of this social-scientific reading is that it is not easy to draw an exact situational picture of a text. Consequently, it is possible for this reading to manipulate the message of the text by putting conjectural information regarding the situational context into a text. The second problem of this reading is the use of the modern socialscientific model as an interpretative framework of a text. For example, Esler states that “. . . the interpretation offered here is shaped by a particular theoretical framework that, although derived from the social sciences, incorporates a strong interest in the ‘theological’ dimension of this text.”22 Thus, in order to determine Paul’s emphasis in Romans, the social-scientific reading depends on the solidness of the theoretical framework, and on the relevance among a text, hypothetical situation and an established theoretical framework. Consequently, as in the case of the first problem, this reading has a possibility of leading the reader in the wrong direction. Moreover, even if the situational context is clear and the theoretical framework is solid, the social-scientific reading needs another kind of approach in order to determine Paul’s emphasis or central point in the actual reading of a text. This is because the primary focus of the modern social-scientific model is not to analyze a text, but to explain social phenomena, which could be related to the situational context of a text. Consequently, because of the fact that the social-scientific reading does not start from the text itself, but from a hypothetical situation and theoretical model, this reading cannot be the primary reading for determining Paul’s intention or central point. 2. Intertextual reading The second approach is reading Romans through intertextuality. In many ways, this reading is related to what N.T. Wright suggests above. 21 22

Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 178. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 18.

8

chapter one

The basic presupposition of this approach is that since Paul, a Jew, was saturated with the thought of the OT, his theology or intention can be detected by the study of intertextual evidence.23 The intertextual evidence includes not only apparent citations, but also various allusions or ‘echoes’ of the OT and non-canonical Jewish writings.24 It is R.B. Hays who introduces this concept of intertextual echoes into the field of NT studies. He insists that since there is a “common sense” in hermeneutics, through which both ancient and modern readers can share a common sense of the meaning of a text, modern readers can hear the intertextual echoes that Paul heard.25 Thus, according to him, if modern readers know Paul’s historical situation and read the same scripture that Paul did, then they can hear the same echoes that Paul heard about two thousand years ago. Recent trends of this reading suggest that the role of intertextual evidence is not limited to giving hints for the understanding of Paul’s local arguments, but includes providing crucial clues for establishing his overall theological scheme or flow of argument. One of the vigorous supporters of this view is N.T. Wright. He claims that, I suggest that Paul saw scripture as story and as prophecy, not in the abstract sense of mere typological prefigurement between one event and another, according to which in principle the two events could stand in any chronological relation to each other, but in the sense of a very specific story functioning in a very specific way.26

23 The outcome of this reading is numerous. For the bibliographical references, see Craig A. Evans, “ ‘It is Not as though the Word of God had Failed’: An Introduction to Paul and the Scriptures of Israel,” in C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders (eds.) Paul and the Scripture of Israel (JSNTSup 83; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 13–14 nn. 1, 2; M. Silva, “Old Testament in Paul,” in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin, and D.G. Reid (eds.) Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 642; M.A. Seifrid and R.K.J. Tan, “Paul and the Old Testament,” in The Pauline Writings: An Annotated Bibliography, 105–108. 24 Following John Hollander’s notion of echo (John Hollander, The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981], 64), Hays explains that allusion indicates obvious intertextual references which contain authorial intention, and an echo is “a metaphor of, and for, alluding, and does not depend on conscious intention” (R.B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989], 29). 25 Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 27–28. For a critical survey of Hays’s ‘echoes,’ see Kenneth D. Litwak, “Echoes of Scripture? A Critical Survey of Recent Works on Paul’s Use of the Old Testament,” CurBS 6 (1998), 260–88. 26 N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 264. Emphasis his. Similar approach is found in F. Thielman, “The Story of Israel and the

toward a proper reading

9

However, regarding the thematic question of how one can determine Paul’s peak(s) or central point(s), this sort of reading cannot be a holistic reading, nor a primary tool for at least two reasons. One is relevant to its methodological limitation and the other to the role of intertexual evidence. As far as the methodological limitation is concerned, the first problem of this reading is the vagueness in defining the intertextual allusions or echoes. Hays provides seven criteria for catching the echoes of the OT: availability, volume, recurrence, thematic coherence, historical plausibility, history of interpretation, and satisfaction.27 Availability is related to the question of whether the source of the echoes was available to the author and/or original readers. The basic premise of this criterion is that because Paul and his readers knew the source of the intertextual echoes, they could hear the same echoes. However, it is very naive to believe that the assumption of sharing the same source is a warrant for Paul and his readers to hear the same echoes, since, as other scholars point out, the source itself is very problematic. What kind of source did Paul have in mind? Was it the OT scripture itself or interpreted scripture or tradition?28 Moreover, even if there was a certain source that Paul seemed to use, it is very doubtful whether the original reader had the same knowledge as Paul had about the source. As C.D. Stanley demonstrates, unlike a contemporary church situation, Paul’s original Gentile readers had little information about the Jewish scriptures because of their high rate of illiteracy and limited accessibility to the Greek or Hebrew Jewish scriptures.29 In that situation, can we believe that the original Gentile

Theology of Romans 5–8,” in D.M. Hay and E.E. Johnson (eds.) Pauline Theology: Volume III: Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 169–95; etc. 27 Hays, The Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 29–33. 28 For example, Evans argues that Paul’s source was not the biblical text itself, but an interpreted text (Evans, “It is Not as though the Word of God had Failed,” 13–17); However, Stanley insists that what Paul adopted was the voice of tradition (C.D. Stanley, “ ‘The Redeemer will Come ἐκ Σιων’: Romans 11:26–27 Revisited,” in C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders (eds.) Paul and the Scripture of Israel [JSNTSup 83; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992], 118–42). 29 C.D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 38–61. Here, he challenges nine assumptions that the study of the OT in NT presumes: (1) Paul’s audiences acknowledged the authority of the Jewish Scriptures as a source of truth and a guide for Christian conduct; (2) Paul and his audience(s) had relatively free access to Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures (the LXX) and could study and consult them whenever they wished; (3) Paul’s audiences routinely read and studied the Jewish Scriptures for themselves in his absence; (4) Paul’s audiences were able to

10

chapter one

readers could hear the same echoes that Paul did? If they heard, how can we know for sure that the echoes were the same echoes that Paul heard? Thus, the criterion of availability is inadequate.30 The criterion of volume is relevant to the “degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns.”31 However, Hays does not explain how one can define the repetition of intertextual echoes. Are those cognate words or the exact same words or synonyms or what? In what sense can a repetition be identified as the volume of an echo? Consequently, this notion of volume is also very incomplete, since metaphorically it fails to provide a proper antenna to tune to the frequency of echoes. The third is “recurrence,” which is related to statistical occurrences of the echoes. This criterion seems to assume that the echo appears more than once, but as S.E. Porter aptly asks, what if there is only one occurrence in the Pauline letters? If so, then how can one determine it as an echo?32 Actually, in the case of the echo of Job 3:16 in Phil 1:19, Hays even admits that this criterion is “not compelling.”33 The last four criteria are not related to detecting echoes, but to the interpretation of the assumed echoes. Moreover, Hays mentions about the last criterion, ‘satisfaction,’ that “[t]his criterion is difficult to articulate precisely without falling into the affective fallacy, but it is finally the most important test: it is in fact another way of asking whether

recognize and appreciate all of his quotations, allusions, and ‘echoes’ from the Jewish scriptures; (5) Paul composed his letters with the expectation that the recipients would know and supply the background and context for his many quotations, allusions, and other references to the Jewish scriptures; (6) Paul himself knew and took into account the original context of his quotations; (7) Paul expected his audiences to evaluate and accept his interpretation of scripture; (8) Paul expected everyone in his churches to have an equal appreciation of his biblical quotations; and (9) the best way to determine the ‘meaning’ of a Pauline biblical quotation is to study how Paul interpreted the biblical text. 30 Stanley E. Porter, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology,” in C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders (eds.) Early Christian Interpretation of the Scripture of Israel: Investigations and Proposals (JSNTSup 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 83. Here, he raises critical queries on this criterion related to the author and audience: “If one is writing to an uninformed audience who does not know the source text, does that mean that the echoes are no longer present? If they are clear to another audience, does that mean that the text itself is not different, or only the audience? Apart from audience perception, what means are available to recognize an author’s echo?” 31 Hays, The Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 30. 32 Porter, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” 83. 33 Hays, The Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 32.

toward a proper reading

11

the proposed reading offers a good account of the experience of a contemporary community of competent readers.”34 However, this belief only reveals his confusion of the real audience of Paul’s letters. That is, contrary to Hays’s assertion, ‘satisfaction’ should not be a matter of the twenty-first century readers but that of the first-century readers, because the real audience in Paul’s mind was not the twenty-first century competent readers, such as the small group of scholars. For example, when Hays evaluates the echoes in Phil 1:19 with these criteria, he confesses that “it is not at all improbable that Paul intended an allusion to Job, but it is perhaps rather improbable that his readers at Philippi would have picked up the allusion: it is rather too subtle.”35 If this is true, in light of ‘satisfaction,’ why do we need to hear the assumed echo of Paul that his original targeted people could not catch? Did Paul write a letter with the intention that only the later community of competent readers could hear the echoes that he heard? Not at all! Paul did not write a poem or story, but a letter which has a specific targeted audiences and goals to communicate. Thus, if the real audiences of Paul’s letter failed to catch his intention, it means that Paul’s purpose of writing a letter also would have been unsuccessful, no matter how the twenty-first century readers understand his intentions. Therefore, Hays’s criterion related to the interpretation of the modern scholarly group cannot be the way for defining Paul’s echo. In this sense, Porter’s bewilderment about Hays’s criterion is very understandable: “It is perplexing that the most important criterion is not in fact a criterion for discovering echoes, but only for interpreting them, leaving the question of definition and determination unresolved.”36 A more serious problem in relation to determining the central point(s) of Paul’s letter is that this intertextual reading must depend on another methodology to discern Paul’s intention. It is possible that some passages may contain allusions or echoes of the OT. Since, however, not all passages of Romans have allusions or echoes of the OT, this reading needs to rely on other approaches in order not only to link between the passages that have allusions or echoes and have not, but also to understand the role of each passage in Romans. Furthermore, it is not always clear whether Paul reveals his main intention through

34 35 36

Hays, The Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 31–32. Hays, The Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 32. Porter, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” 83.

12

chapter one

such allusions or echoes of the OT. If Paul puts his main stress on the passages that have no allusions or echoes, it is hard for the reader to catch Paul’s intention or emphasis by this intertextual reading.37 Moreover, even if we admit that Paul shows his intention through allusions or echoes, it needs to be considered whether what Paul wants to deliver is exactly the same idea as what such OT passages say, because it is possible for Paul to mention the allusions or echoes without considering the original meaning or context.38 Therefore, this intertextual reading cannot give a holistic reading of Romans, so that it should be used only as a supplementary reading for discerning Paul’s main intention or emphasis. 3. Narrative reading The third reading is a narrative approach to Romans. As a fairly recent approach to the Pauline letters, the basic premise of this reading is that Paul has a grand story in mind, and it is reflected in his writing. Even more, this reading assumes that the grand narrative story gives a controlling framework of Paul’s thought, including theology and ethics, over contingent situations of Christian communities. Ben Witherington describes this notion as that “[t]he situations Paul addresses cause him to articulate his thoughts in one way or another, but those thought have arisen as a result of his deep and ongoing reflection on the narrative that molds all of his thoughts.”39 This reading is rele37

Recognizing this problem, some scholars understand the OT citations in light of Paul’s unfolding strategy of his argument (C.D. Stanley, “The Rhetoric of Quotations: An Essay on Method,” in C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders [eds.] Early Christian Interpretation of the Scripture of Israel: Investigations and Proposals [JSNTSup 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997], 44–58; idem, Arguing with Scripture, 9–21; Dennis L. Stamps, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament as a Rhetorical Device: A Methodological Proposal,” in S.E. Porter [ed.] Hearing the Old Testament through the New [MNTS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006], 9–37). For example, Stamps says that: “Even where the NT uses or draws upon Jewish interpretative practice, its effectiveness as a persuasive strategy in a Greco-Roman context may depend on the Hellenistic perspective of giving regard to ancient authoritative tradition. Indeed, the non Jewish members of Christian congregations would be attentive to citing ancient authors, proverbs and maxims even if their recognition of the source of these quoted and allusions to Jewish scriptures was limited” (Stamps, “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” 32–33). However, they hesitate to include ‘echo’ as a proper category for Paul’s strategy. 38 Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, 145–50. 39 Ben Witherington, Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 3; cf. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 405.

toward a proper reading

13

vant to the above intertextual reading, in the sense that the OT and non-canonical Jewish writings are thought to be important sources of Paul’s narrative framework. Besides the stories of the OT, this narrative reading also deals with various sub-stories, which are under the so-called grand story, about God, Jesus, Israel, Paul himself, community, the world, and so on. The first person to apply this narrative reading to a Pauline letter is R.B. Hays. In his book, The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11, he tries to establish a narrative structure through A.J. Greimas’s narrative structural model.40 Regarding Romans, various parts and topics of Romans have been studied by this narrative approach.41 But, A.K. Grieb’s recent monograph could be regarded as an example of a holistic narrative reading of Romans.42 Although this reading seems to promise a fresh look at Paul’s letter, there are some obstacles to regarding it as the primary reading for determining Paul’s emphasis or intentions. The first problem is the instability of its methodology. Those scholars who utilize this narrative approach to the Pauline letters seem to have a common assumption that since narrative is one of the most effective ways to reveal the symbolic universe (or worldview), narrative structure or dimension can be extracted out of the non-narrative text. In spite of this common presupposition, however, the actual method is not solid. For example, Witherington tries to describe Paul’s holistic narrative thought world, but he fails to show his methodology. Even though he mentions that he credits other scholars who use narrative reading such as Hays, N.R. Petersen, S.E. Fowl, and Wright,43 he jumps to the explanation 40

R.B. Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 73–

117. 41 For example, Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” 30–67; idem, “New Exodus, New Inheritance: The Narrative Substructure of Romans 3–8,” in Sven K. Soderlund and N.T. Wright (eds.) Romans and the People of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 26–35; idem, “The Vindication of the Law: Narrative Analysis and Romans 8:1–11,” in The Climax of the Covenant, 193–216; R. Penna, “Narrative Aspect of the Letter to the Romans,” in Paul the Apostle: Jew and Greek Alike (Collegeville: Michael Glazier Book, 1996), 90–102; and several articles in B.W. Longenecker, Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002). 42 A. Katherine Grieb, The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002). 43 Witherington, Paul’s Narrative Thought World, 7 n. 11. Cf. N.R. Petersen, Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul’s Narrative World (Philadelphia:

14

chapter one

of Paul’s narrative thought without mentioning a specific method of how he finds narrative elements from the non-narrative texts. This tendency also appears in Grieb’s narrative exposition of Romans. Even Hays, who is regarded as the pioneer of this reading, reveals serious flaws in his methodological application. He uses Greimas’s actantial model to draw a grand narrative or story from the non-narrative text. However, his application of the actantial model to the nonnarrative text has many subjective pitfalls. In other words, he tends to ignore what the real text says in order to draw the elements of a narrative structure. One example appears in his treatment of making a narrative structure through Gal 3:21b: εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι (“if a law that is able to give life had been given”). Hays argues that the Subject of his narrative structure of Gal 3:21b is humankind, because he thinks that the law is related to human action, and insists that there is a narrative structure such as this:44 God

life, righteousness

(humanity)

Law

(humanity)

(πίστις)

However, the actual grammatical subject of Gal 3:21b is the law. And the logical actor, who gives life, is also not humanity but the law (ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι). So, the Subject of the narrative structure should be the law, and the real narrative structure should be corrected to:45

Fortress, 1985); S.E. Fowl, The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul (JSNTSup 36; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990); Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. 44 Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 114. Here, the Subject of a narrative structure indicates a hero or protagonist in a narrative structure. For a detail explanation about actantial model, see Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 90–91. 45 In addition, there are two other errors in his treatment of Gal 3:21b. One is the inconsistency of his methodological application. In dealing with the Subject of the narrative structure of Gal 3:21b, he uses a question to delineate the Subject of a narrative structure: To whom would this law have been given (ἐδόθη)? (Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 114). But when he makes a grand narrative structure through Gal 4:4–5 he does not ask the same question in determining the Subject of a narrative structure. From ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ (Gal 4:4), he thinks the Subject of a narrative structure is Jesus without doubt. However, if he asked the same question about ‘to whom,’ the Subject would be ‘humanity,’ not ‘Jesus’ because God sent Jesus to humanity. The other error is that he asks a wrong question in extracting the Subject of a narrative structure. That is, the question for determining the Subject should not

toward a proper reading

15

God

life (righteousness)

(humanity)

( )

Law

( )

Thus, Hays’s narrative approach, the methodological foundation of this narrative reading, is not solid.46 The second problem of this reading is the confusion about the nature of Paul’s argument: is it a logical argument or a story? Hays asserts that that “the story provides the foundational substructure upon which Paul’s argumentation is constructed.”47 Consequently, for him, Paul’s rhetoric and argumentation are secondary, since they are the expressions of fundamental substructural narrative. However, the obvious thing is that Paul’s primary purpose to write letters is not to retell his so-called fundamental narrative. If he wanted to deliver the fundamental narrative, he would have sent a short story like a condensed Gospel. The fact is that most of Paul’s letters are written with a logical flow, which contains various rhetorical and argumentative devices. Thus, contrary to Hays, it is more appropriate that logical or argumentative structures or devices seem to control the use of the stories of the OT or of Jesus. For example, Rom 5:12–21 is often regarded as one of the standard examples that the narrative aspect controls Paul’s argument.48 However, the main purpose of this passage is not to show the story of Adam and Jesus, in spite of the chronological aspect in this passage. Paul’s main thought is the contrast between

be about ‘to whom,’ but about ‘who’: e.g., who is shown as the active Actor in this passage? Therefore, Hays’s narrative structure can be esteemed as an outcome of a missed question and its inconsistent application. Since, moreover, his narrative structure is not stable, his reading of subjective genitive πίστις Χριστοῦ, a result of his narrative structure, is also highly questionable. For more critique of his narrative structure and argument on the faith of Jesus, see Jae Hyun Lee, “Against Richard B. Hays’s ‘Faith of Jesus Christ’,” JGRChJ 5 (2008), 51–80; idem, “Richard B. Hays and a Narrative Approach to the Pauline Letters,” in Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams (eds.) Pillars of the Biblical Interpretation: Old and New (Forthcoming). 46 Dunn (J.D.G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” in E.E. Johnson and D.M. Hay [eds.] Pauline Theology. Volume IV: Looking Back, Pressing on [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997], 80) points out the weakness of Hays’s reading: “Hays all the while seems to be working for what he perceives to be the narrative underlying Paul’s theology as set out in his letters (his main thesis in Faith), rather than from the actual argument of the letters themselves, and to do so in a way which ignores the terms and thrust of the argument actually used.” 47 Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 7. 48 E.g., Wright, “New Exodus,” 34.

16

chapter one

the old and the new realms including the central role of Jesus. And he expresses it by logical contrast and analogy, such as ‘as is A, so is B.’49 Thus, it is hard to admit that the narrative itself is Paul’s major interest, and that the narrative sequence is Paul’s major way to articulate his thought. Furthermore, even though one admits that the narrative controls Paul’s overall thought, it is very hard to know about the nature of the story. Especially, the concept of one grand or fundamental story is problematic. Hays, Witherington, and Wright insist that there is a grand story in Paul’s mind from which his theology and arguments are constructed.50 But, what is the grand story? Is it the story of God and creation, of Israel, of Jesus, of Paul, or of Paul’s predecessors and inheritors?51 Moreover, if one admits that a grand story covers all of these aspects, it is very dubious whether one can really tell God’s working in history with one single narrative. Thus, the theory of one grand or fundamental story is very problematic. Instead, as R.B. Matlock suggests, it is better to think that Paul’s narrative mind is like “the web,” not “the arrow.” That is, instead of one linear sequential narrative understanding, it is more persuasive to think that many narrative aspects are interlinked and expressed according to Paul’s response to the situations and arguments.52 Thus, D.G. Horrell’s comment on this narrative reading is worth hearing. If there is a narrative substructure to Pauline thought, what is the value in identifying it? What is gained by a narrative approach? It seems that the approach is attractive, at least for some, because it appears to offer a route to discerning theological coherence in Paul, despite the obvious diversity of his letters. But since we do not have a Pauline narration of the underlying story, we cannot presume that this story is an entirely stable entity for Paul. The way he construes it may vary over time and circumstances; so just as the letters vary, so, to some degree, may the underlying

49 Francis Watson, “Is There a Story in These Texts?,” in B.W. Longenecker (ed.) Narrative Dynamics in Paul (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 2002), 235–38. 50 Cf. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 6; Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 193– 216; idem, The New Testament and the People of God, 69–80; Witherington, Paul’s Narrative Thought World, 2–5. 51 For detailed critique on this issue, see J.D.G. Dunn, “The Narrative Approach to Paul,” in B.W. Longenecker (ed.) Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002), 217–30. 52 R.B. Matlock, “The Arrow and the Web,” in B.W. Longenecker (ed.) Narrative Dynamics in Paul (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002), 53–54.

toward a proper reading

17

story Paul reflects in his discourse . . . A narrative approach to Paul, then, is no easy route to recovering coherence in Pauline thought.53

In sum, in spite of the possibility of giving a fresh way to understand Paul’s whole argument, the narrative approach reveals several problems in areas of its methodology, the concept of the nature of Paul’s argument, and the theory of a grand story. Moreover, even though it may be possible that Paul has a grand story in mind and reflects it in his writing, the reader should begin with the text of Romans itself in order to discern Paul’s main thought or emphasis. Only after examining the logical flow can one determines the thread of Paul’s argument, whether it has a narrative frame or not. Therefore, it is hard to admit the narrative approach as the primary reading of Romans. 4. Rhetorical reading The fourth one is a rhetorical reading. Even though this reading has not been used in biblical studies for too long,54 it has become one of the most popular ways of reading Paul’s letters.55 In the area of Romans, numerous studies have been performed with this approach, including three recent monographs.56 This reading has an interest in identifying “the textually-embedded strategies that seek to persuade the reader,”

53 D.G. Horrell, “Paul’s Narratives or Narrative Substructure?,” in B.W. Longenecker (ed.) Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 2002), 168. 54 According to Watson (Duane F. Watson, “Rhetorical Criticism of the Pauline Epistles since 1975,” CurBS 3 [1995], 219), Betz’s article published in 1975 (H.D. Betz, “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 21 [1975], 353–79) was regarded as the inaugural study of the rhetorical reading of the NT. 55 For the general survey of this type of reading, see G. Hansen, “Rhetorical Criticism,” in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid (eds.) Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 822–25; Watson, “Rhetorical Criticism of the Pauline Epistles,” 219–48; Dennis L. Stamps, “Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament: Ancient and Modern Evaluations of Argumentation,” in S.E. Porter and D. Tombs (eds.) Approaches to New Testament Study (JSNTSup 120; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995), 193–210; idem, “Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism,” in S.E. Porter (ed.) A Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 219–39. 56 Thomas H. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004); B. Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004); R. Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006). For thorough bibliographic references on this reading Romans, see Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, xix–xxv.

18

chapter one

assessing “the effectiveness of these strategies,” and evaluating “the ideological positions to which the reader(s) is being moved.”57 According to G. Martín-Asensio’s classification, this rhetorical reading can be divided into three groups according to the attitude of the ancient rhetorical handbooks.58 The first group (group A) is in line with G.A. Kennedy and H.D. Betz’s approach that Paul’s letter can be interpreted through the categories or forms of the ancient GrecoRoman rhetorical handbooks.59 In spite of the debate on whether Paul knew ancient rhetoric through a formal education or just through the circulated rhetorical handbooks,60 this group assumes that Paul already knew the ancient rhetorical forms, such as rhetorical genre, arrangement, invention, style, etc., and faithfully reflected those in his letters. Thus, for this group, ancient rhetorical forms can be the effective tool for understanding Paul’s intentions as well as his epistolary format. For example, Kennedy lays a methodological foundation for the rhetorical reading of this group. With the assumption that Paul was well aware of the rhetorical conventions through formal education or oral and written works which utilized these conventions, Kennedy provides five steps for rhetorical reading: (1) determining the rhetorical unit; (2) defining the rhetorical situation, in which persons, events and exigence require the rhetorical response; (3) determining the species of rhetoric (judicial rhetoric of the courtroom [accusation and defense], deliberative rhetoric of the political forum [persuasion and dissuasion], or epideitic rhetoric of the public ceremony [praise and blame]), and stasis or issue; (4) analyzing the invention (argumentation by ethos, pathos, and logos), arrangement (the ordering of the argument according to the components such as exordium [introduction], narratio [statement of facts], probatio [main body], and peroratio [conclusion]) and style (the use of language according to the needs of invention, especially performed through the figures of speech and thought); and (5) evalu57

Stamps, “Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament,” 167. G. Martín-Asensio, Transitivity-Based Foregrounding in the Acts of the Apostles (JSNTSup 202; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 23–28. 59 H.D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); G.A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984). 60 For the issue with regard to Paul’s rhetorical training, see Watson, “Rhetorical Criticism of the Pauline Epistles,” 224–25; Stanley E. Porter, “Paul as Epistolographer and Rhetorician?,” in S.E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps (eds.) The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture (JSNTSup 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 228–30. 58

toward a proper reading

19

ating the rhetorical effectiveness of the unit and rhetorical response in accordance with the rhetorical situation.61 For Kennedy, the aim of a rhetorical reading is “the discovery of the author’s intent and of how that is transmitted through a text to an audience.”62 The second and third groups are the same in pointing out the limitation of the first group. They dissent from the slavish reliance upon the ancient rhetorical handbooks. Yet, the second group (group B) and the third group (group C) are also distinguished by the attitude toward the ancient handbooks. Even though group B criticizes the rigid application of rhetorical handbooks to the Pauline letters, they do not totally abandon the linkage between Pauline letters and the formal categories of the ancient rhetorical handbooks. This attitude is well reflected in A.H. Snyman’s conclusive comments on his rhetorical reading of Phil 4:1–20: “Classical rhetoric with all its categories can be of help in understanding any written document, provided that it is not followed rigidly but rather used as a frame of reference for empirical study.”63 C.J. Classen also rejects group A’s mechanical reliance on the rhetorical handbooks. However, he remains open to the possible link between epistles and some of the ancient rhetorical forms, such as invention and style (not arrangement), suggesting Philip Melanchton as a model of a rhetorical reading of the New Testament, who used both ancient rhetorical manuals and his own alternatives.64 On the other hand, group C shows a more negative attitude to the use of the ancient rhetorical forms as interpretative tools. For example, S.E. Porter challenges the historical approach of group A by inquiring whether the ancient rhetorical forms are a useful tool for understanding the Pauline letters. According to him, ancient epistles and rhetoric were different areas, in which one was for oral speech (rhetoric) and the other was for written documents (epistles), and only in the fourth

61

Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, 33–38. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, 12. 63 A.H. Snyman, “Persuasion in Philippians 4:1–20,” in Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.) Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference (JSNTSup 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 335. 64 C.J. Classen, “St. Paul’s Epistles and Ancient Greek and Romans Rhetoric,” in Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.) Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from 1992 Heidelberg Conference (JSNTSup 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 271–78, 289–90. For more detailed study on Melanchton’s rhetorical interpretation, see C.J. Classen, “Melanchton’s Rhetorical Interpretation of Biblical and Non-Biblical Texts,” in Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 99–177. 62

20

chapter one

century did epistolary theory became a part of rhetorical theory (e.g., Julius Victor’s Ars Rhetorica). Consequently, to apply the ancient rhetorical forms to the Pauline letters is anachronistic.65 Moreover, he also points out two problems in the actual application of the ancient rhetorical forms to the Pauline letters. One is that the epistolary formula does not fit rhetorical forms. For example, since there is no parallel to the epistolary opening and closing in rhetorical forms, the outcomes of the established structure of the Pauline letters through the rhetorical arrangement are very different according to scholars.66 The other problem is that it is not easy to determine suitable rhetorical categories for describing the Pauline letters. Porter mentions that “[s]ince no clear set of categories appears to have been found, it is difficult to know how they can in any way be equated with the rather more straightforward categories of epistolary analysis.”67 Thus, group C denies using ancient rhetorical forms as an interpretative tool for the Pauline letters. Instead, this group insists on the use of modern rhetorical criticism, such as ‘new rhetoric,’ which is most influenced by C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca.68 Rhetoric is traditionally regarded as “a particu-

65 Stanley E. Porter, “The Theoretical Justification for Application of Rhetorical Categories to Pauline Epistolary Literature,” in Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.) Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference (JSNTSup 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 109–16. Cf. Porter, “Paul as Epistolographer and Rhetorician?,” 232; idem, “Paul of Tarsus and His Letters,” in Stanley E. Porter (ed.) Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in Hellenistic Period (330 B.C.– A.D. 400) (Leiden: Brill Academic, 2001), 562–67; J.T. Reed, “Using Ancient Rhetorical Categories to Interpret Paul’s Letters: A Question of Genre,” in S.E. Porter and T.H. Olbricht (eds.) Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference (JSNTSup 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 292–324; idem, “Epistle,” in Stanley E. Porter (ed.) A Handbook on Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 BC–AD 400) (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 171–94; A.J. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorist (SBLSBS 19; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 2–3. 66 Porter, “Paul as Epistolographer and Rhetorician?,” 230. For the example of different rhetorical outlines of Pauline letters, see Porter, “Paul of Tarsus and His Letters,” 539–61. 67 Porter, “Paul as Epistolographer and Rhetorician?,” 231. 68 The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969). Cf. C. Perelman, The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Application (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979); idem, The Realm of Rhetoric (trans. W. Kluback; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982); E. Black, Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method (New York: Macmillan, 1965); W.J. Brandt, The Rhetoric of Argumentation (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970); W. Nash, Rhetoric: The Wit of Persuasion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). For the bibliographical reference on application of the modern rhetoric to the NT, see Porter, “The Theoretical Justification for Application,” 106 n. 17.

toward a proper reading

21

lar kind of communication, the persuasive speech,” but modern rhetoric views it as “the way all discourse induces or enhances an audience’s adherence to certain values and hierarchies, that is, how all discourse functions as a form of persuasive argumentation.”69 Consequently, group C has a tendency to interact with other disciplines, such as social description, linguistics, etc., because its conceptual boundary of the rhetoric is broader than that of group A.70 In light of the view of group C, Paul’s seeming correspondences to the ancient rhetorical forms such as style and invention can be understood differently. These are not evidence of Paul’s following ancient rhetorical forms, but may be the result of a ‘universal’ principle of argumentation. That is, as Jeffrey T. Reed comments, these are not the formal conformity of Paul’s letters to ancient rhetoric, but just functional correspondences.71 Thus, can the rhetorical reading be the primary reading with regard to the inquiry of determining Paul’s intention or central point(s)? The answer will be different according to the stance of the reader. As mentioned above, group A has a narrow definition of rhetoric, and tends to focus on Paul’s rhetorical devices through the eyes of ancient rhetorical handbooks. So, before using rhetorical reading as a primary interpretative tool, the reader should solve the inherent problem, such as the legitimacy of the direct link between ancient epistle and rhetoric.

69

Stamps, “Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament,” 129. As to the link between linguistics and rhetorical reading, see Stanley E. Porter, “Ancient Rhetoric Analysis and Discourse Analysis of the Pauline Corpus,” in Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (eds.) The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference (JSNTSup 146; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 249–74; idem, “Linguistics and Rhetorical Criticism,” in Stanley E. Porter and D.A. Carson (eds.) Linguistics and the New Testament (JSNTSup 168; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 63–92. 71 Reed, “Using Ancient Rhetorical Categories to Interpret,” 322. Porter (Porter, “Paul as Epistolographer and Rhetorician?,” 233) comments that “[i]t is evident that there are clear functional relations between some of the categories of ancient rhetoric and the categories of ancient letters. This can be accounted for, however, by virtue of the need to communicate and the finite linguistic means by which this is made possible. Therefore, no matter what form of discourse is concerned, there are bound to be a number of functional similarities with, for example, the opening gambit in most such discourses. Likewise when such communication comes to an end, there is bound to be significant functional correspondence in the light of the finite closing functions of these discourses. Similarly, the way that an argument unfolds is bound to have certain (although perhaps fewer) functional similarities. These functional similarities allow the interpreter to draw upon a much wider range of resources for analysis than simply those of the ancient rhetoricians.” 70

22

chapter one

As to groups B and C, there is another problem in using the rhetorical approach as the primary reading. If one rejects the rigid adoption of the ancient rhetorical forms, then by what methodology can one analyze the flow of argumentations and evaluate their importance? In this sense, group C has more potential to give a satisfactory reading, because it has more room for interaction with other disciplines. 5. Linguistic discourse reading The last reading is a linguistic discourse approach (discourse analysis)72 to Romans. As a fairly recent approach to the text, this reading has different interests from the above readings. Even though the above readings have their own merits, one common weakness of them is that they put relatively less focus on the linguistic expressions of the text. That is, the basic starting point of the above readings is not the text itself, which is composed of various linguistic expressions. For example, in the case of social-scientific reading, its departure point of analysis is an established theoretical frame. The intertextual reading is interested in the allusions or echoes of the OT, and thinks of the content or context of the OT in analysis of Romans. The narrative reading and rhetorical approach also start respectively from the established grand story or the categories in ancient rhetorical handbooks (groups A and B). Thus, in some sense, all of the above readings reverse more or less the order of the analysis of ancient texts, because they do not use the text itself as the starting point of analysis. In this sense, what S.E. Porter emphasizes regarding linguistic features in a text as the beginning point is appropriate. . . . our inability to question the native speakers of Hellenistic Greek [including Paul] concerning their frames of reference restricts us to the evidence of the text. Any attempt to reconstruct the cognitive frames or scripts of the original language users must begin from a detailed analysis of the linguistic devices that are found in a text and then progress to higher and more abstract levels of analysis73

Consequently, reading Paul’s letter with regard to his emphasis and central point(s) should be performed from the examination of the lin-

72

Hereafter, I will use the term discourse analysis, and explain discourse analysis in detail in the methodology section. 73 Stanley E. Porter and Matthew B. O’Donnell, “Cohesion,’ in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament (Forthcoming), 109.

toward a proper reading

23

guistic phenomena in a text itself. In this sense, discourse analysis has much potential to be the primary means of reading for determining Paul’s intent and central point(s). This is because this reading begins its analysis with the examination of various linguistic features of a text, and determines important evidence for the author’s intentions or emphasis from the outcome of such examination. Thus, discourse analysis is able to provide a reasonable foundation, which helps the reader not only to determine Paul’s intention or emphases, but also to evaluate other readings by providing a variety of textual evidence. III. Conclusion The main interests of this study are related to these three questions: where is Paul’s central point(s) or peak(s) in Rom 1:16–8:39, what is the content of it, and how does one determine the central point(s)? In order to answer these questions, I have reviewed various readings of Romans. Even if each reading has its own merits, except discourse analysis, they share a common weakness that they do not seem to regard the text as the starting point of their analysis. This weakness indicates that these readings cannot be the primary reading for Romans, because they should rely on a reading that deals with the text itself. In this sense, what S.E. Porter points out about the nature of New Testament study is correct. The study of the New Testament is essentially a language-based discipline. That is, the primary body of data for examination is a text, or, better, yet, a collection of many texts written in the Hellenistic variety of the Greek language of the first century CE. Whatever else may be involved in the study of the New Testament—and there are many other factors that must be taken into account, such as archaeology, history, literary criticism (of various sorts), sociological criticism, and even theology—to remain a study of the New Testament it must always remain textually based, since the only direct access that we have into the world of the New Testament is through the text of the Greek New Testament.74

74 S.E. Porter, “Discourse Analysis and New Testament Studies: An Introductory Survey,” in S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson (eds.) Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (JSNTSup 113; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 14.

24

chapter one

Therefore, in my study, I will use discourse analysis, which highly concentrates on the various linguistic features of a text itself, as a methodological framework for answering the three thesis questions. Lastly, my study of Romans will not deal with every chapter of Romans. Instead, it will cover Rom 1:16 to Rom 8:39. This is not because only Romans 1–8 has the central point(s) of Romans, but simply because one of the major breaks of Paul’s thought appears between Rom 8:39 and 9:1. Thus, in one sense, my study will not be a complete analysis of Paul’s central point(s) or peak(s) in Romans because of what will be covered in the analysis. In the other sense, however, this study will be an attempt to lay a foundational stone for determining Paul’s peak(s) in the whole book of Romans, because Rom 1:16–8:39 is a very important part of Romans. Therefore, to examine the central point(s) or peak(s) in Rom 1:16–8:39 will contribute to the exploration of Paul’s major interests and emphases of the whole letter.

CHAPTER TWO

METHODOLOGY I. Introduction to discourse analysis 1. What is discourse analysis? Discourse analysis is one of the recent trends of linguistics-based biblical interpretation.1 According to T.A. van Dijk, the nature of a discourse has three aspects: (1) language use; (2) the communication of belief; and (3) interaction in a social situation.2 Thus, discourse analysis does not treat a discourse in isolation. Rather, it covers all kinds of human communicative processes which occur between addressers and addressees, in order to discover the relations among language, discourse, and situational context. G. Brown and G. Yule define discourse analysis as follows: The analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of language in use. As such, it cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independent of the purposes or functions which those forms are designed to serve in human affairs.3

1 For bibliographies on this issue, see J.B. Green, “Discourse Analysis and New Testament Interpretation,” in J.B. Green (ed.) Hearing the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 176 n. 3; Cynthia L. Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning (LNTS 297; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 22 n. 1. For a general introduction to discourse analysis, see J.T. Reed, “Modern Linguistics and the New Testament: A Basic Guide to Theory, Terminology, and Literature,” in S.E. Porter and D. Tombs (eds.) Approaches to New Testament Study (JSNTSup 120; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 247 n. 58; idem, “Discourse Analysis,” in Stanley E. Porter (ed.) A Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 189–217. 2 T.A. van Dijk, “The Study of Discourse Analysis,” in T.A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Structure and Process (London: SAGE, 1997), 2 3 G. Brown and G. Yule, Discourse Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 1.

26

chapter two 2. Some characteristics of discourse analysis4

A. Consideration of the whole process of communication Discourse analysis has some important characteristics. One is that discourse analysis considers the whole communicative process, including these three aspects of the process: the addresser, the addressee, and the discourse or text.5 The addresser delivers his/her intention or idea through the text by determining the content (what to say), genre or rhetoric (how to say it), information rate (how much information the author thinks his/her hearer can take in at one time), and modality.6 Thus, in one sense, doing discourse analysis is to interpret the addresser’s role in a text. On the other hand, with regard to the addressee, s/he receives the addresser’s intention or idea through the medium of a text. This process includes not only lexico-grammatical analysis of a text (semantics and syntax), but also various strategies to understand the cognitive or mental aspects of a text (pragmatics), e.g., coherence, contextual knowledge, theme and prominence in a text.7 So, from the addressee’s point of view, doing discourse analysis is to comprehend a text. Brown and Yule describe this two-way aspect of communication aptly We shall consider words, phrases and sentences which appear in the textual record of a discourse to be evidence of an attempt by a producer (speaker/writer) to communicate his message to a recipient (hearer/ reader). We shall be particularly interested in discussing how a recipient might come to comprehend the producer’s intended message on a particular occasion, and how the requirements of the particular recipient(s), in definable circumstances, influence the organization of the producers’

4 Here, I do not mean to give a full coverage of the characteristics of discourse analysis. Rather, I select some features of it which are helpful to establish my model. 5 In fact, text and discourse are different, in that text is one of mediums of a discourse. However, my main concern is a written text. So, hereafter, I use text and discourse as interchangeable terms. 6 W. Pickering, A Framework for Discourse Analysis (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington, 1980), 70–84. Here, modality is the same meaning as what Halliday calls mood: “Mood represents the organization of participants in speech situations, providing options in the form of speaker roles: the speaker may inform, question or command; he may confirm, request confirmation, contradiction or display any one of a wide range of postures defined by the potentialities of linguistic interaction” (M.A.K. Halliday, “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part 1 and 2,” JL 3 [1967], 199). 7 Even though these areas are typically expressed by lexico-grammatical elements, the addressee needs to operate mental process to notice them in a text.

methodology

27

discourse. This is clearly an approach which takes the communicative function of language as its primary area of investigation and consequently seeks to describe linguistic form, not as a static object, but as a dynamic means of expressing intended meaning.8

This understanding can be summarized as below.9

Pragmatic information

Pragmatic information

Speaker forms

Addressee constructs

Intention

anticipation reconstructs

Interpretation

linguistic expression

B. Consideration of context as a significant factor for understanding discourse The second characteristic is that discourse analysis considers the context as an important factor for interpretation. As far as the context is concerned, there are three levels of context in relation to the text: (1) context of culture; (2) context of situation; and (3) context of a text.10 The context of culture refers to the “large and complex knowledge system spread between the various members of a particular culture,” which provides the institutional and ideological background in interpreting the text.11 So, this context is the broadest one. The context of situation is “the immediate historical situation in which a discourse

8

Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 24. Cited from S.C. Dik, The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause (Berlin: Moulton de Gruyter, 1997), 8. He summarizes this concept aptly in four words: intention, content, interpretation, and knowledge (S.C. Dik, The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions [Berlin: Moulton de Gruyter, 1997], 410). 10 M.A.K. Halliday and R. Hasan, Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 48–49. 11 H. Leckie-Tarry, Language and Context: A Functional Linguistic Theory of Register (London: Pinter, 1992), 20. 9

28

chapter two

occurs.”12 The third level of context is the context of the text, which is called textual context. Halliday divides this textual context into two, intertextual and intracontextual context. Intertextual context is related to the assumptions that are drawn from other texts. Intracontext is a context shown within a text, and called ‘co-text.’13 Halliday also notices the function of language in a context, and develops the relation between semantic components of the text and contextual elements, especially situational context. With regard to the contextual elements, he distinguishes three kinds of functional elements of situation and calls them field, tenor, and mode respectively.14 The field indicates ideational knowledge, which refers to the “what is taking place” part of a situation. It consists of several elements, such as process, the setting for actions (particular arena or circumstances), participants, and subject matters or content of the specific language event.15 The tenor is “the type of role interaction, the set of relevant social relations permanent and temporary among the participants”.16 It denotes interpersonal knowledge, and includes the elements of the modality and the role of the participant as its elements. The mode refers to “the function of the text in the event,” including both the channel of written and spoken languages.17 Then, insisting that such situational knowledge (context) can be realized through text, Halliday writes that: The semiotic components of the situation (field, tenor and mode) are systematically related to the functional components of the semantics (Ideational, Interpersonal and Textual): field to the Ideational component, representing the ‘content’ function of language, the speaker as observer; tenor to the Interpersonal component, representing the ‘participation’ function of language, the speaker as intruder; and mode to the Textual

12 J.T. Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary Integrity (JSNTSup 136; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 42. 13 Halliday and Hasan, Language, Context, and Text, 49. Reed defines it as “linguistic units that are part of a discourse and, more specifically, linguistic units that surround a particular point in the discourse” (Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians, 42). 14 M.A.K. Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic (London: Edward Arnold, 1978), 31. 15 Leckie-Tarry defines field as “incorporating the inherent features of the situation and, as such, is accepted as involving all aspects of the setting or area of the interaction and the events occurring or the subject matter” (Leckie-Tarry, Language and Context, 36–37). 16 M.A.K. Halliday and R. Hasan, Cohesion in English (London: Longman, 1976), 22. 17 Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion in English, 22.

methodology

29

component, representing the ‘relevance’ function of language, without which the other two do not become actualized.18

In these relations, the Ideational component is realized through linguistic structures such as transitivity,19 naming, logico-semantic relations, etc. The Interpersonal component is expressed through modality, person, etc. Lastly, the Textual component is realized through theme, information structure, cohesive relations, exchange structure, etc. This concept is summarized below:

Context of culture Tenor

Field Ideational

Mode

Interpersonal

Transitivity,

Textual lexical cohesion

logico-semantic

modality,

information

relation, naming,

person, etc.

exchange structure,

etc.

reference, etc.

Text and Co-text Context of situation

C. Consideration of the level beyond the sentence The third characteristic of discourse analysis is that it deals with language at the level beyond the sentence. In spite of the fact that natural language is not used in isolated sentences or clauses,20 the major area of linguistic study had been limited to the sentence level before emerging

18

Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic, 123. Briefly, Martín-Asensio defines that it is “ultimately concerned with the ‘who does what to whom’ set of questions” (Martín-Asensio, Transitivity-Based Foregrounding, 13). 20 As to natural language, Dik says that “natural language users do not speak in isolated sentence or clauses, but combine these into longer and more complex stretches for which we may use the general cover term ‘discourse’ ” (Dik, The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2, 409). 19

30

chapter two

discourse considerations. L. Bloomfield, for example, regarded a sentence as “an independent form, not included in any larger (complex) linguistic form.”21 N. Chomsky, according to J.E. Grimes, had an even stronger tendency to approach language within the sentence.22 However, in the 1960’s and 70’s, the direction of linguistic studies began to move from the sentence toward ‘discourse,’ the level beyond the sentence. In 1978, R.E. Longacre criticized the earlier tendency of linguistic study, and claimed the importance of considering language beyond the sentence level. He stated that: It is not simply that systematic analysis and study of units larger than the sentence is possible, nor even that such analysis is desirable, but rather that discourse analysis is a rock bottom necessity, i.e., all linguistic structure must ultimately be related to the structure of context. In brief, to a text linguist or a discourse grammarian of this persuasion, discourse analysis is not a luxury but a necessary. It is something which we have done without too long to the detriment and impairment of the whole field.23

The basic idea of ‘beyond the sentence level’ is that the form and order of any word, phrase, and clause are determined in relation to other grammatical elements and co-text. The meaning and function also depend on the relation to the larger level in a text. Even a sentence must be considered in light of the relations among other sentences or co-text. T.A. van Dijk expresses this principle effectively: The meaning of words depends upon the meaning of other words in the sentence. Sentences may depend upon the meaning of other sentences of the same utterance. Utterances (the product of an act of speech or writing) should be reconstructed in terms of a large unit, viz. that of text.24

D. Sequentiality and hierarchy The fourth feature of discourse analysis is that it considers both the sequential and hierarchical natures of a text.

21

L. Bloomfield, Language (New York: Henry Holt, 1933), 170. J.E. Grimes, The Thread of Discourse (The Hague: Moulton, 1975), 2–3. 23 Robert E. Longacre, “Why We Need a Vertical Revolution in Linguistics,” The Fifth LACUS Forum 1978 (1978), 249. Cited from Steve Booth, Selected Peak Marking Features in the Gospel of John (New York: Peter Lang, 1996), 7–8. 24 T.A. van Dijk, Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantic and Pragmatics of Discourse (London: Longman, 1977), 3. 22

methodology

31

1) Sequentiality Sequentiality is related to the linear arrangement of a text. Basically, it consists of two characteristics: (1) connectivity and (2) progression. Connectivity is based on the concept that discourse “ha[s] a nonrandom character and [is] connected syntactically, semantically and pragmatically.”25 It is performed by cohesion and coherence of a text. Coherence is a psychological understanding of the unity and continuity of a text, e.g., topic-participants continuity, spatio-temporal continuity, action or theme continuity, and referential continuity, etc.26 It is related to the addressee’s ability to comprehend concepts or relations that flow throughout a text.27 Thus, coherent interpretation requires not only lexico-grammatical competence, but also various kinds of contextual background. Cohesion is related to the linkage of textual components such as word, phrase, clause, sentence, etc., and focuses on how one textual component links to another.28 It is true that coherence is not totally dependent on the cohesion of a text, in that the addressee can understand the unity and continuity of a text through the so-called “bridging assumptions” (e.g., analogy, inference, logical relation, etc.).29 However, cohesion and coherence are not entirely isolated from each other,30 since it is cohesion that is the most effective way to achieve coherent understanding of a text.31 With regard to progression, A. Georgakopoulou and D. Goutsos refer to the sequential nature of a text as “a progression of segments with a certain directionality,” which has a beginning and an ending points.32 The concept of peak is closely related to this progression. The

25 Jean-Marc Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives (JSOTSup 295; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 32. 26 T. Givón, “Beyond Foreground and Background,” in B.R. Tomlin (ed.) Coherence and Grounding in Discourse (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1987), 179. 27 R. de Beaugrande and J.W. Dressler, An Introduction to Text Linguistics (London: Longmans, 1981), 4–6. They say that “coherence is clearly not a mere feature of texts, but rather the outcome of cognitive processes among text users” (De Beaugrande and Dressler, An Introduction to Text Linguistics, 6). 28 De Beaugrande and Dressler, An Introduction to Text Linguistics, 4–6. 29 Brown and Yule, Discourse Analysis, 197; Dik, The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2, 433; De Beaugrande and Dressler, An Introduction to Text Linguistics, 4. 30 Contra M. Hoey, Patterns of Lexis in Text (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 13–14. He claims a strict distinction between the two. 31 Halliday and Hasan, Language, Context, and Text, 48. 32 A. Georgakopoulou and D. Goutsos, Discourse Analysis: An Introduction (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997), 69.

32

chapter two

progressive nature of a text is not only relevant to textual structure per se, but also to the information flow which runs throughout a text. In the narrative discourse, this progression is expressed typically by chronological order, such as prior, current and next. But the non-narrative discourse could be progressed according to the topics or logical relations, although the chronological aspect is not absent.33 Therefore, since sequentiality has aspects of connectivity and progression, it can be called the ‘horizontal nature’ of a text. 2) Hierarchy As far as the hierarchical nature of a text is concerned, two aspects must be considered. One is the structural hierarchy that is found in the ‘relations’ in a text. It is often called a ‘head-tail (nuclear-satellite or hypotactic)’ relation.34 Typically, in the head-tail construction, a tail part subordinates to a head part in role or function. This sort of hierarchical relation can appear in various levels of a text. For example, at the sentence level, it is possible that “one independent clause in a discourse should be described as subordinate to another independent clause in descriptions of discourse.”35 Even at the level beyond the sentence, a similar pattern could happen. About these linguistic phenomena, S.C. Dik suggests: But I do believe it is a good idea to assume that intraclausal functional relations of this kind can be projected onto the discourse level. Just as we speak of the clause nucleus which can be modified and specified by a variety of clausal satellites, so we can speak of a discourse nucleus which is modified and specified by a variety of discourse satellites.36

The other type of hierarchy is related to the pragmatic information, and it is concerned with the dimension of prominence in a text.37 That is, when a certain part of a text is more frequently emphasized

33 R.E. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse: Notional and Surface Structures (New York: Plenum Press, 1996), 72. 34 Hypotaxis construction refers to “the logico-semantic relation between a dependent element and the element on which it is dependent (dominant element)” (Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians, 90; Dik, The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2, 431). 35 Pickering, A Framework for Discourse Analysis, 20. 36 Dik, The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2, 432. Here, satellites are parts of a structure which “specify further properties of the nuclear state of affairs as a whole” (S.C. Dik, Functional Grammar [Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1978], 17). 37 Dik, The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1, 26.

methodology

33

by various devices than other parts, this emphasized part could be called a higher ranking part in the hierarchical system of prominence. These two kinds of hierarchy are relevant to the authorial intention or emphasis. Thus, these hierarchies can be called the ‘vertical nature’ of a text. In sum, as an analysis of the communication between addresser and addressee, discourse analysis treats a text with various contextual elements. Its analysis is not limited to the sentence level, but moves up to the whole discourse level with attention paid to the sequentiality and hierarchy of a text. Based upon the above characteristics, I will build my actual methodological model for finding a central part(s) or peak(s). II. A proposed analytical method 1. Grouping A. Overall scheme The first question regarding peak is the location of the author’s main thought or emphasis: i.e., where is the central point(s) or peak(s)? To answer this question, it is necessary to divide a text into various discourse units. How, then, should we begin? What is the basic criterion for this grouping? Georgakopoulou and Goutsos provide important clues for the determining of discourse units. For them, a paragraph is described as “structures with a semantic unity of theme along with certain morphosyntactic features of closure and internal cohesion.”38 In light of this description, a discourse unit beyond the sentence level is basically a unit of ‘a semantic unity of theme,’ which can be called a topical unity. Thus, a topical shift could be the primary criterion for determining units beyond the sentence. In other words, if a semantic unity is changed at a certain point, it could be thought of as a boundary for another discourse unit.39 Typically, the basic discourse unit at the level beyond the sentence is called a paragraph. I would designate this 38

Georgakopoulou and Goutsos, Discourse Analysis, 65. Beekman and Callow suggest a similar concept that “The basic criterion is that a section or a paragraph deals with one theme. If the theme changes, then a new unit has started . . . what gives a section or paragraph its overall coherence as semantic unit 39

34

chapter two

paragraph as a ‘sub-unit’ and the topic of a paragraph (sub-unit) as a ‘sub-topic.’ Thus, through the examination of the topical shift, one can divide the text into numerous sub-units, which have their own topics (sub-topics). In addition, if the fundamental nature of a discourse unit beyond the sentence level is topical unity, it is also possible to group sub-units into a larger discourse unit according to the topical relations among sub-units. For example, if the adjacent sub-units have certain kinds of topical relations (e.g., head-tail or paratactic-hypotactic relations, spatio-temporal relations, etc.), these sub-units can be grouped and form a larger discourse unit. I would call it a ‘unit,’ and the topic of it a ‘topic.’ Likewise, the adjacent ‘units’ can also be grouped by their relations, and establish a larger discourse unit. I will call this a ‘section,’ and the topic of a ‘section’ a ‘Topic.’ This notion is diagrammed below. Topic Section topic 1

topic 2

unit 1 (Tail)

unit 2 (Head)

sub-topic 1

sub-topic 2

sub-topic 3

sub-unit 1

sub-unit 2

sub-unit 3

(tail 1)

(tail 2)

(head)

Starting point of reading

topic change

topic change

topic change

Text

B. Criteria for determining discourse units Georgakopoulou and Goutsos’s definition of a paragraph also sheds light on identifying a topical shift from one discourse unit to another. According to them, a paragraph is structured through “certain morphosyntactic features of closure and internal cohesion.”40 From this concept, two kinds of criteria for identifying a paragraph can be drawn. One is the external criteria, which help a reader to distinguish one discourse unit from the preceding units. It includes various morphosyn-

is the fact that one subject is being dealt with” (J. Beekman and J. Callow, Translating the Word of God [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974], 279). 40 Georgakopoulou and Goutsos, Discourse Analysis, 65.

methodology

35

tactic boundary markers. The other is the internal criteria, which are related to the semantic unity of a paragraph. It is determined by inner cohesion and coherence. Thus, if a part of a text has coherent or cohesive ties within a boundary, it can be regarded as a discourse unit. 1) External criteria: Boundary markers41 a) Boundary markers at the beginning part of a discourse unit Providing new information, whether it is brand new or not, to the addressee, the boundary markers at the beginning part of a discourse unit help to identify the topical shift from one discourse unit to another. They function to signify the change of a situation, a shift of participants or topical entities, or a discontinuity between units. (1) Indicators for the change of a situation The change of a situation may signify a topical shift. Typically, it is performed by various spatiotemporal deictic markers.42 An example of the topical change through a temporal shift is shown in John 1 and 2.43 1:19 καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰωάννου (“and this is the witness of John”) 1:29 τῇ ἐπαύριον (“the next day”) 1:35 τῇ ἐπαύριον (“the next day”) 1:43 τῇ ἐπαύριον (“the next day”) 2:1 καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ (“and on the third day”)

As to the topical change through a spatial deixis, the warning revelation to the seven churches in Rev 2–3 provides a good example: Ephesus (2:1–7), Smyrna (2:8–11), Pergamum (2:12–17), Thyatira (2:18–29), Sardis (3:1–6), Philadelphia (3:7–13) and Laodicea (3:14–22).44 Besides the spatio-temporal markers, certain indicators in the Gospels work to signal the shift of units by changing a situation. For example, sometimes a parable of Jesus is introduced by specific expressions: e.g., καὶ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς πολλὰ ἐν παραβολαῖς (“and he spoke 41 For various boundary features of New Testament Greek, see S.E. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1991), 271–85. 42 Deixis refers to “the ways in which languages encode or grammaticalize features of the context of utterance or speech event” (S.C. Levinson, Pragmatics [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983], 54). Emphasis his. 43 Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews, 52–53. 44 Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews, 53.

36

chapter two

many things to them by parable”: Matt 13:3; cf. 13:24, 33, etc.), or καὶ ἔλεγεν, οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ὡς (“and he said, the kingdom of God is like”: Mark 4:26), or ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία (“the kingdom of God is like”: Matt 13:31). Another example is shown in Revelation. In many cases, the visionary world is introduced by the expression of ‘seeing’ or ‘hearing,’ and the topical shift is carried out according to them: hearing (Rev 1:10; 16:1, etc.); seeing (Rev 4:1; 5:1; 6:1; 7:1; 13:1; 14:6, 14; 15:1, 18:1, etc.). On the other hand, the change of genre or the point of view could be the signal of a topical shift. As to the change of genre, two examples occur in Acts 15:23–26 and 23:26–30. Both cases are changes from narrative to a letter.45 (2) Indicators for the change of participants or topical entities Boundary markers that signify the change of participants or topical entities also function to indicate a topical shift. A good example of this phenomenon is shown in 1 Corinthians. When Paul deals with the issues of the Corinthian church, he often introduces them with a prepositional phrase περὶ δέ (1 Cor 7:1, 25; 8:1, 4; 12:1, 16:1, 12). Here, the introduced topical entities work not only as the topic of a new discourse unit, but also as the boundary marker, which distinguishes one discourse unit from another. John 18 provides an interesting example where the introduction of different participants works to signify the change of discourse units.

Scene 1 (18:1–11) Scene 2 (18:12–14)

Jesus was betrayed and arrested

John 18:1: . . . Ἰησοῦς ἐξῆλθεν σὺν τοῖς

The cohorts, the commander, and the servants of the Jews brought Jesus to the high priest

John 18:12: ἡ οὖν σπεῖρα καὶ ὁ χιλίαρχος καὶ οἱ ὑπηρέται τῶν Ἰουδαίων συνέλαβον τὸν Ἰησοῦν

μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ

(“ . . . Jesus went out with his disciples”)

(“So, the cohorts and the commander and the servants of the Jews took Jesus”)

45 Aune calls it an “embedded letter” (D.E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment [LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987], 159).

methodology Scene 3 (18:15–18)

Peter denied Jesus

37

John 18:15: ἠκολούθει δὲ τῷ Ἰησοῦ Σίμων Πέτρος καὶ ἄλλος μαθητής (“But, Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus”)

Scene 4 (18:19–24)

The high priest asked of Jesus

John 18:19: ὁ οὖν ἀρχιερεὺς ἠρώτησεν (“So, the high priest asked”)

Scene 5 (18:25–27)

Peter denied Jesus twice

John 18:25: ἦν δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος ἑστὼς καὶ θερμαινόμενος

(“But, Simon Peter was standing and warming himself ”) Scene 6 (18:28–38)

Pilate questioned John 18:28, 29: ἄγουσιν οὖν τὸν Jesus Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ Καϊάφα εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον . . . ἐξῆλθεν οὖν ὁ Πιλᾶτος ἔξω . . .

(“So, they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium . . . So, Pilate went out of . . .”)

In this example, the shift of participants is carried out through a full noun phrase, pronoun, or a verb. However, a brand new participant is always expressed by the full noun phrase. Sometimes, in non-narrative discourse, vocative and nominative cases used for direct address help to distinguish the shift of topic. In Eph 6:1–9, for example, topical shifts are carried out by a series of nominatives: 6:1 (τὰ τέκνα: “children”), 6:4 (οἱ πατέρες: “fathers”), 6:5 (οἱ δοῦλοι: “slaves”), and 6:9 (οἱ κύριοι: “the masters”). However, every usage of the vocative or nominative cases is not for the change of participants. In many cases, vocatives or nominatives are used to draw the addressee’s attention: e.g., Ἀδελφοί, μὴ παιδία γίνεσθε ταῖς φρεσὶν (“Brothers and sisters, do not be children in thinking”: 1 Cor 14:20). Finally, one of the devices that introduce participants or information is the use of rhetorical devices, such as rhetorical questions (e.g., τί γάρ, τί οὖν, τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν, etc.) or rhetorical contrasts. For example, Matt 5:21–48 can be divided into six parts according to the rhetorical contrast between the law and Jesus’ interpretation of it.

Matt 5:21–22

ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη . . . ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν

(“you heard that it was said . . . but I say to you”) Matt 5:27–28

ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη . . . ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν

38 Matt 5:31–32

chapter two ἐρρέθη δέ, . . . ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν (“It was said . . . but I say

to you”) Matt 5:33–34

πάλιν ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη . . . ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν

(“again you heard that it was said . . . but I say to you”) Matt 5:38–39

ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη . . . ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν

Matt 5:43–44

ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη . . . ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν

(3) Indicators for discontinuity between units Conjunctions also work as external markers, which indicate the boundary of a discourse unit. According to S.E. Porter’s definition, conjunctions are linking words, which “join various grammatical units, such as phrases, clauses, and so on.”46 In light of the functional point of view, conjunctions have at least three kinds of role in relation to discourse analysis.47 First, the connections established by conjunctions occur at various discourse levels from word level to paragraph, and provide cohesive ties in a text. This function is relevant not only to the continuity of idea or information, but also to the organization of each discourse unit into a larger one. The second function of a conjunction is that it helps to delimit a discourse unit in a text. Typically, it happens when conjunctions work as the signals of discontinuity in the flow of information. The third function is that conjunctions can signify the coherent relations among discourse units. That is, when a conjunction links two kinds of information, it reveals a certain relation between the linked information (coherent relations)48 regardless of its discourse level.49 Among 46 Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (BLG 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 204. 47 Stanley E. Porter and M.B. O’Donnell, “Conjunction and Levels of Discourse,” (Unplished Paper Presented at the European Association of Biblical Studies Annual Meeting, 2006), 3. 48 Pickering defines a conjunction as a form of grammatical tie, which helps to connect a discourse together by giving some sort of relations. Pickering, A Framework for Discourse Analysis, 33. 49 Actually, there are two kinds of view on the role of conjunctions. One is a minimalist approach, which thinks that the function of conjunctions is just to signal the continuity-discontinuity in the information flow. It regards conjunctions as procedural words. The other is a maximalist view, which considers the other functions of conjunctions besides a procedural linking, e.g., certain relations among linked information (Stephanie L. Black, Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew: καί, δέ, τότε, οὖν and Asyndeton in Narrative Discourse [JSNTSup 216; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002], 41–71; Porter and O’Donnell, “Conjunction and Levels of Discourse,” 3–5).

methodology

39

these three functions, while the first and third functions are closely related to the inner criteria for determining a discourse unit, the second function is relevant to boundary markers, which provide a clue to the demarcation of a discourse unit. For example, in many cases of Romans, οὖν works not only to link logically between the preceding and the following units, but also to signal a discontinuity of one unit with others (e.g., Rom 3:1, 9, 27; 4:1; 5:1; 6:1; 7:7, etc.). b) Boundary markers at the end of a discourse unit Boundary markers can also appear at the end of a discourse unit. While the function of a boundary marker at the beginning is to introduce new or different information, those which appear at the end generally work for the closure of a unit. An example of this indicator is the summative expressions in Acts. As the gospel spreads from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth, specific summative expressions appear like the ending indicators of the story in each regional area.50

Jerusalem (Acts 6:7)

The word of God continued to spread; the number of the disciples increased greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith (NRSV).

All Judea, Galilee and Samaria (Acts 9:31)

Meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers (NRSV).

The ends of the earth (Acts 28:30–31)

He lived there two whole years at his own expense and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance (NRSV).

Another example of boundary markers is the occurrences of repetitive expressions at the end of several discourse units. In Revelation

50

Besides the summaries according to the regional division, many other summaries are used in Acts. For detailed information, see J.A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 97–98. He says that “summaries were part of a Hellenistic mode of narrative prose writing.”

40

chapter two

2–3, for instance, the ending boundary of each part is easily distinguished by the same expression ὀ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις (“Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit says to the churches”: Rev 2:7 [Ephesus]; 2:11 [Smyrna]; 2:17 [Pergamum]; 2:29 [Thyatira]; 3:6 [Sardis]; 3:13 [Philadelphia]; and 3:22 [Laodicea]). In some cases, as a resonance of what has been mentioned at the beginning of a discourse unit, certain expressions at the end of a discourse unit can also work as boundary markers.51 In 1 Cor 14:1–5, for example, the reappearance of the same clausal expression in 1 Cor 14:5 functions to indicate the boundary of this unit. 1 Cor 14:1: διώκετε τὴν ἀγάπην, ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ πνευματικά, μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε. (“Pursue love, yet desire eagerly the spiritual things, especially that you may prophesy”) 1 Cor 14:5: θέλω δὲ πάντας ὑμᾶς λαλεῖν γλώσσαις, μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε . . . (“But I want you all to speak in tongues, especially that you may prophesy . . . ”)

2) Internal criteria: cohesion and coherence a) Coherent elements The inner coherent relations, which are often described as paratactic and hypotactic (or head-tail) relations, primarily show the topical flow of a text. However, these relations can also be the clues for the boundary of a discourse unit, because they may be used to “set the limits on how far the reader should look back in the discourse when interpreting cohesive ties.”52 As for this, F. Christensen’s explanation is helpful. For him, the clauses in a sentence and the sentences in a paragraph

51

Harvey distinguishes this phenomenon of repetition according to the word and sentence level. He calls the repetition of the same word ‘inclusion,’ and that of the sentence ‘ring-composition’ (J.D. Harvey, Listening to the Text [ETS Studies; Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998], 103, 284). However, in regard to the word level, there is debate on the scope of the matching word. For example, Guthrie includes synonyms and antonyms as well as the same word (G.H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews [NovTSup 73; Leiden: Brill, 1994], 15). 52 Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians, 93.

methodology

41

could be compared to the branches of a tree or parts of an outlined structure. Just like a tree has many branches in which there are more than one sub-branches, he understands that a paragraph consists of higher level branches (head or paratactic sentences) and lower level branches (tail or hypotactic sentences) which depend on the higher level branch.53 This concept can be demonstrated as such: S 1-1-1

SS 1 S 1-1

S 1-1-2 S 1-2 Paragraph * SS: sentence sequence; S: sentence

In this diagram, a paragraph consists of some branches of sentences. Here, SS 1 means a main head sentence, and it controls some subordinated tail sentences, such as S 1-1 and S 1-2. Similarly, a main tail sentence S 1-1 can also contain two sub-sentences S 1-1-1 and S 1-1-2. In this case, S 1-1 becomes a head sentence and S 1-1-1 and S 1-1-2 tail sentences. Thus, this paragraph is established by the chains of hierarchical relations among sentences: one head sentence (SS 1), two tail sentences (S 1-1 and S 1-2), and two tail sentences that cling to S 1-1 (S 1-1-1 and S 1-1-2). And the end of the last tail sentence becomes the ending boundary of this paragraph. As far as the nature of these paratactic-hypotactic (head-tail) relations is concerned, M.A.K. Halliday introduces the concept of expansion and projection.54 Projection is performed by a locution or

53 F. Christensen, “A Generative Rhetoric of the Paragraph,” CCC 16 (1965), 144–56. 54 M.A.K. Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar (London: Arnold, 1985), 192–251. cf. Beekman and Callow call these two tactic relations ‘addition relation’ and ‘associative relation’ respectively. These relations have many subcategories: (1) addition relations: sequence, simultaneous, alternative, matched support, conversational exchanges; and (2) associative relations: manner, comparison, contrast, equivalence, generic-specific, amplification-contraction/summary, reason-result, means-purpose, condition-consequence, concession-contraexpectation, grounds-conclusion, time,

42

chapter two

an idea. Locution appears with a verb of saying (“I say that . . .”) or hearing (“I heard that . . .”). Idea is the role of ‘meaning’ or ‘completing’ among clauses: e.g., “I think that . . .” These two functions are generally used at the clause level. As to the expansion, there are three types of expansion: (1) elaboration; (2) extension; and (3) enhancement. Elaboration is that one clause expands another by elaborating on it (or some portion of it), i.e., restating, specifying, or exemplifying.55 Extension refers to expanding relations among clauses or sentences by extending further, i.e., adding to it, offering alternatives. Enhancement indicates an expansion by qualifying it with spatiotemporal features (time, place), cause—result, or conditional relations. These expansion relations can also be applied to the sentence level and beyond. In many ways, conjunctions help to identify those relations.56 In sum, as internal criteria for determining a unit, coherent elements, especially logical relations, function not only to show how information proceeds in a unit, but also to indicate the boundary of a unit. That is, when a certain logical head-tail relation ends, it can signify the ending boundary of a unit. Below is the summary of the relations of expansion and projection.57

location, circumstance, identification, comment, content (Beekman and Callow, Translating the Word of God, 284). 55 Halliday does not mention the relations between sentences or paragraphs. However, since I believe the same relations can be applied to the level beyond the sentence, I put sentence level as an example. 56 Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians, 91–93; Cf. D.B. Wallace, who provides a list of conjunctions according to different categories: logical, adverbial, and substantial functions (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 666–78). 57 Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians, 91; cf. Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar, 196–97. Cf. for the comparison of the relations in different linguistic theories, see Georgakopoulou and Goutsos, Discourse Analysis, 87.

methodology Projection

43

Locution Idea

Elaboration

Extension Expansion

Apposition

expository, exemplifying

Clarification

corrective, particularizing, summative, verifactive

Addition

positive, negative

Adversative Variation

replace, subtractive, alternative

SpatioTemporal

following, simultaneous, preceding, conclusive, immediate, interrupted, repetitive, specific, durative, terminal, punctiliar

Enhancement

Comparative positive, negative Causal

result, purpose, reason, basis

Conditional

positive, negative, concessive

Respective

positive, negative

b) Cohesive elements (1) Conjunctions As mentioned above, since conjunctions function as indicators of connective ties, they are very effective tools for establishing the cohesion of a discourse unit. When one thinks of the cohesive functions of conjunctions in determining a discourse unit, it would be helpful to consider that a conjunction may have a different connecting boundary according to its kind. For example, even though δέ and ἀλλά are used as markers of contrast, their connecting boundary is different. While δέ is used at every level of discourse, ἀλλά can only be used at the phrase and clause levels.58 Moreover, even the same conjunction could have different connecting boundary according to its actual usages. For instance, even though γάρ is only used at the clause and beyond level,59 its actual connecting boundary could be different according to the usages in a text. In Titus 2:11, γάρ works to link

58 59

Porter and O’Donnell, “Conjunction and Levels of Discourse,” 7. Porter and O’Donnell, “Conjunction and Levels of Discourse,” 7.

44

chapter two

the information between Titus 2:1–10 and Titus 2:11–14. However, in John 14:30, it is used only to join the information of two clauses, οὐκέτι πολλὰ λαλήσω μεθ᾽ὑμῶν, ἔρχεται γὰρ ὁ τοῦ κόσμου ἄρχων (“I will no longer talk much with you, for (γάρ) the ruler of this world is coming”). Thus, it is necessary to take heed of the scope of conjunctive connection in determining the boundary of a discourse unit through the examination of conjunctions. (2) Grammatical Cohesion The cohesion of a text is also signaled by various grammatical elements. This includes referential cohesion and grammatical grouping. (a) Referential cohesion i) Reference The referential system can be divided into two kinds of phoric systems: one is expophoric and the other is endophoric. Exophoric is a co-referential link between an item in a text and the element outside of the text. For example, in the sentence “I like this one,” no one can understand what the ‘I’ and ‘one’ indicate without appropriate contextual information. This is called exophoric reference. In a biblical text, the exact exophoric reference is hard to know, so it often becomes an issue of scholarly debate. Endophoric reference refers to a co-referential link within a co-text. It is divided into anaphoric and cataphoric references. Anaphoric reference refers to the referential link between an element in a text and the preceding element: e.g., “I bought a watch. That watch was expensive.” Cataphoric reference is the referential relation between an element and a subsequent element. Since anaphoric relation is usually more frequent than cataphoric reference, the former is more cohesive than the latter.60 In ancient Greek, these phoric references are delivered by grammaticalized, reduced, or implied forms.61 A grammaticalized reference is a substance nominal group, which is usually expressed by a proper noun or a full substantival participle clause. A reduced reference typically consists of pronouns or articles. In Greek, an implied

60

Cf. Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians, 94 n. 123. Porter and O’Donnell, “Cohesion,” 119. As to the participant references, MartínAsensio (Martín-Asensio, Transitivity-Based Foregrounding in the Acts of Apostles, 93) suggests fourfold formal features: (1) full explicit subject (proper noun used); (2) abbreviated explicit subject (pronoun or article used); (3) non-explicit subject (indicated by personal verb suffixes); and (4) non-subject participant (direct or indirect object). 61

methodology

45

reference is shown through verbal suffixes.62 The following examples are the anaphoric references with regard to Jesus in an episode of feeding the five thousand (Matt 14:13–21),63 and the cataphoric reference about the demon in Matt 17:18 respectively.

13

Anaphoric references (Matt 14:13–21)

Cataphoric reference (Matt 17:18)

ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνεχώρησεν . . . ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ πεζῇ ἀπὸ τῶν πόλεων. 14 καὶ ἐξελθὼν εἶδεν πολὺν ὄχλον καὶ ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ᾽αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν . . . 15 ὀψίας δὲ γενομένης προσῆλθον αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ λέγοντες . . . βρώματα. 16 ὁ δὲ [Ἰησοῦς] εἶπεν αὐτοῖς . . . φαγεῖν. 17 οἱ δὲ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ . . . δύο ἰχθύας 18 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν· φέρετέ μοι ὧδε αὐτούς. 19 καὶ κελεύσας τοὺς ὄχλους ἀνακλιθῆναι . . . λαβὼν τοὺς πέντε ἄρτους καὶ τοὺς δύο ἰχθύας, ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εὐλόγησεν καὶ κλάσας ἔδωκεν . . . καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ᾽αὐτοῦ τὸ δαιμόνιον καὶ ἐθεραπεύθη ὁ παῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας

(“and Jesus rebukes him, and the demon came out of him [boy] and the child was healed instantly”)

In sum, these phoric references provide fairly strong evidence to establish the cohesive chains in a text (e.g., participant chain, topical [lexical] chain, etc.). Thus, phoric references are useful to determine the inner boundary of a discourse unit. ii) Substitution and ellipsis Substitution refers to the replacement of one linguistic item with another. Ellipsis means that one item is replaced with nothing, and it is performed by one of three types:

62 Givón states about the accessibility of reference: “the basic principle guiding referent accessibility is that the less accessible a referent is the more morphological material will be used to encode it.” And he suggests some clines of the referent accessibility (T. Givón, “The Pragmatic Word-Order: Predictability Importance and Attention,” in M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik and J. Wirth [eds.] Studies in Syntactic Typology [Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1988]. 249). (a) Zero anaphora (b) Clitic pronoun (c) Independent pronoun (d) Full noun Most accessible referent → Least accessible referent 63 Here, the italics with an underline indicate grammaticalized references. The italics mean reduced references and the underlined markings are implied references of Jesus.

46

chapter two

nominal, verbal and clausal ellipsis. The example of substitution appears in Matt 4:1–4, where Jesus and the devil are substituted by ‘the one answering’ and ‘the tempting one’ respectively.64 Matt 4:1 τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνήχθη εἰς τὴν ἔρημον . . . πειρασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου. 2 καὶ νηστεύσας . . . ἐπείνασεν. 3 καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ πειράζων εἶπεν αὐτῷ· εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰπὲ ἵνα οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι ἄρτοι γένωνται. 4 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν· γέγραπται· οὐκ ἐπ᾽ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος . . .

An example of verbal ellipsis is shown in Mark 14:29: ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ἔφη αὐτῷ· εἰ καὶ πάντες σκανδαλισθήσονται, ἀλλ᾽οὐκ ἐγώ [σκανδαλισθήσομαι] (“But Peter said to him, ‘Even though all will fall away, I will not [fall away]’ ”). (b) Grammatical grouping Another way of creating grammatical cohesion is the grammatical groupings. Grammatical grouping is performed by the grammatical agreement or the repetitions of certain grammatical patterns. First, as to grammatical agreement, W. Pickering explains it by the concepts of ‘government’ and ‘concord.’ Government is applied when “an inflection signals the synthetic function of its host.”65 For example, in Greek, when a subject is mentioned in the nominative case, grammatical agreement follows through the repetition of nominative cases or the inflected verb. When the grammatical agreement is over, the shift indicates that the domain of the subject is over. In some sense, this grammatical agreement is a part of the chain of participant references. The concept of concord means the mandatory agreement or correspondence between two or more words. In Greek, this phenomenon happens in the relationship between adjective and noun, or between subject and verb. Second, the repetitions of certain grammatical forms, such as tense, case, mood, person, number, voice, etc., also contribute to the cohesion of a text. For example, in Phlm 4–7, the second person genitive singular form (σου) is repeated throughout the whole paragraph (Phlm 4, 5, 6, 7 [×2], 13, 14, 20, 21). These repetitions emphasize Philemon’s honorable behavior as a Christian, which is the ground for Paul’s petition for Onesimus.

64 65

Porter and O’Donnell, “Cohesion,” 118. Pickering, A Framework for Discourse Analysis, 29.

methodology

47

Another example appears in Rom 11:17–24, where passive voices occur repeatedly. These repetitive passive verbs indicate the outcome of God’s action: ἐξεκλάσθησαν (“be broken off ”); ἐνεκεντρίσθης, ἐγκεντρισθῶ, ἐγκεντρισθήσονται (“be grafted”); and ἐξεκόπης, ἐκκοπήσῃ (“be cut off ”). Thus, by the repetition of these passive voices, Paul makes a coherent unit, and stresses the truth that salvation is not from human merit or work, but only from God. Rom 11:17 εἰ δέ τινες τῶν κλάδων ἐξεκλάσθησαν, σὺ δὲ ἀγριέλαιος ὢν ἐνεκεντρίσθης ἐν αὐτοῖς . . . 18 μὴ κατακαυχῶ τῶν κλάδων . . . 19 ἐρεῖς οὖν· ἐξεκλάσθησαν κλάδοι ἵνα ἐγὼ ἐγκεντρισθῶ 20 καλῶς τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ ἐξεκλάσθησαν, σὺ δὲ τῇ πίστει ἕστηκας . . . 21 εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς . . . φείσεται 22 ἴδε οὖν . . . ἐὰν ἐπιμένῃς τῇ χρηστότητι, ἐπεὶ καὶ σὺ ἐκκοπήσῃ 23 κἀκεῖνοι δέ . . . ἐγκεντρισθήσονται· δυνατὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς . . . 24 εἰ γὰρ σὺ ἐκ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν ἐξεκόπης ἀγριελαίου καὶ παρὰ φύσιν ἐνεκεντρίσθης εἰς καλλιέλαιον . . . κατὰ φύσιν ἐγκεντρισθήσονται τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐλαίᾳ

(3) Lexical cohesion The third type of cohesion for delineating a discourse unit is lexical cohesion. With regard to lexical cohesion, W. Pickering suggests seven lexical categories: (1) same item; (2) synonym; (3) superordinate; (4) general word; (5) hyponym; (6) hyperonym; and (7) meronym.66 However, according to Porter and O’Donnell, these items can be packed into a category of reiteration, which consists of two subcategories: (1) repetition; and (2) synonymy and its variants (antonymy, hyponymy, and meronymy).67 A synonym is a word having similarity in meaning, and an antonym refers to a word which has the opposite sense. Hyponymy indicates the general-specific relationship between words: e.g., a bulldog is a hyponym of a dog. Meronymy denotes the part-whole relationship: e.g., a feather is a meronym of a bird. This phenomenon of reiteration is not limited to the word level itself. The repetitive phrases or expression also contribute to the cohesion of a text. A good example of reiteration appears in 1 John 2:12–14. 1 John 2:12 γράφω ὑμῖν, τεκνία, ὅτι ἀφέωνται ὑμῖν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ. 2:13 γράφω ὑμῖν, πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ᾽ἀρχῆς. γράφω ὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι, ὅτι νενικήκατε τὸν πονηρόν.

66

Pickering, A Framework for Discourse Analysis, 35. Porter and O’Donnell, “Cohesion,” 123. They synthesize Halliday’s two categories under the title of “reiteration.” Cf. Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar, 310–12. 67

48

chapter two 2:14 ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, παιδία, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν πατέρα. ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ᾽ἀρχῆς. ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι, ὅτι ἰσχυροί ἐστε καὶ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει καὶ νενικήκατε τὸν πονηρόν.

Another case of lexical reiteration is inverted parallelism, which refers to “the reversal of the order in which two or more topics are introduced and subsequently discussed.”68 This construction could be discernable by the repetition or contrast of the lexical items. For example, in Acts 6:1–7, the repetition of some words, such as multiplication of the disciples, the twelve disciples, and the seven men, facilitates the inner coherent structure. This paragraph begins with the multiplication of the disciples and the problem in the Jerusalem church (6:1). Then, the twelve disciples command the church (6:2) to select the seven men for serving tables (6:3). So, the church selects seven men (6:5) and brings them to the twelve disciples (6:6). As a result of electing the seven, the number of the disciples is multiplied (6:7). Notice the structure of this paragraph: A (6:1: multiplication of the disciples and problem) B (6:2: the twelve disciples) C (6:3: about the seven men) D (6:4: The major work for the twelve) C΄ (6:5: select seven men) B΄ (6:6: the twelve disciples) A΄ (6:7: multiplication of the disciples)

In addition to reiteration, collocation is also used as another category of lexical cohesion.69 As a co-occurrence tendency, collocation refers to word choice in relation to the sense of word(s). For example, there is a collocational bond between cold and ice, in the sense that both are related to low temperature.70

68

Harvey, Listening to the Text, 283. Even though the phonological factor is not strong evidence for the paragraphing of ancient texts, sometimes it helps to see the cohesion of a paragraph. For example, in Rom 5:16, Paul uses δώρημα (“gift”), which is rarely used in prose. Perhaps, this word is chosen for rhetorical purpose as another -μα word in this paragraph (J.D.G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 [WBC; Waco: Word Books, 1988], 280): Rom 5:15 ἀλλ᾽οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα, οὕτως καὶ τὸ χάρισμα· εἰ γὰρ . . . ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν 69

χάριτι . . . καὶ οὐχ ὡς δι᾽ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος τὸ δώρημα· τὸ μὲν γὰρ κρίμα ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς κατάκριμα, τὸ δὲ χάρισμα ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων εἰς δικαίωμα . . . 18 κατάκριμα . . .

70 Halliday and Hasan define it as the “occurrence of a different lexical item that is systematically related to the first one, as a synonym or superordinate of it” (Halliday and Hasan, Cohesion, 285).

methodology

49

When one deals with lexical cohesion, to consider the lexical chain is very important. As K. Callow points out, one of the most effective ways to find a lexical chain is to consult the same semantic domain. She states that “if many words in a paragraph come from the same semantic domain, they contribute to the unity of that paragraph, and hence to the ease with which it is understood.”71 In this sense, J.P. Louw and E.A. Nida’s Greek-English lexicon72 is very useful, because unlike traditional lexicons, which list a series of glosses,73 they deals with New Testament words according to their semantic domain. Thus, this lexicon is very helpful to trace the lexical chain at the paragraph level and beyond. Below is an example of a semantic chain in Matt 17:14–21. Matt 17:14 καὶ ἐλθόντων . . . 15 καὶ λέγων, κύριε, ἐλέησόν μου τὸν υἱόν, ὅτι σεληνιάζεται καὶ κακῶς πάσχει· πολλάκις . . . 16 καὶ προσήνεγκα αὐτὸν τοῖς μαθηταῖς σου, καὶ οὐκ ἠδυνήθησαν αὐτὸν θεραπεῦσαι 17 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν . . . φέρετέ μοι αὐτὸν ὧδε 18 καὶ . . . ὁ Ἰησοῦς . . . καὶ ἐθεραπεύθη ὁ παῖς ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης 19 . . .

This passage from Matthew is a parallel to Mark 9:14–29. However, unlike Mark, who does not mention these four words, Matthew establishes a semantic chain with semantic domain 23 (Physiological Processes and States: σεληνιάζεται [23.I: Sickness, Disease and Weakness] and θεραπεῦσαι [23.H: Health, Vigor and Strength]), and 24, which is related to the physical condition (πάσχει [24.F: Pain and Suffering]). From this comparison, a cautious conjecture can be drawn: Matthew seems to describe the nature of Jesus’ miracle as ‘healing,’ not ‘exorcism’ per se, even though Jesus casts out the demon.74 C. Conclusion Since the determination of the discourse unit at the level beyond the sentence is based upon topical unity, to identify the topical shift from

71 Katherine Callow, Discourse Considerations in Translating the Word of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 31. 72 J.P. Louw and E.A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (2 vols.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1989). 73 For example, W. Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans. F.W. Danker, W.R. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich; 3rd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). 74 For more detailed comparison between Mark 9:14–29 and Matt 17:14–21, see Jae Hyun Lee, “Günther Bornkamm and Redaction Criticism,” in Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams (eds.) Pillars of the Biblical Interpretation: Old and New (Forthcoming).

50

chapter two

one discourse unit to another is a crucial process in discerning the boundaries of certain discourse units. Topical shift can be recognized through external criteria, which signify the change of topic at the first or final position of a discourse unit, and internal criteria, which show the inner topical unity of a discourse unit. The former criteria include various boundary markers and conjunctions, and the latter criteria contain conjunctions, many cohesive and coherent elements. In practice, when a reader reads a text, and meets the first topical shift, which is identified by various linguistic features, s/he can call it a sub-unit. And as the reading goes forward, when s/he finds another topical change through linguistic signals, a reader determines the nature of the new part by examining the relation between the previous and the present sub-units. If two parts connect with a certain relation, such as head-tail, and share the same the topical entities with the same semantic domains, both can be regarded as parts of the same ‘unit.’ If not, the new part can be thought of as a part of another ‘unit.’ In this way, each sub-unit is grouped in order to form a ‘unit’ and a ‘section’ according to the topical shifts and their relations. This idea can be depicted as below: Topic Section topic 1

topic 2

unit 1 (Tail)

unit 2 (Head)

sub-topic 1

sub-topic 2

sub-topic 3

sub-unit 1

sub-unit 2

sub-unit 3

(tail 1)

(tail 2)

(head)

Starting point of reading

topic change

topic change

(1) boundary

(1) boundary

markers

markers

(2) cohesion

(2) cohesion

& coherence

& coherence

(3) semantic

(3) relations

domain

between subunits (4) semantic domain

topic change

Text

methodology

51

2. Topicality A. How should one approach the topic? If the process of grouping can be determined by topical shifts, then how can one know the topic of each unit and the whole discourse? This question is related to the second thematic question: what is the author’s main thought or emphasis? In general, the addresser (writer) approaches the topic of a discourse from the top to the bottom. That is, after thinking about the topic of a whole discourse and that of a paragraph, the author begins to express a topic through words or clauses. On the other hand, the addressee (reader) takes the reverse way to understand the topic of a discourse. He/she begins with the bottom and traces the topical elements up to the discourse. T.A. van Dijk and W. Kintsch describe this kind of addressee’s strategy that:75 [w]e go from the understanding of words, to the understanding of clauses in which these words have various functions, and then to complex sentences, sequences of sentence, and overall textual structures. . .

Therefore, when we are going to decide a topic of a paragraph, we should trace the topical elements from the clause to the upper discourse level. In this sense, the notion of information structure is important. B. Information structure Information structure refers to a thematic functional construction. Regarding a clause as the fundamental information unit, M.A.K. Halliday and his followers suggest a Theme-Rheme construction as the basic structure of a clause. Theme means “the elements which serves as the point of departure of the message,” and Rheme is the development of the Theme.76 Yet since they regard the clause as a basic unit, they do not provide an integrated model that covers the level beyond the sentence. S.E. Porter and M.B. O’Donnell, acknowledging the above problem of the Hallidayian understanding, suggest a fuller model of information structure. Unlike Halliday, they distinguish three different levels

75 T.A. van Dijk and W. Kintsch, Strategies of Discourse Comprehension (New York: Academic Press, 1983), 10. 76 Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar, 38.

52

chapter two

in a paragraph, such as clause, sentence, and paragraph level. They also use different terms to designate informational functions at each level. At the clause level, Porter and O’Donnell use Prime/Subsequent, instead of the Theme/Rheme found in Halliday’s model. Prime is defined as “who or what clause is focused upon” and realized by the “first group element” in a clause. As “the development of the [P]rime,” Subsequent refers to the remaining elements in the clause.77 In this Prime/Subsequent construction, four components of a clause (Subject, Predicator, Complement, and Adjunct) can be located in the Prime position.78 For example, John 1:15a shows that the Subject (Ἰωάννης) is placed at the Prime position: Ἰωάννης μαρτυρεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ. But, in the cases of John 1:1a (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος) and 1:6a (ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος), Adjunct (ἐν ἀρχῇ) and Predicator (ἐγένετο) are in the Prime position respectively. At the sentence level, Porter and O’Donnell borrow the term ‘Theme/Rheme’ from Halliday, but use it with a different sense. For them, Theme is defined as “the change of participant as the actor in a process chain,” and Rheme as the “additional process information for the current actor.”79 While Prime/Subsequent is about positional information at the clause level, Theme/Rheme construction provides the contents of information at the sentence level, especially in regards to the participant. For example, in John 1:1 (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος), the Theme is ὁ λόγος, and the Rheme is ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν, ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν and θεὸς ἦν. This relation can be shown as such:

77

Theme

Rheme 1

Rheme 2

Rheme 3

ὁ λόγος

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν

ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν

θεὸς ἦν

Stanley E. Porter and Matthew B. O’Donnell, “Theme, Topic and Information,” in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament (forthcoming), 58. 78 I borrow these terms from the model of OpenText.org. According to the OpenText.org’s analytical model, the Subject is “the word group or word groups providing greater specification regarding the grammatical subject of a finite verb form.” The Predicator indicates the verbal element of a clause, which “grammaticalizes the process of the clause.” The Complement indicates “a word group or the word groups that ‘completes’ its predicate,” and the categories of direct and indirect object in traditional grammar belong to the Complement. The Adjunct means “a word group or the word groups that modify the predicator, providing an indication of the circumstances associated with the process” (http://divinity.mcmaster.ca/OpenText/model/guidelines/clause/0–2). 79 Porter and O’Donnell, “Theme, Topic and Information,” 63.

methodology

53

Porter and O’Donnell also notice a topical relation, which is made by the combination of the clausal element (Prime/Subsequent) and the sentential element (Theme/Rheme). The Theme and Rheme could be located either in the Prime or the Subsequent element of a clause. For example, in John 1:1, the Prime of the first clause is the Adjunct (ἐν ἀρχῇ), and the Subsequent is ἦν ὁ λόγος. But in regard to Theme/ Rheme construction, the Theme is located in the Subsequent, and the Rheme is in the Prime.

Rheme 1

Theme

ἐν ἀρχῇ

ἦν

ὁ λόγος

(Adjunct)

(Predicator)

(Subject)

(Prime)

(Subsequent)

The second clause of John 1:1, however, has a different relation: καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Here, the Theme appears in the Prime, and the Rheme is in the Subsequent.

Theme

Rheme 2

ὁ λόγος

ἦν

πρὸς τὸν θεόν

(Subject)

(Predicator)

(Adjunct)

(Prime)

(Subsequent)

As far as the paragraph level is concerned, Porter and O’Donnell suggest the concept of Topic and Comment. For them, Topic is the “establishment of a new semantic environment for the discourse,” and Comment is the “supporting information for the current topic.”80 This construction is similar to the Head-Tail relations. So, how the Topic/ Comment works can show clearly how one topical element is interacting with others in a paragraph. In addition, it functions to distinguish one unit or section from another, because Topic/Comment can work

80 Pickering uses different terms to describe the same concept. He uses topiccomment at the clause level, and theme-development at the paragraph level (Pickering, A Framework for Discourse Analysis, 47–49).

54

chapter two

as the semantic boundary of a discourse unit. That is, if a certain unit or section has a different semantic boundary, it indicates a different unit or section.81 Thus, the concept of Topic/Comment construction can be applied not only to paragraph level (sub-unit), but also to unit and section level. K. Callow, even though she uses different terminologies, describes the functions of Topic/Comment aptly: The topical sentence [Topic] may state the relationship of the paragraph to the one before, or may link the paragraph to some other point earlier in the discourse, or may indicate the values of the paragraph within the discourse as a whole, whether illustrative, developmental, marking a turning point, etc. . . . The nucleus of the paragraph [Topic] will develop the theme either sequentially, or by means of such relationships as reason-result, cause-effect, comparison or contrast between two items, parallelism, coordination, contradiction, explanation, plan and execution, alternatives, question and answer, etc.82

Moreover, the information structure is also related to two kinds of pragmatic functions: topicality and focality. Topicality refers to ‘aboutness’ in a paragraph, and Focality is about how to show the salient information in a paragraph. The whole concept of the information structure of a paragraph is summarized below.83 C. An analytical frame for topicality In order to define the topicality of each unit, Halliday’s three semantic components are very useful: interpersonal, ideational, and textual meanings. 1) Ideational meaning Ideational meaning is concerned with how the actual process is going. In ideational meaning, a process is composed of three components: the process itself (verbal group), participants (nominal group), and circumstances (adverbial group or prepositional group). Following Opentext.org’s model, I will call the process ‘Predicator’ and the circumstances ‘Adjunct,’ and divide participants into two, ‘Subject and

81 Porter and O’Donnell claim that “Τopic and comment are the thematization functions . . . realized through semantic shifts or semantic boundaries” (Porter and O’Donnell, “Theme, Topic and Information,” 68). 82 Callow, Discourse Considerations, 57. 83 Porter and O’Donnell, “Theme, Topic and Information,” 57. But I add pragmatic functions to their frame according to my understanding.

methodology Level

Function

Topic

Semantic shift

Comment

Semantic continuity

Theme

Change of Subject

Paragraph (sub-unit)

Sentence

Realized through

Definition

Pragmatic functions

Establishment of a new semantic environment for the discourse Support information for the current topic

Participant The change of Involvement participant as Topicality actor of process (Topic) chain & Focality Additional Addition process verbal elements information for (Prominence) current actor (extension or process chain)

Rheme

Prime

First group elements Subsequent Remaining group elements

Clause

Semantic boundaries & thematic relations

55

Group order Who or what the clause is focused upon Development of the Topic

Complement.’84 These four will be the fundamental elements of my analytical frame for topicality.85

Verse/clause Verse

84

Subject

Predicator

Complement

Adjunct

Clause

Http://divinity.mcmaster.ca/OpenText/model/guidelines/clause/0–2. OpenText.org’s model calls these four elements “core clause components.” In addition to these, OpenText.org adds two more components in analyzing a clause, Addressee and Conjunction, and calls them “peripheral clause components” (http:// divinity.mcmaster.ca/OpenText/model/guidelines/clause/0–2). 85

56

chapter two

As far as the Subject is concerned, three things should be considered. The first one is its position in the information structure. Since the Subject in Greek does not have a fixed position, it is possible for the Subject to be located in various combined positions in the information structure, e.g., in Topic-Theme-Prime or Topic-Rheme-Subsequent. Moreover, since the Prime position in Greek usually has emphasis, an examination of the position of the Subject is a very important factor for topicality. The second thing to note is the forms of reference. Since, the Subject in Greek can be expressed in one of three forms, grammaticalized (full noun or proper noun), reduced (pronoun, article), and implied reference (verb form), an examination of the forms of reference is useful in determining the topical entities or participants. Usually, the new information is mentioned by a grammaticalized form; then, it is expressed in the following discourse through reduced or implied forms. Consequently, to take heed on the forms of reference is a necessary process in defining the topicality of a discourse unit. The third factor to consider is the logical role of the participants in the process. Since the grammatical Subject can work either as an actor or patient in a process, to identify its logical role helps to understand how the interaction among topical entities or participants is going in a discourse. There are two kinds of logical role with regard to the Subject, logical subject (LS)86 and logical object (LO), and the logical object is divided into logical goal (LO-G) and beneficiary (LO-B). In general, the logical subject takes an initiative in the proceeding of a process. These three considerations about the Subject are summarized below:

Subject word LS (Logical subject) LO-G (logical goal) LO-B (logical beneficiary)

referential forms G (grammatical) R (reduced) I (implied)

Information Structure Primary/Secondary/Embedded87 Theme-Rheme; Prime-Subsequent Ex.) P-T-P (Primary-Theme-Prime) P-R-S (Primary-Rheme-Subsequent)

86 Here, the logical subject becomes either an actor or agent. Normally, in a clause with an active verb, the doer of the process is called the logical actor. Yet, in a clause with a passive verb, the logical actor of the process is called agent, which is usually expressed in English clause by a prepositional construction with ‘by.’ 87 The terms, ‘Primary/Secondary/Embedded,’ refer to the levels of clause. Primary clause is “[a]n independent clause (usually contains a finite verb form) that is not

methodology

57

As far as the Predicator is concerned, it is realized by a verbal group, and its nature is divided into four categories: (1) material process: process of doing; (2) mental process: a process of sensing; (3) relational process: a process of being; and (4) other process: behavioral, verbal, and existential processes. Halliday provides detailed sub-categories about the components of these processes as such:88

Material

Behavior

Mental

Verbal

Relational

Existential

action (‘doing’) event (‘happening’)

‘behaving’ Perception ‘saying’ Attribution ‘existing’ (‘seeing’) (‘attributing’) Affection Identification (‘feeling’) (‘identifying’) Cognition (‘thinking’)

The Circumstance is realized by an adverbial group or prepositional group. There are six types: (1) extent and location in time and space; (2) manner (means, quality, and comparison); (3) cause (reason, purpose, and behalf ); (4) accompaniment; (5) matter; and (6) role.89 2) Interpersonal meaning Interpersonal meaning focuses on how the speaker/author interacts with the listener/reader. Particularly, it concerns the pattern of how the grammatical subject delivers the exchange of the speech role between speaker/author and listener/reader in communication. In this sense, this meaning is closely related to the Subject and the Predicator in the above frame. Yet, in addition to the Subject, a component of the

dependent on or subordinate to any other clause.” It works to “introduce new pieces of information and move the message of the discourse along from the start towards the end of the message.” Secondary clause is “[a] clause that depends on (is subordinate to) another clause. This dependency/subordination is usually indicated by the presence of certain particles/conjunctions (traditionally referred to as subordinating particles).” Embedded clause means “[a] clause that occurs inside a component of another clause. Frequently the predicator of embedded clauses are non-finite (i.e., participle and infinitive clauses), but finite clauses can also be embedded” (http://divinity .mcmaster.ca/OpenText/resources/articles/a8). 88 Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar, 131. 89 For more detailed explanation, see Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar, 148.

58

chapter two

‘Addressee’ should be consulted, because, being composed of vocative forms or nominative as a vocative, it “used to call attention to one of the participants (either internal or external) in the discourse.”90 With regard to the Predicator, besides the nature of the process mentioned above, four other areas need to be considered in order to determine the topicality of a discourse: person and number, voice, mood, and verbal aspect.91 As to the voice, S.E. Porter explains that the voice in Greek is used to indicate causality, especially “to describe the role that the grammatical subject of a clause plays in relation to an action”.92 In light of the role of the grammatical subject, the Greek voice system is divided into three forms. The first one is active form, which indicates that the grammatical subject of a clause is identical with the actor. The second one is passive form, in which the object or recipient of the action becomes the grammatical subject. The third form in Greek voice system is the middle voice. Porter explains that “the Greek middle voice expresses more direct participation, specific involvement, or even some form of benefit of the subject doing the action.”93 Mood refers to “the speaker’s attitude toward the event,”94 and it is divided into two categories. One is the indicative form and the other is the non-indicative form, which includes subjunctive, imperative, and optative.95 Porter evaluates the mood as “the second most important semantic choice” of the addresser in Greek, since it realizes the addresser’s point of view on the relation of the verbal action to reality.96 Another important area of the interpersonal meaning is verbal aspect. Even though it is realized by tense form, it is directly related to the addresser’s perspective on the verbal action. Porter defines Greek verbal aspect as “a synthetic semantic category (realized in the forms of verbs) used of meaningful oppositions in a network of tense systems 90

Http://divinity.mcmaster.ca/OpenText/model/guidelines/clause/0–2. These elements are also related to the ideational meaning. But, considering the interactional nature of the interpersonal meaning, I explain them here, because they work as useful indicators of how the information is exchanged. 92 Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 62. 93 Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 67. 94 Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 50. 95 Unlike the traditional approach, Porter includes the future form as non-indicative, because he thinks that the functions of the future form are in many ways similar to those of non-indicative mood forms. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 61. 96 Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 50. 91

methodology

59

to grammaticalize the author’s reasoned subjective choice of conception of a process.”97 This verbal aspect consists of perfective and non-perfective aspects. The perfective aspect indicates that “the action is conceived of by the language user as a complete and undifferentiated process,”98 and it is expressed by the aorist tense form. The non-perfective aspect is divided into imperfect and stative aspects. The imperfect aspect, which refers to the “on going” action, is grammaticalized by the present and imperfect tense form. The stative aspect denotes “the action as a condition or state of affairs in existence,” and it includes perfect and pluperfect tense forms.99 In sum, the full analytical framework of the Predicator is:

Predicator Nature of action Material, Mental, Verbal, Relational, Existential

Word

Person

Voice

Mood

Indicative, Active, Subjunctive, 1st, 2nd, 3rd Passive, Imperative, (singular/plural) Middle Future Optative

Verbal aspect Perfective Imperfective Stative

3) Textual meaning Textual meaning is relevant to the message of a unit, and the information structure is a very important notion in this meaning. In addition to the information structure, there are other significant factors of textual meaning, which contribute to defining a topicality of a discourse unit. These include conjunctions, word order, and various coherent relations such as spatio-temporal, thematic, logical relations, etc. Most of all, semantic analysis including semantic domains is a very effective factor to discern the topic of each discourse unit. This analysis is a crucial process in determining the content of the topicality in a

97

Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament (SBG 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 107; idem, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 21. 98 Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 21. 99 Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, 91.

60

chapter two

discourse unit. All in all, the complete framework for the analysis of topicality is demonstrated below.100

Verse/ Conj. Clause V

C

Subject

Predicator

Word R.F. I.S. Word Nature Person Voice Mood V.A. Number LS LO

G R I

T/C T/R P/C Comp.

1,2,3 S,P

Adj.

I/ S A/P/M M/ O F

P I S

Others Rel.

W.O. SPCA

In practice, using the information in the above framework as the foundational data, I will investigate the topicality in a sub-unit by three kinds of analyses. The first one is an analysis of structure and the topi-

100 In actual analysis, I will use below abbreviations: (1) Subject: (a) reference forms: Grammatical, Reduced, Implied; (b) Information structure: Primary, Secondary, Embedded—Theme, Rheme— Prime, Subsequent; (2) Predicator: (a) Nature: Material (Action and Event); Mental (Perception, Affection and Cognition); Verbal; Relational (Intensive, Circumstantial, Possessive; and Attribution, Identification); and Existential. (b) Person and number: 1, 2, 3; S, P (c) Voice: Active, Passive, Middle (d) Mood: Indicative, Subjunctive, Future, iMperative, Optative (e) Verbal aspect: Perfective, Imperfective, Stative (3) Others: (a) Logical process: LS (logical subject), LO (logical object), LO-G (logical object-goal), LO-B (logical object-beneficiary) (b) Relations: Projection (→) (Location and Idea); Expansion (Elaboration (+), Extension (=) and Enhancement (X) (i) Elaboration: Apposition (eXpository and exeMplifying); Clarification (Corrective, Particularising, Summative, Verifactive) (ii) Extension: Addition (Positive and Negative), adVersative and vaRriation (Replacive, Subtractive, Alternative) (iii) Enhancement: Spatio-temporal (Following, Simultaneous, Preceding, Conclusive, iMmediate, iNterrupted, Repetitive, spEcific, Durative, Terminal, pUntiliar); Comparative (Positive and Negative); Causal (Result, Purpose, rEason, Basis); and cOnditional (Positive, Negative, Concessive)

methodology

61

cal participants in a given sub-unit. Being related to the interpersonal and textual meanings in Hallidayan model, this analysis mainly uses the information about the Subjects, the Predicators, and the Complements. The second analysis is an analysis of semantic domains. This process is relevant to the ideational meaning. The third one is an analysis of logical relations in a discourse unit, which is pertinent to the ideational and textual meanings. In this process, although all data in the above framework will be used in this analysis, the relations among clauses will be significant. 3. Focality A. Focality and prominence The third step of analyzing a text is an examination of the focality of a text. It is related to the question, how can we discern the central point(s) or peak(s)? While topicality refers to “characterizing ‘the things we talk about’,” focality refers to the “characterizing the most important or salient parts of what we say about the topical things.”101 In other words, focality has to do with “how the message is packed, that is, how the speaker presents the message to the listener, rather than the content of the message per se.”102 In this sense, topicality and focality are not totally isolated, and through focality the reader gets some help in understanding the author’s intended information. So, focality exists not for itself but for highlighting authorial intention about the information of a text. Thus, focality can be called the vertical hierarchy of a text, which gives vertical stresses on the horizontal flow of the topical sequence in a text. As a process and outcome that makes topical information ‘standout’ in a text, focality heavily depends on the linguistic phenomenon of prominence. According to K. Callow’s definition, prominence refers to “any device whatever which gives certain events, participants, or objects more significance than others in the same text.”103 She describes the significance of prominence as such: 101

Dik, The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1, 310. Italics mine. R.S. Tomlin; L. Forrest; M.M. Pu and others, “Discourse Semantics,” in T.A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Structure and Process (London: SAGE, 1997), 95. 103 Callow, Discourse Considerations, 50. Halliday defines it as “a general name for the phenomenon of linguistic highlighting, whereby some feature of the language of a text stands out in some way” (M.A.K. Halliday, “Linguistic Function and Literary Style: 102

62

chapter two A story in which every character was equally important and every event equally significant can hardly be imagined. Even the simplest story has at least a central character and a plot, and this means one character is more important than the others, and certain events likewise. Human beings cannot observe events simply as happenings; they observe them as related and significant happening[s], and they report them as such.104

By way of such prominence, the author expresses various emphases and intentions in a text, and the addressee can detect the authorial packing of information. Especially in regards to focality, prominence functions as a very effective way to highlight topical information. Thus, to observe the prominence features in relation to the topical information is a very important process in finding out a central point(s) in a text. B. Degrees of information and linguistic features Focality is established by the combination of two kinds of concepts. One is that there is a degree of importance in information, such as background, foreground, and frontground information, according to the semantic weight in a discourse. S. Wallace states that “people, when producing or comprehending linguistic discourse, lend more importance to some information than to other information.”105 Upon this notion, many linguists divide the importance in information into two groundings, foreground and background. P.J. Hopper, for example, tries to apply the concept of foreground and background to narrative discourse. For him, the foreground information is relevant to the main event line in a narrative, and the background information is “the language of supportive material which does not itself narrate the main events.”106 In non-narrative discourse, however, a different approach

An Inquiry into the Language of William Golding’s The Inheritors,” in S. Chatman [ed.] Literary Style: A Symposium [New York: Oxford University Press, 1971], 339). 104 Callow, Discourse Considerations, 49. 105 S. Wallace, “Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories,” in R.S. Tomlin (ed.) Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1982), 208. 106 P.J. Hopper, “Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse,” in T. Givón (ed.) Discourse and Syntax (New York: Academic Press, 1979), 213. Similiarly, Longacre thinks mainline or storyline as foreground and supportive material as background (Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 21–23). However, his argument is criticized by recent studies. For example, Jean-Marc Heimerdinger points out that unlike Longacre’s argument that the storyline of Hebrew narrative is determined by vayyiqtol verb, the notion of key events is a crucial factor in establishing the storyline (Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground, 77; cf. A.H. Dry, “Foregrounding: An Assessment,” in S.J.J. Hwang

methodology

63

is needed, since, in normal cases, events or stories do not work as the key factor in the flow of information. R.S. Tomlin regards the foreground information in non-narrative discourse as a thematic matter, and defines it as the “information which is more central or salient or important to the development of the discourse theme.”107 That is, the thematic or topical information is in the foreground, and the supportive information is in the background. Wallace explains foreground and background as such: Included in the foreground, for instance, are the more important events of a narrative, the more important steps of a procedure, the central points of an exposition, the main characters or entities involved in an episode. The background includes events of lesser importance, subsidiary procedures, secondary points, descriptions, elaborations, digression, and minor characters or things.108

However, S.E. Porter insists on another level of information in Greek known as frontground. It is the more salient information found within the foreground information.109 For example, the central event in mainline events could be called frontground. According to him, the frontground gives “a narrow range of characteristic semantic features than do items of background and foreground, conveying discrete, welldefined and contoured description.”110 The other notion for focality is that such a degree of information is expressed by various linguistic features. Basically, focality comes from the addresser’s choice. S/he uses various linguistic devices to highlight certain material or part(s) of a text in order to pack the more important information and deliver it to the addressees.111 Consequently, the

and W.R. Merrifield [eds.] Language in Context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre [Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1992], 444; Givón, “Beyond Foreground and Background,” 185; T. Reinhart, “Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Texts,” Linguistics 22 [1984], 787). 107 R.S. Tomlin, “Foreground-Background Information and the Syntax of Subordination,” Text 5 (1985), 89; Tomlin, et al., “Discourse Semantics,” 93. 108 Wallace, “Figure and Ground,” 208. 109 Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, 92. He disagrees with what Hopper and Wallace say that the backbone of narrative expressed by the perfective aspect is foreground. Instead, he argues that perfective aspect and the backbone of narrative are the background information in narrative discourse. 110 Stanley E. Porter, “Prominence: An Overview,” (Unpublished paper; Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Atlanta, 22–25, November, 2003), 8. 111 Beekman and Callow say this process as such: “[t]he author, with his theme in mind, chooses what content is made prominent and what is not, and these choices

64

chapter two

reader or addressees should evaluate the linguistic features of a discourse to catch the addresser’s intention or focus. Wallace mentions this concept: linguistic categories . . . function to differentiate linguistic figure from linguistic ground: the speaker uses such categories to structure an utterance . . . into more or less salient portions, and the listener uses such categories as clues to interpreting the speaker’s verbal picture.112

How, then, do the addressees evaluate and detect the degrees of information expressed by various linguistic features? In order to answer this question, two areas should be considered: one area is the semantic features, and the other is the formal features. The semantic features are related to the scales of grounding which is mentioned above. S. Wallace suggests a helpful list of the semantic characteristics of figure (more salient) and ground (less salient).113

Figure (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

Ground

Thing-like, solid, discrete

Unformed, diffuse, shapeless, continuous, unbroken Well-defined, tightly organized Less definite, unstructured, loosely organized Contoured, surrounded, bounded, Boundless enclosed Localized Unlocalized With distinguishable parts Without distinguishable parts Small Large Near Far Above, in front Below, behind More impressive color Lesser contrast Stable Unstable Great contrast Lesser contrast Symmetric Irregular

affect the grammatical form and the relations that the propositions sustain to one another” (Beekman and Callow, Translating the Word of God, 284). 112 Wallace, “Figure and Ground,” 214. Here, the figure is an eminent part(s) that stands out against a background (ground). 113 Wallace, “Figure and Ground,” 214. For the examples of the application of these criteria, see Dry, “Foregrounding,” 447. Here, he suggests a possible correlation between Wallace’s visual criteria and textual analogues.

methodology

65

As to the formal features for prominence, a concept of markedness is important, whose fundamental principle is a binary opposition between marked and unmarked information. E.L. Battistella, following the observations of E. Moravcsik and J. Wirth,114 offers three categoires for determining marked information: (1) distributional criteria; (2) amount of structure criteria; and (3) prototypicality.115 The criterion of distribution is related to how a certain entity is distributed in a text. For example, the unmarked form has a greater ability to combine with other linguistic elements than the marked form. The concept of the amount of structure is that a structure that has more specific addition, modifications or explanations is marked; but, the simple and general element is unmarked. Prototypicality is related to psychological recognition. Conceptually, the entity which is less complex and reflects the prototypical attribute is less marked. This can be called the conceptual default value. This notion of the binary opposition between marked and unmarked information is well demonstrated in the contrast between the non-third person and the third person references. While the third person reference indicates general and less specific person, the non-third person reference gives a more specific and focused boundary, i.e., the boundary between “you and I.” Consequently, the third person is unmarked, and the non-third person is marked.

non-third person

third person

(marked)

(unmarked)

In addition to the the binary opposition, Markedness also has a hierarchical evaluation among information. For example, in the above binary opposition, another kind of binary opposition can appear. In the non-third person reference, first person is more marked than second person, because it is nearer and related to the addresser. So, a

114 E. Moravcsik and J.R. Wirth, “Markedness—An Overview,” in F.R. Eckman, E. Moravcsik and J.R. Wirth (eds.) Markedness (New York: Plenum, 1986), 3. 115 E.L. Battistella, Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language (New York: State University of New York Press, 1990), 27. Each category has some sub-categories: (1) distributional criteria: optimality and breath of use; (2) amount of structure criteria: indeterminateness, simplicity and syncretization; and (3) prototypicality.

66

chapter two

hierarchical relation emerges among person references: third person → second person → first person. Thus, in the markedness system the concept of binary oppositon and hierarchy are interrelated to each other.116

non-third person (marked)

first person (marked)

third person (unmarked)

second person (unmarked)

In actual application of those criteria for markedness, however, one should note that markedness is not a context-free phenomenon.117 There is no element or expression that has the absolute value of markedness. Instead, the marked feature in a text is closely related to its context. For example, in New Testament Greek, the unmarked word order of head term and definer, especially that of the adjective and noun, is different in Luke and the Pauline letters. In Luke, the default order is head term-definer (df [A]) (75%), but in the Pauline letters, the unmarked one is definer (df [A])-head term (62%).118 Con116 Battistella says that it is “the projection of hierarchy onto the equivalence implied by opposition, extending the nonequivalent principle of a ranked taxonomy to the minimal oppositions that make up the quanta of language” (Battistella, Markedness, 21). 117 Dry mentions that “the fact that foreground is contextually determined reflects the filtering of events through some consciousness, which may promote some situations to importance and demote others” (Dry, “Foregrounding,” 445). 118 M.E. Davidson, “New Testament Greek Word Order,” LLC 4 (1989), 19–28; S.E. Porter, “Word Order and Clause Structure in New Testament Greek: An Unexplored Area of Greek Linguistics Using Philippians as a Test Case,” FN 6 (1993), 182; idem, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 290–92. Here, I follow the terminologies of OpenText.org’s word group annotation model (http://divinity.mcmaster.ca/OpenText/model/introduction). According to OpenText.org, a word group is composed of the combination of the head term and modifiers. The head term usually indicates “the nominal that all the other words in the word group modify.” The modifiers are divided into four types: (1) a specifier (sp) is a modifier that classifies or identifies the word it modifies, e.g., articles and prepositions; (2) a definers (df) is a modifier that attributes features or further defines the word it modifies, e.g., adjectives and appositional words or phrases; (3) a qualifier (ql) is a modifier that in some way limits or constrains the scope of the word it modifies, e.g., genitive and dative case; and (4) a relator (rl) is a word specified by a preposition that modifies another element within the word group.

methodology

67

sequently, when trying to apply these criteria for defining the value of markedness, one should consult the dimension of context.119 In addition, since the binary oppositon becomes less clear at the level beyond the sentence, one needs to apply the concept of markedness assimilation. This concept implies that “the nomally unmarked value for a given feature occurs in an unmarked (simultaneous or sequential) context, and the nomally marked value in the marked context.”120 Therefore, in order to determine the value of markedness beyond the sentence level, one needs to observe how the marked features appear in a certain context. In this sense, the markedness at the level beyond the sentence is closely related to semantic groundings and topical relations among information.121 C. Various linguistic devices for prominence Various formal and semantic features are used for prominence, and their usages can be grouped according to the discourse levels, such as within the sentence level (word, phrase, clause, and sentence) and beyond the sentence level.122

However, it is necessary for the definer to be divided into two, the adjectival definer and the demonstrative definer, because their default word orders are different from corpus to corpus. So, I would use ‘df (A)’ for the adjectival definer and ‘df (D)’ for the demonstrative definer. 119 Kuipers summarizes this nature of markedness as such: “if we write in black on a white background the black ‘stands out’ and is ‘marked.’ That of which there is less usual, will be experienced as ‘marked.’ If we normally read roman type, italics are marked. In a text printed in italics, a word in roman type will stand out” (A.H. Kuipers, “On Symbol, Distinction and Markedness,” Lingua 36 [1975], 31–46). 120 M.H. Shapiro, The Sense of Grammar (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983), 84; Battistella, Markedness, 69–70, 115–16. 121 S. Wallace describes this with the notion of ‘cluster concept,’ which means “a notion with a number of defining factors, no one of which necessarily predominates in any given situation, and some of which may upon occasion conflict” (Wallace, “Figure and Ground,” 216). 122 I am indebted much on this part to Stanley E. Porter’s study on prominence. He divides linguistic features of prominence into two: paradigmatic and syntagmatic formal levels. According to him, paradigmatic choice is concerned with “the element of choice of a single linguistic item as distinct from other linguistic items of the same class that might fulfill the same function,” and syntagmatic chain refers to “the linear relation of given linguistic items and their structure, which is formed by a series of paradigmatic choices” (Porter, “Prominence,” 12, 20). However, I rearrange prominence features according to the discourse levels.

68

chapter two

1) Prominence features within the sentence level a) Verbal aspect In the verbal system, verbal aspect is one of the most effective ways for signaling prominence, because it is related to the author’s viewpoint on the nature of the verbal event. Among the three kinds of aspect, there is a cline of markedness. The perfective aspect (aorist) is most common, so, it is unmarked. Of the two non-perfective aspects (the imperfective and stative aspect), the stative aspect is more marked than the imperfective aspect because it indicates a more limited and defined area.123 Thus, the perfective aspect gives the background information, and the imperfective and the stative aspect provide more important information. The most significant information is delivered by the stative aspect. The cline of emphasis according to the verbal aspect can be diagrammed as below.124

aorist (unmarked)

(perfective aspect)

present

perfect

imperfect

pluperfect (most marked)

(imperfective aspect)

(stative aspect)

An example of the degrees of information expressed through verbal aspect is shown in Luke 17:11–19. Here, verbal aspect helps to detect the degrees of information in two areas. The first area is the participant of this story. Among the three kinds of participant in this episode (Jesus, the nine lepers, and a Samaritan leper), the nine lepers are continuously described through the perfective aspect except λέγοντες in v. 13.125 Even in Jesus’ utterances, the perfective aspect is used when it is related to the nine lepers.126 On the contrary, the imperfective aspect is used with regard to Jesus (διήρχετο [v. 11] and εἰσερχομένου [v. 12])

123

Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, 90. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, 92–93. 125 Ἀπήντησαν δέκα λεπροὶ ἄνδρες, οἳ ἔστησαν πόρρωθεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἦραν φωνὴν λέγοντες· Ἰησοῦ ἐπιστάτα, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς . . . καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ὑπάγειν αὐτοὺς ἐκαθαρίσθησαν (Luke 17:12–14). 126 Καὶ ἰδὼν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, πορευθέντες ἐπιδείξατε ἑαυτοὺς τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν (v. 14); ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, οὐχὶ οἱ δέκα ἐκαθαρίσθησαν; οἱ δὲ ἐννέα ποῦ; (v. 17). 124

methodology

69

and the Samaritan leper (δοξάζων [v. 15] and εὐχαριστῶν [v. 16]). Moreover, in the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan leper, both the imperfective and the stative aspect appear: ἀναστὰς πορεύου (imperfective) ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν (stative) σε (v. 19). From this participant analysis according to verbal aspect, while the nine lepers are depicted as less important participants, Jesus and the Samaritan leper are shown as major participants in this story. The second area in which verbal aspect helps to see the degree of information is the events in a story. Luke 17:11–19 begins with the perfective aspect in v. 11a, which works to indicate a general background of this episode: καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ (“[Jesus] was on the way to Jerusalem”). Then, the imperfective aspect is used to show a specific spatial setting: αὐτὸς διήρχετο διὰ μέσον Σαμαρείας καὶ Γαλιλαίας (“He [Jesus] was passing between Samaria and Galilee”: v. 11b). Here, like a zoom-in function of a camera, verbal aspect works to show the more important setting for this story. As the story goes on, several events happen. The ten lepers met Jesus and requested that he heal them. Jesus commanded them to go and show themselves to the priest, and the ten lepers were healed on the way to the priest. These events are described by the perfective aspect, except for the request of the ten lepers. However, in the event that the Samaritan leper turned back to Jesus and worshiped him, the imperfective aspect reappears. And finally, in the climax of this story in v. 19, where Jesus pronounced salvation to the Samaritan leper, the stative aspect is used: ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε.127 This observation shows that the events in Luke 17:11–19 are described in relation to verbal aspect, and their degree of importance is also delivered through verbal aspect. In light of verbal aspect, the miracle of Jesus’ healing does not seem to be the main focus in this story. Instead, the attitude of a Samaritan leper, who glorified (δοξάζων) God and gave thanks (εὐχαριστῶν) to Jesus, seems to be more important. Furthermore, the pronouncement of salvation to the Samaritan leper, who has faith in Jesus, is the central topic of this story.

127 This phrase appears four times in Luke in relation to Jesus’ ministry (Luke 7:50; 8:48; 17:19; 18:42). Cf. Matthew has one occurrence (Matt 9:22) and Mark has two (Mark 5:34; 10:52). So, this theme could be thought as one of Lukan interests. Cf. I.H. Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witness, One Gospel (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 143–44.

70

chapter two

b) Mood As an indicator of the addresser’s attitude toward the event in regard to its reality, mood also has a cline of markedness value. Under normal conditions, a primary clause employs the indicative form. It is used to indicate the background information and “merely makes an assertion about what is put forward as the condition of reality, without any statement as to its actuality.”128 It is unmarked. However, when the non-indicative forms appear in the primary clauses, it is not normal; so, it is marked. Among the non-indicative forms, there is also a cline of markedness. When the imperative, subjunctive, and optative are used in command or for other functions (e.g., purpose, result, cause, etc.), they are different in the value of the markedness. The imperative is less marked than the subjunctive because while the imperative is normally used for a command,129 the subjunctive is more relevant to the addresser.130 The optative is the most marked, because it is the most emphatic expression and rarest among non-indicative forms. Below is the cline of importance in a primary clause according to mood.

indicative (unmarked)

non-indicative (marked) imperative (less marked)

subjunctive optative (more marked) (most marked)

c) Voice In the verbal voice system, the active form is unmarked, because it is the most frequent in Greek, and in it the subject is causing an action. In the passive voice, the object of an action, which is the grammatical subject of a clause, receives more attention than the agent of a process.

128

Porter, “Prominence,” 15. It is possible for the imperative to have different markedness values between the second and third person imperative. The second person imperative seems to be more marked than third person, because second person is nearer than third person and it can involve the reader. Cf. Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews, 59. 130 Porter explains that the subjunctive is used “when one wishes to direct the actions of oneself or those with whom one associates (the so-called hortatory subjunctive) or indicates the purpose for an action or its anticipated result” (Porter, “Prominence,” 16). 129

methodology

71

Of the two, the passive voice is more marked than the active form. The most marked form among verbal voices is the middle form for two reasons. One is that this form is the least common of the three, and the other is that, in the middle voice, the causality and participation of the subject is inherent in the action.131

active (unmarked)

passive (more marked)

middle (the most marked)

An example that illustrates the degree of information according to the use of different voices is shown in Rom 1:19–20. Here, dealing with the truth about God, which humans suppress by unrighteousness (cf. Rom 1:18), Paul provides a two-fold explanation with different verbal voices. At first, he states with the active voice that God has manifested the knowledge of God to humans: διότι τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς· ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν (v. 19). Then, he restates the same fact with the passive voice: τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα καθορᾶται, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης (“for since the creation of the world, his invisible things—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly understood and seen through the things he made”: Rom 1:20). Even though the central fact that humans have known the truth of God is the same, the emphasis is different. While the former says that the truth of God is derived from God, the latter is focused on humans, who have received the truth of God but suppress it. Of the two, the latter is more salient, because it is directly related to the main interest in Rom 1:19–22, the description of human sinfulness.132 Thus, in Rom 1:19–20, when Paul explains the fact that humans have already known God’s truth, he highlights this fact by way of shifting the focus from God’s revelation (a general statement) to human acceptance (a focused statement). This process is carried out through the change of verbal voices.

131

Porter, “Prominence,” 18; idem, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 67. In addition, v. 20 also contains other prominence markers, such as a complex structure (SAAPS: Subject—Adjunct—Adjunct—Predicator—Subject) and a marked word order of qualifier–head term (αὐτοῦ δύναμις). It demonstrates the principle of markedness assimilation: marked features appear in the marked context. 132

72

chapter two

d) Case As a non-verbal system, the case system also has a degree of markedness. In the case system, the nominative is the least marked.133 C.L. Westfall argues that since a clause in Greek can be established without a subject, the appearance of the nominative case may not be the default.134 However, since the nominative case is still the most frequent of all the cases in New Testament Geek, it is unmarked.135 The accusative case is more restricted than the nominative, because it is used only in relation to a verb. So, it is more marked than the nominative. The genitive implies a restrictive relation with another entity, and it is less frequent than the accusative. Thus, it is more marked than the accusative. The dative case, which functions to tell the relationship, is less frequent than the genitive, and has restricted usage. Consequently, it is more marked than the genitive case. Lastly, the vocative case is directly related to the addresser and addressee. Since it not only has a very restricted usage, but also is the least frequent of all, the vocative case is the most marked form.136

Nominative (unmarked) → accusative → genitive → dative → vocative (marked)

e) Person and number With respect to person, the third person is unmarked, as I noted above. Of the two non-third persons, first person is more marked than second person. As to number, the singular is less marked than the plural.

third person (unmarked) → second person (marked) → first person (more marked) Singular (unmarked) → plural (marked)

133

Porter, “Prominence,” 18. Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews, 60. 135 According to Wallace, the frequency of each case is as such: nominative case (31%), accusative case (29%), genitive case (25%), dative case (15%) and vocative case (1%) (Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basic, 73). 136 Louw states that “[t]he nominative, in contradistinction to the vocative, is less exclamative, less direct, more reserved and formal because it merely states the nominative idea” (J.P. Louw, “Linguistic Theory and the Greek Case System,” Acta Classica 9 [1966], 80). Cited from Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 87. 134

methodology

73

f ) Conditional clause The conditional clause can be divided into two categories, indicative and non-indicative, according to the mood in the protasis.137 Thus, the cline of the conditional clause is related to that of the mood. The first class conditional construction, which has the indicative mood in the protasis, is unmarked, because it is the most frequent form in New Testament Greek. The third class conditional structure is more marked than the first class because of the subjunctive mood in the protasis. Lastly, the fourth class is the most marked, because it uses the optative mood.

First conditional construction → third conditional → fourth conditional (unmarked) (the most marked)

g) Word order Marked/unmarked distinction also appears in the area of word order. The basic criterion for defining a marked word order is the distribution of each pattern. If a certain pattern of word order is more frequent, it is unmarked. Yet, the reverse order is a marked expression. The prominence in an area of word order can appear in three different discourse levels, such as word group, clause, and sentence level. First, at the word group level, three kinds of combination need to be considered: (1) adjectival definer (df [A]) and head term; (2) demonstrative definer (df [D]) and head term; and (3) qualifier (ql) and head term. The normal order of each construction is that: (1) head term—df (A) in Luke (75%), but df (A)—head term in Paul (65%); (2) head term—df (D) in Luke (78%) and Paul (85%); and (3) head term—ql in Luke (99%) and Paul (96%).138 This order is more frequent, so it is unmarked. However, when the reverse order appears in a text, it denotes the marked word order. The examples of the marked order are as such: (1) df (A)—head term in Luke 10:42: τὴν ἀγαθὴν μερίδα (“good part”); head term—df (A) in Paul: Rom 6:23: ζωὴ αἰώνιος (“eternal life”); (2) df (D)—head term in Luke 5:35: ἐν 137 Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 255–56. Protasis is ‘if ’ part, and apodosis indicates ‘then’ part. 138 Davidson, “New Testament Greek Word Order,” 26; Porter, “Word Order and Clause Structure in New Testament,” 182; idem, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 290–92.

74

chapter two

ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις (“in those days”) and 1 Cor 11:16: τοιαύτην συνήθειαν (“such custom”); and (3) ql—head term in Luke 20:36: τῆς ἀναστάσεως υἱοὶ ὄντες (“being children of resurrection”) and Phil 3:9: ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην (“by the righteousness of God”). Second, at the clause level, the most common Greek clause patterns are Predicator (P) and Predicator—Complement (PC) structures. The next most frequent seems to be Complement-Predicator (CP) and Subject—Predicator (SP).139 If the Subject is placed between the Predicator and Complement (PSC), it becomes a marked word order, because the Subject disrupts the close association between Predicator and Complement. In the relative clause (Rc), generally, the relative clause follows the referent (96% in Luke and 93% in Paul). Thus, when the referent comes after the relative clause, it becomes a marked construction. For example, in Phil 3:7, the referent (ταῦτα) follows the relative clause (ἅτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη): ἅτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη, ταῦτα ἥγημαι διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν ζημίαν (“whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss in Christ”).140 All in all, the unmarked pattern of the word order is that:

word group Clause

Paul

Luke

head term—df (D) df (A)—head term head term—ql head term—Rc P/PC/CP/SPC

head term—df (D) head term—df (A) head term—ql head term—Rc P/PC/CP/SPC

h) Secondarization Under normal situations, the primary clause functions as ‘head’, and the secondary clause depends on it. However, when the normal order of primary and secondary clauses is switched, the secondary clause receives more emphasis than the primary. In this case, the reverse order becomes marked. The best example of this phenomenon appears in conditional constructions. The unmarked order of the conditional 139 There has been a debate on the default pattern of the Greek clause structure. Cf. Porter, “Word Order and Clause Structure in New Testament,” 177–204; contra R.B. Terry, A Discourse Analysis of First Corinthians (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1995), 136–49. 140 Porter, “Prominence,” 26.

methodology

75

construction is that the secondary clause (‘if ’—clause, protasis) precedes the primary clause (‘then’—clause, apodosis). However, when the order is reversed (apodosis-protasis), this construction becomes marked, and the stress is located on the secondary clause. For example, in the conditional construction in Rom 2:25, the protasis comes after apodosis in order to emphasize the relation between circumcision and practicing the law: περιτομὴ μὲν γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἐὰν νόμον πράσσῃς (“for circumcision indeed is of value, if you practice the law”). i) Conjunctions and particles There are three ways that conjunctions and particles work to signify the degree of importance in information. The first way is to indicate a logical hierarchy among the relations of information. When conjunctions link two or more sets of information, there can be certain kinds of logical hierarchy among them. K. Callow points out the aspect of prominence in such relations, and calls it relational prominence: “. . . [e]verything we talk about must relate in some meaningful way to the other things that we are talking about . . . But, many of the relations carry an inbuilt prominence.”141 For instance, while οὖν signifies a logical conclusion of information, γάρ is used for introducing supportive information. Of the two, the conclusive information is more important than the supportive information in normal condition. Thus, the hierarchical sense among linked information can be detected according to the use of conjunctions. The second way is to show the cline of markedness value among conjunctions that have the same role. For example, δέ (“but”) and μέντοι (“nevertheless”) have the same role as ‘adversative.’ However, there is a difference in emphasis between the two, and δέ is less marked than μέντοι, because the former is more frequent. C.L. Westfall provides a chart of hierarchical categorization of intersentential conjunctions according to the criterion of frequency.142 It is commendable that she tries to show a hierarchical value of each conjunction in a given functional category, such as adversative, inferential/summative, additional, additional positive or negative. However, some other important categories of the logico-semantic function are missing in her chart:

141 Katherine Callow, Man and Message (New York: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1998), 233. 142 Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews, 66.

76

chapter two

e.g., comparative, local, temporal, conditional, inferential/causal, etc. Actually, it is not clear where temporal, local, and conditional categories can be located in her emphatic and de-emphatic continuum. Thus, in the following table, I modify her chart, and just list the functional categories of conjunctions without considering their location on the continuum of emphatic and de-emphatic. Also, I add some more logico-semantic categories together with the hierarchical value of conjunctions in their category.143144

Conjunction/ Particle

Gloss

Mkd Unmkd

Adversative

δέ *144 ἀλλά μέν πλήν μὲν οὖν, μενοῦν μέντοι τοὐναντίον

“but, on the other hand” “but” “on the one hand” “but, yet, however” “contrary, rather” “but, nevertheless, however” “on the contrary”

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ √

Inferential/ summative

οὕτως οὖν ὥστε διό ἄρα ὅθεν τοίνυν τοιγαροῦν

“thus, so” “so, then, therefore” “so that (theme)” “therefore” “therefore” “and so, therefore” “for that very reason then” “for that very reason then”

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ √

√

√

143 When one uses this chart, two things need to be in mind. One is that this chart is not intended to give complete guidance for discerning prominence, in a sense that it does not cover all conjunctions occurring in the New Testament. The other is that because this table is arranged by one criterion, the frequency of the occurrences, it is necessary to consider other elements of discourse (e.g., context, semantics, etc.) in order to determine the degrees of information through this chart. In this sense, Westfall’s caution is worth hearing: “Nevertheless, the inter-sentential conjunction must be one of the primary factors in locating prominent material or identifying support material, prominence, continuity/grounding and background. However, it must be repeated that the hierarchical ordering of discourse involves a number of other factors including domain, patterns, and semantic and formal marking” (Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews, 67). 144 Asterisk means conjunctions that also occur within the sentence to join words, word groups or clauses.

methodology

77

(cont.) Conjunction/ Particle

Gloss

Mkd Unmkd

Inferential/ causal

γάρ145 ἐπεί διότι ἐπειδή καθότι ἐπειδήπερ

“for” “because, for” “because, for” “because, for” “because, for” “because, for”

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ √

Addition

πάλιν εἴτε εὐθύς εὐθέως

“again, once more” “and then” “immediately” “immediately”

↓ ↓ √

Comparative

ὡς* καθώς ὥσπερ* ὡσεί ὡσαύτως καθάπερ καθό καθά

“as” “as, just as” “as, just as” “like, as, about” “in the same way, likewise” “as, just as” “as, just as” “as, just as”

Local

ὅπου οὗ

“where” “where”

↓

Conditional

εἰ ἐὰν εἴτε

“if ” “if ” “if ”

↓ √

Addition/pos. (continuity)

καί* κἀγώ

“and” no signal (inference) “and I”

↓ √

οὐδέ* μηδέ*

“and not” “and not”

√

Addition/neg.

Asyndeton

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

√

√

√

√ √ √

√

√

145

The third way for conjunctions and particles to show a cline of importance in information is to signify specific emphasis. Sometimes con-

145 With regard to γάρ, C.L. Westfall views it as a de-emphatic marker. However, γάρ is not always working for de-emphasis. Sometimes it is used as a coordinating conjunction. Frequently, γάρ introduces a question, but not having a de-emphatic sense: e.g., Matt 27:23: ὁ δὲ ἔφη τί γὰρ κακὸν ἐποίησεν; (“Then he said, ‘what evil has he done?’ ”). Moreover, it also works to affirm what was asked, and means “to be

78

chapter two

junctions and particles function for stress or emphasis. J.P. Louw and E.A. Nida list some discourse markers as “prompters of attention” in their Lexicon, such as ἰδού, ἵδε, and ἄγε.146 These words emphasize the immediately following word, whether it is a noun (participant) or verb (action).147 One example is shown in 1 Cor 2:10: τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα πάντα ἐραυνᾷ, καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ (“for the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God”). Here, καί is used not just to connect two phrases, but to stress the ability of the Holy Spirit. In Matt 4:11, Matthew describes the result of Jesus’ triumph over the devil’s temptation: τότε ἀφίησιν αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελοι προσῆλθον καὶ διηκόνουν αὐτῷ (“then, the devil left him, and behold, angels came and served him”). Here, the contrast between the devil and angels is emphasized by ἰδού. In so doing, Matthew accentuates Jesus’ triumph and his identity as the Son of God, which is the main issue in the story of the temptation of Jesus. j) Emphatic or attention markers In addition to the conjunctions and particles, sometimes adjectives (e.g., πᾶς,148 αὐτός149) and adverbs (e.g., τότε, πάντως) are used for highlighting. For example, τότε, which works in Matthew to mark “paragraphs within an episode” or “the use of a theologically signifi-

sure, just so”: e.g., 1 Cor 9:10: ἢ δι᾽ἡμᾶς πάντως λέγει; δι᾽ἡμᾶς γὰρ ἐγράφη (“or is he speaking altogether for our sake? Yes [indeed], it was written for our sake”). A.T. Robertson states that “the precise relation between clauses and sentences is not set forth by γάρ. That must be gathered from the context if possible” (A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in light of Historical Research [Nashville: Broadman, 1934], 1191; F. Blass, A. Debrunner and R. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961], 235–56). 146 Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 1:811–12. In addition to these, there are many conjunctions and particles that are emphatic: δέ, καί (adverbial usage), γέ, δή (“then, indeed”), δήπου (“surely, indeed”), ἐι μήν, μενοῦν (“surely, certainly”), μήτιγε (“how much more”), ἀλλά (“certainly, emphatically”), νή, ναί (“yes, indeed”), ἰδού, ἄγε (“look, listen, pay attention”), ὧ (“oh!”), ἀμήν, etc. For more detail, see Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 204–17; Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 670–73. 147 Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek, 197. 148 Having “a duality of meaning” (C.F.D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960], 93), πᾶς can work as an indicator of intensiveness in attributive structure (cf. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 119). 149 Even though it is a pronoun, sometimes it works as an intensive modifier (Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 120; Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 348–50).

methodology

79

cant lexical form or a climatic point within a pericope,”150 signifies the climatic part in the story of Jesus’ healing the Canaanite woman’s daughter in Matt 15:21–28: τότε ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“then, Jesus answered and said to her”: Matt 15:28). Some pronouns also work for emphasis, especially the nominative pronoun. Since the Greek clause can be established without a subject, sometimes the existence of a nominative pronoun signals other functions, such as emphasis, topic shift, etc. In Titus 2:1, for example, a topic shift is carried out by an explicit nominative second person pronoun: σὺ δὲ λάλει ἃ πρέπει τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ (“but you speak of the things which are fitting for sound doctrine”). Sometimes, this nominative pronoun indicates contrast: e.g., οὐχ ὑμεῖς με ἐξελέξασθε, ἀλλ᾽ἐγὼ ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς (“you did not choose me, but I chose you”: John 15:16).151 A reflexive pronoun152 can also function as an emphatic expression, because, similar to the case of the middle voice, it is used to “highlight the participation of the subject” in the verbal action.153 k) Deixis As an indicator, deixis can facilitate identifying the degree of importance. According to the characteristics of figure and ground, the closer the entity is to the people in time and space, the more ‘figure’ it is. Thus, some spatio-temporal particles can work as devices for prominence: e.g., temporal deixis: νῦν, νυνί, and ἄρτι; and spatial deixis: ὧδε, ἐγγύς, and ἐνθάδε. For example, when Paul demonstrates the dramatic change of the Gentile Christians’ condition in Eph 2:13, he uses both temporal and spatial deictic markers for emphasis. The Gentile Christians were the slaves of this world and far from the Christ at that time (cf. Eph 2:1–10, 11–12), but now (νυνὶ δὲ) they are in Christ and near by the blood of Christ: νυνὶ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ὑμεῖς οἵ ποτε ὄντες μακρὰν ἐγενήθητε ἐγγὺς ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ (“But now, in Christ Jesus you, who were far off, have been brought near by the blood of Christ”).

150

Black, Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew, 253. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 321–22. 152 For example, ἐμαυτοῦ (“of myself ”), σεαυτοῦ (“of yourself ”), ἑαυτοῦ (“of himself ”), and ἑαυτῶν (“of themselves”). 153 Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 350–51. 151

80

chapter two

2) Prominence features beyond the sentence level a) Degrees of transitivity in information structure As an element of ideational meaning, transitivity describes the actual or logical process in a clause.154 Since it indicates a network of participant, process, and circumstances, transitivity can be displayed by the interactions among four grammatical components of a clause (Subject, Predicator, Complement, and Adjunct). With regard to prominence, if a process is described by all grammatical components of a clause (higher transitivity), it could indicate that the information of that part is more important than other parts which have fewer components of it (lower transitivity). Moreover, the part of a paragraph (sub-unit) that contains higher transitivity clauses is more marked than that of having a small amount of lower transitivity clauses. Similarly, if a clause or sentence has more complex structure, it could be more marked than the one having less complex structure. P.J. Hopper and S.A. Thompson state this concept as such:155 . . . the likelihood that a clause will receive a foregrounded interpretation is proportional to the height of that clause on the scale of transitivity. From the performer’s viewpoint, the decision to foreground a clause will be reflected in the decision to encode more (rather than fewer) transitivity features in the clause.

However, when one uses the cline of transitivity as a device for prominence, two things should be considered. The first thing is that the degree of importance in the cline of transitivity can be different according to the type of Subject in the clause. Higher transitivity seems to be more prominent than lower transitivity. Yet, among clauses having higher transitivity, the clause whose Subject is identical with the main participant or topical entity is more important than others. The second consideration is about the position of the Subject. The position of the Subject plays a crucial role in delivering information in the transitivity system. In the information structure, Theme (participant or topical entity) can be located either in Prime or Subsequent in a clause, and either in the primary or secondary clause in the sentential structure. If Theme appears in the position of Prime in the primary

154

Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar, 101. P.J. Hopper and S.A. Thompson, “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse,” Language 56 (1980), 251–99. 155

methodology

81

clause, it signifies more important information than the other cases. In addition, the positional relation of the Subject to Topic/Comment is also very important. Since the Topic offers “the controlling conception by which elements are judged to be grounded to various levels,”156 the cline of transitivity and the positional importance of the Theme should be examined in light of this Topic/Comment construction. For example, if the combination of Theme-Prime-primary clause appear in the Comment, it is less important than one that is located in the Topic. Therefore, the devices for establishing prominence in an area of the information structure can be summarized as follows:

Degrees of transitivity structure

lower transitivity (simple structure) → higher transitivity (complex structure) (less salient) (more salient)

Degrees of Theme-Subsequent (less salient) → Theme-Prime (more salient) information Theme-Prime-secondary clause → Theme-Prime-primary clause (less salient) (more salient) in the information Comment-Theme-Prime-primary clause → Topic-Theme-Prime-primary clause (less salient) (more salient) structure

b) Rhetorical structure A.M. Gill and K. Whebee say that rhetoric has the function of influencing the audience toward some goal.157 Thus, rhetorical structures, which express the addresser’s rhetorical intention, are useful indicators for the addressee to catch the addresser’s intention, purpose, attitudes, etc.158 The rhetorical structures may be signaled by a specific choice of semantics, syntactic elements, or stylistic variation, such as the length or complexity of the sentence or paragraph, etc. For example, sometimes an inverted parallelism can work to offer an impressive contrast. In Gal 2:20b, Paul uses an inverted parallelism to clarify the meaning of ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός (“but Christ lives in me”) in Gal 2:20a.159

156

Porter, “Prominence,” 10. A.M. Gill and K. Whedbee, “Rhetoric,” in T.A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as structure and process (London: SAGE, 1987), 157. 158 Van Dijk and Kintsch, Strategies of Discourse Comprehension, 93. 159 As for rhetorical style in the Pauline letters, see Porter, “Paul of Tarsus and His Letters,” 567–84. Here, he considers rhetorical style not as an ornamentation isolated from the content or context, but as a way of deliverance of the author’s intentions. 157

82

chapter two Gal 2:20: ὅ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί (“but now which I live in the flesh”) ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ (“I live by faith in the son

of God . . . ”)

c) Full noun phrase in a reference chain Typically a full noun phrase works as an introducer for a new entity. Once a new entity is introduced, it is expressed by a pronoun or inflection. However, if the same entity is re-mentioned by a full noun phrase, it can work for emphasis.160 In Matt 15:21–28, for example, Jesus is introduced with a full noun phrase (proper noun: ὁ Ιησοῦς) in the beginning of the story (Matt 15:21). Then, in the following sequence, Jesus is expressed by pronouns (reduced reference form) and verbs (implied reference form). However, the full noun phrase with regard to Jesus reappears in the climax of this story, where Jesus praises the faith of the Canaanite women and heals her daughter (Matt 15: 28). Thus, the reappearance of the full noun phrase can function as an indicator for the prominence part of a text. d) Some peak markings of R.E. Longacre After examining various discourses in many languages, R.E. Longacre defines a peak “as sections which are characterized by unusual grammatico-stylistic features.”161 In this definition, two factors are to be noted. One factor is the domain of a peak. According to Longacre, a peak is not a matter of a single clause or a sentence, but of a larger discourse unit or ‘section.’ That is, the concept of peak is applied to at least the level beyond the sentence.162 The other factor is the unusualness in grammatical and syntactical areas. This means that a peak can

Porter, “Paul of Tarsus and His Letters,” 576; idem, “The Theoretical Justification,” 116–17. 160 Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 321–22; Porter, “Prominence,” 24–25. 161 R.E. Longacre, “Interpreting Biblical Stories,” in T.A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse and Literature (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1985), 183. His linguistic observations have been applied to New Testament studies, such as Terry, A Discourse Analysis of First Corinthians, 119–24; Booth, Selected Peak Marking Features in the Gospel of John; R.E. Longacre, “Towards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Text,” in D.A. Black (ed.) Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 271–86; R.E. Longacre and W.B. Wallis, “Soteriology and Eschatology in Romans,” JETS 41 (1998), 367–82. 162 In fact, he thinks that a paragraph is a minimal unit for a peak (Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 291).

methodology

83

be identified through the so-called surface structural markings. Longacre applies these two factors of peak to the narrative discourse, and mentions that “[w]hen special surface marking or elaboration characterizes a climax or denouement we call that portion of a story its ‘peak’.”163 He suggests several peak markings, such as change of pace, heightened vividness, concentration of participants, change of vantage point and/or role of participant, etc. The change of pace is related to the size of the structure. In narrative discourse, the change of pace has two directions. One direction is to reduce the size of the structure by using short, fragmentary, or crisp sentences. It makes the speed of the story fast, and enables the story to go to the conclusion quickly. The other direction is to increase the size of the structure by using the long run-on type sentences or paragraphs. In this case, the speed of the story becomes slow. Longacre calls it the “slowing the camera down” effect.164

163 R.E. Longacre, “Storyline Concerns and Word Order Typology in East and West Africa,” in Studies in African Linguistics (Los Angeles: Development of Linguistics and the James S. Coleman African Studies Center, 1990), 8. However, in actual application of his observation to New Testament studies, two serious problems can be raised. One is that his notion of “section” or “zone” (R.E. Longacre, “Discourse Peak as Zone of Turbulence,” in J.R. Wirth [ed.] Beyond the Sentence: Discourse and Sentential Form [Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, 1985], 81–98) is not clear: what does the “section” or “portion” mean? If a peak is the level beyond the sentence, how can we determine the boundary of a peak and identify the peak portion or section? In analyzing the Greek text, these questions become more serious. While the English text uses various markers for identifying each discourse unit, i.e., period for sentence and indentation for a paragraph, the original Greek text has no such kind of identifying markers. The other problem is the relation between notional and surface structures. With regard to peak, Longacre’s basic premise is that there is a progression of the notional structure in a discourse, and the culmination of its progression is expressed by various specific grammatical markers of the surface structure (cf. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 33). What, then, is the nature of those peak markings? Are they just identifying markers that indicate where a special point in the flow of discourse is? Or, are they directly related to the content of that special part? If those markers are relevant to the content of a peak part, how do they work for the progression of the notional structure? Furthermore, according to Longacre (Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 33), it is possible that the concept of peak could be applied to a paragraph or a small episode level, and a peak at that level also contains surface structural markings. If this is so, how do the peak markings at a small level work for the progression of the idea both at the smaller and the discourse levels? In my opinion, these questions are crucial for understanding the topical flow of a discourse, and for determining the content of a peak. However, Longacre does not seem to give much attention to the role of peak markings in relation to the content or topic. 164 Longacre, “Discourse Peak as Zone of Turbulence,” 86.

84

chapter two

Heightened vividness is expressed through various shifts. It includes the shift of the ratio of nominal to verbal elements or verbal to non verbal elements, the shift of the string of tense or person, the shift from narrative to drama, etc.165 For example, when a dialogue emerges in a story that has no dialogue until then, it could work as a peak marker.166 Among dialogues, drama is more marked, in that it focuses only on the conversations between ‘you and me.’ 4. Conclusion: Synthesis of grouping, topicality, and focality In the above methodological consideration, there are two premises. One is that topicality is the fundamental foundation for both grouping and focality. As for grouping, topicality provides crucial criteria for it, because a topical shift is the key factor to determine the grouping of discourse units beyond the sentence level. With regard to focality, topicality is also important in that it gives the content of focality. The second premise is that focality is useful in identifying the topicality of a discourse unit. Since focality makes topical information prominent in a text by sharing the same linguistic elements of topicality, an examination of focality contributes to recognizing topicality of a discourse unit. Thus, the combination of topicality and focality is key to identifying a central part(s) or peak(s). With these premises, I would suggest some practical guidelines for determining a central part(s) or peak(s) as follows: • Step 1: To analyze a text according to the framework of topicality The data in the framework of topicality and semantic domains provide important sources for grouping, topicality, and focality. • Step 2: To determine topicality and discourse units This step consists of four processes. The first process is to analyze the structure of a discourse unit and its participants. This process includes the examination of grammatical-syntactical constructions

165 Longacre distinguishes four narrative types: Narrative, Pseudodialogue, dialogue, and drama. Here, pseudodialogue implies rhetorical question, and drama indicates multiple conversation between ‘you’ and ‘I.’ 166 The example of this case is the dialogue part of “The Feeding of the Five Thousand” (Matt 14:13–21). On the other hand, the opposite is possible. For instance, in the movie Jaws, the peak is signaled by only action and no dialogue (Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 43).

methodology

85

and their linkages in the information structure, and the identification of various participants (or topical entities) and their interactions. The second process is to investigate the contents of information through an analysis of semantic domains. As well as considering the frequency of occurrences, this process is also performed according to the components in the framework of topicality, such as Subject, Predicator, Complements, Adjunct, and Addressee. This is because it helps to define the major semantic domain of each component. The third process is to observe the flow of information through investigating logical relations among clauses. The last process is to define a discourse unit through considering various external and internal evidence.167 With these processes, it is expected to identify topicality and its boundary, which is a major criterion for grouping. • Step 3: To investigate focality by observing a variety of prominence markers and their role for establishing topicality in a discourse unit This step is important in that it will help to identify the topicality of a discourse unit more clearly. • Step 4: To examine the topicality of the high level of discourse After defining the topicality of each discourse unit, the next step is to examine the topicality at the higher level of a discourse, such as a section or whole discourse. In general, the basic processes of step 2 can be applied to this step. The observation of the cohesive elements, such as conjunctions and chain of reference, etc., helps to find structural linkages. To study semantic domains provides a clue for the linkages and grouping of contents. Moreover, logical relations among units reveal a topical chain and its flow throughout the text. Through these processes, one can recognize the structural, informational, and topical flow of a text, and discern the overall structure of Topicality. • Step 5: To determine a central part(s) or peak(s) The final step is to determine a central part(s) or peak(s) of a text. Since a central part(s) is important for the author, it has a high position in the degree of importance in topicality. So, investigating the degree of importance in topicality is very useful to determine the central part(s).

167 Yet, in actual analysis in the following chapters, I locate grouping after focality, simply because I want to deal with focality in close relation to topicality.

86

chapter two

The degree of importance in topicality can be identified by two factors. One is the degree of topical continuity, and the other is hierarchical relations among topics, such as HEAD-tail, problem-SOLUTION, etc. As to the degree of topical continuity, for example, the long lasting topic is more important than the shorter one. In the hierarchical relations, Topic or Head part is more important than comment or tail. Thus, the combination of these two factors can give a crucial clue for discerning the central part(s).

CHAPTER THREE

ROM 1:1617: GOSPEL AS GOD’S POWER FOR SALVATION TO ALL BELIEVERS Paul’s letter to the Roman church has a long opening. Paul introduces himself as a sender, and greets the Roman Christians in Rom 1:1–7. Interestingly, unlike other letters, Paul inserts a long explanatory part about the gospel entrusted to him (Rom 1:2–4), which is the content and foundation of his ministry (Rom 1:5–7). According to this description, his gospel is relevant to Jesus, particularly his ministry of death and resurrection. Yet, in such a ministry of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit appear as the important factors. God is the initiator and performer of his promise in history (Rom 1:2), and the Holy Spirit is mentioned as the ruling power in the new realm, which is inaugurated by the ministry of Jesus’ resurrection (Rom 1:4; cf. Rom 8:11).1 After the prescript, Paul expresses thanksgiving and his wish to see the Roman Christians in Rom 1:8–15; then, he begins to unfold his main argument in Rom 1:16–17. As to the location of Rom 1:16–17, P.J. Achtemeier insists that as a part of Paul’s prescript, Rom 1:16–17 is purely linked with Rom 1:15.2 However, there are at least two reasons to think of this sub-unit as a transition, which links the opening to the body of the letter.3 The first reason is the change of the person reference. Until Rom 1:16, Paul advances his letter with the first (Paul and his colleagues) and the second person references (the Roman Christians). However, from this sub-unit, the person reference is shifted to the third person. The

1 This interpretation is based on the antithetical expressions between κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, which appear as two representatives of the two realms (the old sinful realm vs. the new salvific realm) in the following argument of Romans (D.J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 50; T.R. Schreiner, Romans [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 43). 2 P.J. Achtemeier, Romans (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 35–36. 3 J.M. Bassler, Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom (SBLDS 59; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982), 127; Johannes P. Vorster, “Strategies of Persuasion in Romans 1:16–17,” in S.E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht (ed.), Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from 1992 Heidelberg Conference (JSNTSup 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 152–70.

88

chapter three

second reason is that Rom 1:16–17 mentions both a major topic of the previous section, ‘his gospel (cf. Rom 1:1, 9),’ and several important topics in the following body part, such as righteousness of God, faith, salvation, Jews and Gentiles, etc. Thus, it is reasonable to think of this sub-unit as a transition, which works not only as a conclusion of the opening part, but also as a point of departure for his argument in the body of the letter. What, then, is Paul’s idea in this sub-unit (topicality) and how does he show his idea (focality)? I. Text analysis of Rom 1:16–17

4 Even though I use the analyzing format of the OpenText.org (http://opentext.org/ texts/NT/Rom/view/clause-ch1.v0.html), the actual analyses in this book are mine.

rom :–

89

II. Topicality The process of determining the topicality of Rom 1:16–17 consists of investigations in three areas. The first area is the structure of this subunit. It includes the analysis of the structure and the interaction among the topical participants. The second area is the semantic domains, and the third is the logical relations in Rom 1:16–17. Each investigation is performed under the titles of (1) analysis of structure, (2) analysis of semantic domains, and (3) analysis of logical relations respectively. 1. Analysis of structure As an introduction of Paul’s gospel, Rom 1:16–17 is composed of three primary clauses, and each clause is linked with γάρ (cc [clauses] 1–34, 35 [v. 16] and 37 [v. 17]). The primary clauses in vv. 16 and 17 are supported by one embedded clause (c1–36) and two secondary clauses (cc1–38, 39) respectively. The Subjects of this part are being changed according to each primary clause. The Subject of c1–34 (v. 16) is Paul, and this is expressed by the first person singular verb ἐπαισχύνομαι. In the second primary clause (c1–35 [v. 16]), the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον), which is the Complement of c1–34, becomes the Subject. Yet, it is expressed by an implied reference in a verb ἐστιν. Lastly, the Subject in the third primary clause (c1–37 [v. 17]) is changed from the gospel to the righteousness of God, which is the Complement of c1–36 (v. 16). Thus, Rom 1:16–17 has the structure that the Subject is changed from Paul, who is the main topical participant in Rom 1:1–15,5 to the gospel and then finally to the righteousness of God. As far as the topical participants are concerned, there are three kinds of participants in Rom 1:16–17. The first one is Paul, who is not ashamed of the gospel and proclaims it. The second participant is God. The two Subjects in the last two primary clauses (power and righteousness: cc1–35 and 37) are related to God. This implies that God is the initiator and performer of the content of the gospel. The third participant is human beings, and they appear as the recipients of God’s power for salvation (v. 16). Among three participants, Paul is distinguished from the other two, in that God and human beings 5 In Rom 1:1–15, the first person reference that refers to Paul appears twenty times (Rom 1:5, 7, 8 [x2], 9 [x5], 10 [x2], 11 [x2], 12, 13 [x4], 14, 15).

90

chapter three

including Jews and Gentiles are mentioned in relation to the content of Paul’s gospel. In summary, according to the above observations, the topical interest in Rom 1:16–17 is delivered through the change of the Subject of each primary clause and three participants. The shift of the Subject denotes that Paul’s argumentation is transferring from his personal affair to the gospel itself. This transition is also expressed by the shift of participants from Paul to God and all humans who believe. Especially, the interaction between God and all humans demonstrates that the content of Paul’s gospel is relevant to God’s initiative and human response. 2. Analysis of semantic domains6 Semantic domains6 Subjects

(1) 34.E (Establish or Confirm a Relation: x2) (2) 12.A (Supernatural Being and Power [God])

Predicators

25.R (Shame, Disgrace, Humiliation); 13.A (State); 28.C (Know); 23.G (Live, Die); 33.E (Written Language)

Complements

33.O (Inform, Announce); 76 (Power, Force); 12.A; 31.I (Trust, Rely: πιστ-words)

Adjuncts

(1) 31.I (x3) (2) 25.F (Save in a Religious Sense)

Overall lists

(1) 31.I (x4) (2) 34.E (δικ-words: x2); 12.A (x2)

With regard to the semantic domain of the Subjects, the domain of two grammatical subjects in Rom 1:17 is 34.E (δικαιοσύνη [c1–37] and δίκαιος [c1–39]). In the Complement and Adjunct parts, the major domain is four instances of 31.I: a verb (πιστεύοντι: c1–36 [v. 16]) and three noun forms of πίστις (c1–37 [x2], c1–39 [v. 17]). Domain 12.A is shown in two occurrences. One is used to modify the Complement (δύναμις θεοῦ: c1–35), and the other appears as a modifier of the Subject (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ: c1–37). From the above observations, two considerations can be drawn. First, the high frequency of domain 31.I implies that faith is an important 6 This table is a summary of semantic domains occurring in this sub-unit, and its full data are in the appendix II. Here, the numbering system of semantic domain (e.g., 34.E and 12.A) refers to the semantic category of each word in UBS Greek-English dictionary.

rom :–

91

topical issue in Paul’s gospel. These observations also give a hint to understand Paul’s citation of Hab 2:4, which speaks of a person who becomes righteous by faith.7 His intention seems to be to retell the content of c1–37 and to reinforce it by adding a modified citation of Hab 2:4.8 Second, Paul’s gospel is relevant to the divine (δικαιοσύνη: c1–37) and human nature (δίκαιος: c1–39) of 34.E.9

7 There is a debate on the translation of this clause. Three options have been suggested: (1) “the righteous will live by faith” (KJV; NASB; NIV; NRSV; W. Sanday and A.C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902], 28; F. Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans [Repr.; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977], 94–97; J.B. Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of St. Paul [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999], 250–51; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Note [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 33; H.C.C. Cavalin, “ ‘The Righteous Shall Live by Faith.’ A Decisive Argument for the Traditional Interpretation,” ST 32 [1978], 32–43; Fitzmyer, Romans, 264–65; Jewett, Romans, 146); (2) “the righteous by faith will live” (RSV; TEV; NEB; A. Nygren, Commentary on Romans [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949], 85–90; C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [HNTC; SanFrancisco: Harper & Row, 1957], 31; U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer [EKKNT; 3 vols.; Zurich: Benziger, 1978–82], 1:90; C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975], 1:101–10; E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 21; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans [PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 70–72; B. Byrne, Romans [SP; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996], 60–61; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 70–78); and (3) ἐκ πίστεως links with both ὁ δίκαιος and ζήσεται (R.M. Moody, “The Habakkuk Quotation in Romans 1:17,” ExpTim 92 [1980–81], 205–208; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 45–46; Schreiner, Romans, 74). Among these three options, I follow the second one, because Paul’s concern in the following argument in Romans is not “how the righteous person should continue to live (whether through faith or not), but rather, with what righteousness must a person be clad in order to obtain (eternal) life (= salvation)” (Byrne, Romans, 60–61). And this interest is shown by consistent connections between righteousness and faith (e.g., Rom 3:26, 30; 4:11, 13; 5:1; 9:30; 10:10; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 78). 8 Unlike MT, which has the third person pronoun, and LXX, which has the first person pronoun, there is no pronoun in Paul’s citation of Hab 2:4. For a detailed comparison among the three, see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 76 n. 65. 9 Some scholars regard ὁ δίκαιος as the coming Christ (A.T. Hanson, Paul’s Understanding of Jesus [Hull: University of Hull, 1963], 6–9; idem, Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology [London: SCPK, 1974], 42–45; Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 134–38; idem, “ ‘The Righteousness One’ as Eschatological Deliverer: A Case Study in Paul’s Apocalyptic Hermeneutics,” in J. Marcus and M. Soards [eds.], Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn [JSNTSup 24; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989], 191–216; S.K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994], 198–202; D.A. Campbell, “Romans 1:17—A Crux Interpretum for the Pistis Christou Debate,” JBL 113 [1994], 281–85). However, their view is not convincing. If ὁ δίκαιος indicates the Christ, it implies that either the Christ who becomes the Christ by faith(fullness) will live or the Christ will live by his faith(fullness). But, both concepts are very foreign to Paul’s theology (C.L. Quarles, “From Faith to Faith: A Fresh Examination of the Prepositional Series in Romans 1:17,” NovT 44 [2003], 18).

92

chapter three 3. Analysis of logical relations

Rom 1:16–17 begins with Paul’s statement that he is not ashamed of the gospel in c1–34 (v. 16). Since this statement is connected to Rom 1:15 by a causal conjunction γάρ, the role of c1–34 is to give a reason why Paul eagerly wants to preach the gospel to the Roman Christians (cf. Rom 1:15). Yet this statement has another function in the flow of Paul’s writing in Romans. Even though the statement in c1–34 shares the term εὐαγγέλιον (Rom 1:1, 9; cf. εὐαγγελίζω [Rom 1:15]) and the use of first person reference (ἐπαισχύνομαι) with Rom 1:1–15, Paul shows in the following arguments that he only focuses on the aspect of the gospel. So, the statement in c1–34 works to move Paul’s writing from the prescript to the body of his letter. In cc1–35–39, Paul provides a reason for not being ashamed of the gospel in two steps. The first step is to answer the question: what is the gospel? Paul answers this question by connecting c1–34 and 35 with γάρ, and providing an overall description of the gospel in c1–35. He describes the gospel as God’s power that gives salvation to all believers both Jews and Greeks (Gentiles), although the special position of Jews in God’s salvation plan still remains (πρῶτον). The second step is to answer another question: what is the content of the gospel? Paul answers this question in c1–37 (v. 17). In order to demonstrate the overall content of the gospel, Paul introduces a brand new idea, the righteousness of God (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ), into his argument, and makes it the Subject of c1–37. In addition, he also brings the theme of faith in c1–37, which is mentioned c1–35, and adds an OT citation of Hab 2:4 in cc1–38–39. According to cc1–37–39 (v. 17), the overall content of the gospel is about the interaction between God and human beings: the righteousness of God, which is divine initiative in such interaction, is revealed from faith (c1–37), and through faith a human being becomes righteous (c1–39). Therefore, logically, the first primary clause of this sub-unit works not only to link this sub-unit to the preceding part of Romans, but also to move Paul’s interest to the gospel itself. The last two primary clauses (cc1–35 and 37) are related to each other, in that both are about the gospel. Moreover, they are also connected to the first primary clause (c1–34), in the sense that they provide the ground of Paul’s not being ashamed of his gospel by providing the overall description and its content. From these observations, some helpful clues can be drawn in regards to two debated issues. The first issue is the meaning of the righteousness of God in v. 17. Throughout history, numerous scholarly debates

rom :–

93

have been conducted on the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ,10 and they are largely divided into two categories: one is anthropocentric and the other is theocentric. The anthropocentric understanding regards δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ as God’s gift of righteousness given to humanity, which leads to salvation. In this understanding, the righteousness of God has been thought either as a quality imparted to humans by God or as a new standing before God. Moreover, the latter option is also divided into three according to the nature of the new standing before God: (1) a forensic connotation; (2) a relational aspect between God and humanity;11 and (3) both a forensic and relational aspect.12 The theocentric view understands the righteousness of God as either God’s attribute13 or activity.14

10

For a survey and bibliography on this debate, see Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:92–99; K.L. Onesti and M.T. Brauch, “Righteousness, Righteousness of God,” in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 827–37; Fitzmyer, Romans, 144–46, 257–63; M.A. Seifrid, Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 6–77; M.A. Seifrid and R.K.J. Tan, “Justification,’’ in The Pauline Writings: An Annotated Bibliography (IBR 9; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 182–86; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 79–90. 11 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 40–41; idem, “Paul and Justification by Faith,” in R.N. Longenecker (ed.), Road from Damascus (MNTS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 88; idem, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 388; Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 214.; idem, What Saint Paul Really Said? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 124. 12 Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 214–19; idem, “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism,” in D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid (eds.), Justification and Variegated Nomism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Vol 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 415–42; Seyoon Kim, Paul and the New Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 66–70. 13 It was the widespread concept understood by the early church, and it regarded the righteousness of God as God’s judging justice or distributive justice. But recently some scholars suggest that this term indicates God’s attribute of faithfulness (S.K. Williams, “ ‘The Righteousness of God’ in Romans,” JBL 99 [1980], 241–90; G.D. Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans [JSNTSup 39; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990], 36–37; P.T. O’Brien, “Justification in Paul and Some Crucial Issues of the Last Two Decades,” in D.A. Carson [ed.], Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the World [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992], 70–78). 14 A. Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God (trans. by S. Schatzmann; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), 20–22; E. Käsemann, “ ‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul,” in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 168–82. Putting the righteousness of God in the apocalyptic framework, Käsemann asserts that this phrase means God’s activity in salvation: “It speaks of the God who brings back the fallen world into the sphere of his legitimate claim . . . and . . . who sets us in the state of confident hope and . . . constant earthly change” (Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 29).

94

chapter three

What, then, is the meaning of δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in v. 17? Acknowledging that there is a wide range to the semantic meaning of δικαιοσύνη according to the context,15 one should not conform to a rigid dichotomous approach to understanding this phrase, nor think that one meaning dominates all the occurrences of this phrase. A clue for the answer is the relation between cc1–35 (v. 16) and 37 (v. 17). According to the above analysis of logical relations, it is fully possible that the overall description (c1–35) and content (c1–37) of the gospel reflect each other, since both clauses are linked by the gospel, and function to give the reason for Paul’s not being ashamed of his gospel. Then, if the overall description of the gospel contains God’s saving power (God’s activity),16 its result (σωτηρίαν: salvation of humankind), and the importance of the human act of believing for salvation (πιστεύοντι), the correspondence of these three elements could appear in the depiction of the overall content of the gospel. If this is so, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ could cover both the dimensions of God’s saving activity and its result. Moreover, if we admit the connection between cc1–37 and c1–39 in v. 17 as shown above, it is not difficult to infer that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ is related to ὁ δίκαιος, which denotes a human being in the saved status by faith whether ἐκ πίστεως is linked with the verb or not. Therefore, it is fair to say that, containing both theocentric (subjective genitive) and anthropocentric (objective or source genitive) connotations, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in v. 17 denotes God’s powerful saving activity and its result having both forensic and relational aspects.17

15

E.g., Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 247–49. As to the power of God, Schreiner says that “Τhe δύναμις θεοῦ . . . in the gospel signifies the effective and transforming power that accompanies the preaching of the gospel” (Schreiner, Romans, 60). 17 Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 24–25; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 69; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 41; P. Stuhlmacher, “The Theme of Romans,” in K.P. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate (rev. ed.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 339; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 74; Byrne, Romans, 60; Schreiner, Romans, 66. Robert Jewett claims that “commentators who believe that Paul intended both the subjective and objective genitive in 1:17 disregard this contextual and grammatical evidence,” and insists on reading the righteousness of God as the subjective genitive, providing the subjective genitives in v. 16 (God’s power) and v. 18 (God’s wrath) as the grammatical evidence for his thought (Jewett, Romans, 142; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:96). However, his comparison is too simple, in that he does not take into consideration the relation between c1–35 (v. 16) and c1–37 (v. 17), nor the differences between c1–37 (v. 17) and c1–40 (v. 18). Since v. 18 is not about the overall content 16

rom :–

95

The second issue is about the nature of faith in v. 17, particularly, the meaning of ἐκ πίστεως. Some scholars argue that the nature of faith in ἐκ πίστεως (cc1–37 and 39 [v. 17]) is different from that of εἰς πίστιν (c1–37 [v. 17]) and πιστεύοντι (v. 16). They think that it indicates the faithfulness of God18 or Christ.19 For instance, R.B. Hays argues that πίστις in c1–37 means a faithfulness of Christ. The primary reason for this argument is his ‘unrepentant’ view on this term derived from the premise that “Paul’s theology must be understood as the explication and defense of a story.”20 He argues further that since in Paul’s constructed narrative structure of the gospel Jesus is the divine protagonist, who delivers God’s salvation to humanity, πίστις Χριστοῦ should be read as the faithfulness of Christ. However, his understanding of this term contains fatal mistakes, because methodologically his narrative structure results from an inconsistent application of A.J. Greimas’s actantial model.21 The second reason for Hays to see πίστεως in c1–37 as the faithfulness of Christ is related to his understanding of the role of the OT citation in c1–39 (v. 17). He insists that Paul’s citation of Hab 2:4 is to answer a question, “How, we should ask ourselves, is the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel?”22 Upon this premise, Hays thinks that the content of Paul’s citation is about the way God’s righteousness is revealed. For him, God’s way is Jesus Christ, which is mentioned in Rom 1:1–4. Although I admit that the quotation of Hab 2:4 is related to the question of ‘how,’ there is no indication that the nature of ‘how’ of the gospel, it does not contain three elements of Paul’s gospel, such as God’s initial power, salvation, and human response to God with faith, which is shown in c1–35 (v. 16). Thus, it is not convincing to say that δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ should be regarded as the solely subjective genitive due to the comparison between the genitive constructions in vv. 16 and 18. 18 L. Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1987), 118–19. Interestingly, Dunn regards πίστεως in c1–39 (v. 17) as God’s faithfulness. But he thinks that πίστεως in c1–37 (v. 17) refers to human faith like πίστιν in c1–39 (v. 17) (Dunn, Romans 1–8, 44–46). 19 For example, L.T. Johnson, “Romans 3:21–26 and the Faith of Jesus,” CBQ 44 (1982), 78–80, 90; Campbell, “Romans 1:17,” 265–85. 20 Hays, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ and Pauline Christology: What Is at Stake?,” 37. He confesses that he is “somewhat repentant about the methodological overkill of the piece” (Hays, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ and Pauline Christology,” 37 n. 5). However, his confession is not understandable, because even though he repents of his methodology, he still insists on the outcome of the methodology, such as the narrative structure and the role of Jesus in it, as a decisive factor for understanding of πίστις Χριστοῦ. 21 Lee, “Against Richard B. Hays’s ‘Faith of Jesus Christ’,” 59–70. 22 Hays, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ and Pauline Christology,” 43.

96

chapter three

is changed from the human act of believing to the divine act (faithfulness of Christ). In light of the relationship between the overall description (c1–35 [v. 16]) and the content of the gospel (c1–37 [v. 17]), the nature of ‘how’ in c1–37 can easily be regarded as the human act of believing. This is because Paul declares the human act of believing as the answer to ‘how’ in c1–35. In addition, considering that Paul’s citation works to verify the content of the gospel in c1–37, it is more natural to think that the appearance of ‘faith’ in the quotation of Hab 2:4 is another rendering of the human-side of believing. Moreover, Paul’s modification also reveals his interest in the human act of believing.23 If Paul wants to state the faithfulness of Christ, he would not omit μου from the LXX, because this pronoun is a crucial key to acknowledging the divine side of faithfulness in the LXX: ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεώς μου ζήσεται.24 However, Paul’s deliberate omission of the personal pronoun clearly reflects his concern for the human-side faith. Therefore, faith in c1–39 should be viewed as the human act of believing as in cc1–35 and 37. III. Focality Being related to how the author packs and delivers the topical issues, focality is defined by various prominence features. A notable prominence marker in this unit is παντὶ in c1–36. As the beneficiary of God’s saving power, it implies the universal scope of God’s salvation. Paul also supports this concept by adding a phrase Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι in c1–3. Another feature is a repetition of the cognates of πίστις. This indicates not only the significance of human faith as a response to God’s initiative in salvation, but also the limitation of the scope of God’s salvation, in that God’s salvation is only for those who believe. Paul also adds an OT citation in v. 17 to support the important of human faith in salvation. Thus, even though salvation in

23 For more detailed comparison, see C.D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture (SNTSMS 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 252–64; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 76 n. 65; Jewett, Romans, 144–46. 24 Actually, unless one thinks ὁ δίκαιος is Christ, which is the least convincing reading, all variant readings of Hab 2:4 except the LXX are about the human-side of faith. Even in the case of the LXX, “my faith” refers to God’s faithfulness, not Christ’s faithfulness.

rom :–

97

Paul’s gospel comes from the divine initiative, Paul does not neglect to emphasize human faith as a response to it. IV. Grouping 1. External evidence Externally, Rom 1:16–17 shows its link to Rom 1:15 by γάρ, the uses of the first person reference, and the use of εὐαγγέλιον (vv. 1, 9; cf. v. 15). However, the change of the person reference from first person to third person gives evidence to think Rom 1:16–17 as a beginning part of a new argument. Moreover, the introduction of important topical elements, such as “the content of the gospel, salvation, faith and belief, the righteousness of God, life, the relation of Jews and Greeks, and the role of proofs (i.e., the function of Old Testament quotations),”25 also works to signify Rom 1:16–17 as an initial part of a new phase of Paul’s writing. Therefore, Rom 1:16–17 can be viewed as a transition, which links between the prescript and the body of Romans. 2. Internal evidence Internally, three-fold evidence reveals the unity of Rom 1:16-17. The first evidence is a referential chain of ‘gospel’ in the three primary clauses. The second one is a repetition of the cognate of πίστις in cc1–36, 37 and 39. Lastly, the use of conjunctions (γάρ in cc1–35 and 36, and καθώς in c1–38) also indicate the unity of this part. The unity of this sub-unit through these factors can be shown as below. Rom 1:16 οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, δύναμις γὰρ θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι.

17

δικαιοσύνη γὰρ

θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, καθὼς γέγραπται· ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται

25

Stanley E. Porter, “A Newer Perspective on Paul: Romans 1–8 through the Eyes of Literary Analysis,” in M. Daniel Carroll R., David J.A. Clines, and Philip R. Davies (eds.) The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson (JSOTSup 200; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 374.

98

chapter three V. Summary

As a transition, Rom 1:16–17 serves not only as the conclusion to the prescript, but also as an introduction of the body of the letter. In this sub-unit, Paul describes his gospel as God’s saving power, which results in the salvation of all believers including Jews and Gentiles. He also elucidates the content of the gospel that the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith. In these depictions, the interaction between God and humans appears as a major paradigm in Paul’s gospel, and it consists of at least three components. The first one is the initiative of God, which Paul designates as God’s righteousness. Paul’s notion of righteousness has two aspects. One is God’s initial act for salvation, and the other is the consequent status of humanity in relation to God’s saving act, i.e., a forensic acquittal and right relationship with God. The second component of Paul’s gospel is the human response to God’s initiative. Paul makes clear that the human act of believing is the only way to experience the result of God’s salvific initiative. The last component is the result of the interaction between God’s initiative and human response to it by faith. Paul calls it salvation, which includes believers’ being righteous before God. Finally, according to focality, it seems that Paul also has an intention to emphasize the universal nature of the God’s salvation, and he has both Jews and Gentiles in mind as the beneficiaries of God’s salvation. Therefore, Rom 1:16–17 plays a role in foreshadowing important topical elements of Paul’s thought, which will be unfolded in his following arguments.

CHAPTER FOUR

ROM 1:182:11: UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS OF HUMANS AND GOD’S IMPARTIAL JUDGMENT Paul begins the body of his letter with the articulation of the sinfulness of humans and God’s judgment against them. There is little dissent in understanding of Rom 1:18–32 as one discourse unit (a unit) consisting of several paragraphs (sub-units). With regard to the linkage between Rom 1:18–32 and Romans 2, however, scholars’ opinions become diverse. Numerous writers regard Rom 2:1 as a separate unit from Rom 1:18–32, which begins to deal with the issue of ‘the Jews.’ However, there are some reasons to see Rom 1:18–2:11 as one section which has two units, Rom 1:18–32 and 2:1–11. First, concerning the external evidence that indicates a topical change from one discourse unit to another, a major piece of evidence is the emergence of a new semantic boundary in Rom 2:12. Some scholars insist that the appearance of the second person reference in Rom 2:1 signifies a major division, and that the relevance to the Jews is detectable in Rom 2:1–5.1 However, the text does not give a clear clue to regard ‘you’ as the Jews in Rom 2:1–5. Instead, only from Rom 2:12 do the lexical items that are related to the Jews begin to appear: the law (2:12), Jews (Ἰουδαῖος: 2:17), and circumcision (2:25).2 It means that Rom 2:12 is a beginning point of a new section, which is relevant to Jews. Another piece of external evidence is correspondences between Rom 1:18 and 2:8–9. Syntactically, both have God as the agent or actor of the process, and humans as the beneficiary of such process, which is expressed by a preposition ἐπί (Rom 1:18; 2:9) and a dative article τοῖς (Rom 2:8). Moreover, both parts describe human sinful acts or behavior (κατεχόντων [Rom 1:18]; ἀπειθοῦσι, πειθομένοις, and κατεργαζομένου [Rom 2:8–9]) as the reason for God’s response. Lexically, Rom 1:18 and 2:8–9 use the same words in describing

1 For example, Dunn, Romans 1–8, 78; Fitzmyer, Romans, 297; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 125–27; Schreiner, Romans, 103; etc. 2 Bassler, Divine Impartiality, 128.

100

chapter four

the interaction between God and sinful humans: ὀργή, ἀδικία, πᾶς, ἄνθρωπος, and ἀλήθεια. Thus, it can be thought that Rom 1:18 and 2:8–9 forms a rough inclusion.3 Second, various cohesive elements show the internal unity of Rom 1:18–2:11. One notable evidence is the repetition of the semantic domain 57 (Possess, Transfer, Exchange: παραδίδωμι [Rom 1:24, 26, 28] and ἀποδίδωμι [Rom 2:6]), which implies God’s response to humans acts. This reiteration of the same semantic domain indicates that the two units of Rom 1:18–32 and 2:1–11 deal with the same issue of God’s retribution in the interaction of human sinfulness and divine response. Moreover, Rom 2:1–11 (esp. Rom 2:5, 8, 9) also reveals the same interactive pattern shown in Rom 1:18. For example, Rom 2:5 is very similar to Rom 1:18 in that both say that the revelation of God’s wrath is his response to sinful humans.4 Such repetition of the same interactive pattern implies that both Rom 1:18–32 and 2:1–11 deal with the same topical issue of God’s wrath against sinful humans.5 In sum, from the above observations of the external and internal evidence for grouping, it is possible to think that Rom 1:18–32 and 2:1– 11 have a relation, and consist of a larger discourse unit, a section.6

3 Cf. Bassler, Divine Impartiality, 124–28. Bassler insists that Rom 1:16–2:11, not Rom 1:18–2:11, is one unit because of the similarities between Rom 1:16–17 and 2:10: salvation (or glory, honor, and peace) to all who believe (or do good), both Jew and Greek (1:16; 2:10). Furthermore, for her, since Rom 2:9–10 and Rom 1:16–18 are correlated with each other, the divine impartiality in 2:11 is also applied to Rom 1:16–18. She also argues that “Thus the entire argument of this unit is firmly bracketed by statements that express on aspect of the idea of God’s impartiality—disregard for group distinctions” (Bassler, Divine Impartiality, 135). However, her idea is not convincing, because the content of Rom 1:16–17 does not relate to that in Rom 2:10, in that there is no utterance of the role of faith and Jesus in Rom 2:10. Moreover, as I will show, the statement of God’s positive reaction in Rom 2:10 is not to show a way for salvation, but to highlight the desperate situation of sinful humans. Therefore, unlike her argument, God’s impartial reaction in Rom 2:6–11 is only related to the description of God’s wrath in Rom 1:18. 4 Rom 1:18: ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ ὀργὴ θεοῦ . . . ἐπὶ πᾶσαν . . . ἀνθρώπων . . . Rom 2:5: . . . σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ. 5 Actually, after Rom 2:11, syntactical and lexical correspondence of Rom 1:18 does not appear. 6 S.K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (SBLDS 57; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981), 117; Porter, “A Newer Perspective on Paul,” 378; Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 490.

rom :–:

101

1. Rom 1:18–32: The revelation of God’s wrath against all sinful humans After introducing the overall description and the content of the gospel in Rom 1:16–17, Paul begins to explain his gospel by touching on the universal sinfulness of humans, which brings God’s wrath. There are several views on the division of Rom 1:18–32. Most scholars agree that the occurrences of παρέδωκεν (“[God] handed over”) provide a clue for dividing Rom 1:18–32. However, the detailed understanding of the first dividing point is very diverse. For instance, E. Klostermann, J. Jeremias, and H.J. Eckstein regard v. 22 as the beginning point of the second part,7 but C.E.B. Cranfield thinks that there is a break between v. 24 and v. 25.8 J.D.G. Dunn understands that the second part of Rom 1:18–32 begins at v. 26.9 However, there are some reasons to see that Rom 1:18–32 are composed of three sub-units: vv. 18–23, 24–27, and 28–32.10 The first reason is the inner cohesive ties in vv. 18–23, which signify the unity of this sub-unit. In this sub-unit, the wrath of God results from human behavioral and cognitive sinfulness. The second reason is διό in v. 24. As a “relatively emphatic marker of result,” it usually introduces a resulting part of the preceding utterances.11 The next reason is the semantic evidence in vv. 24–27. According to the Subjects in vv. 24–27, the structure of this sub-unit is God (v. 24)—human (v. 25)—God (v. 26a [c1–63])—human (vv. 26b-27). In this structure, the two ‘God’ clauses contain παρέδωκεν (semantic domain 57.H [Give]) as the Predicator, and share the same semantic domains 25.B (Desire Strongly) and 87.D (Low Status or Rank). In addition, the two ‘human’ clauses are linked with the same word, μετήλλαξαν (semantic domain 57.J [Exchange]), which refers to the action of humans. In

7 E. Klostermann, “Die adäquate Vergeltung in Röm 1:22–31,” ZNW 32 (1933), 1–2; Joachim Jeremias “Zu Röm 1:22–32,” ZNW 45 (1954), 119–20; H.J. Eckstein, “‘Denn Gottes Zorn wird von Himmel her offenbar warden’: Exegetiche Erwäunen zu Röm 1:18,” ZNW 78 (1987), 88. They divide Rom 1:18–32 into four: vv. 18–21, 22–24, 25–27 and 28–32. 8 Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:105. 9 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 52–53. 10 Schreiner, Romans, 90–91; Jewett, Romans, 149–50, 165–66. 11 Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 1:783.

102

chapter four

both cases, the semantic domains of the Predicators indicate that the major concern in the interaction between God and humans in vv. 24–27 is related to their behaviors toward each other. This feature also helps to see vv. 28–32 as another sub-unit, since vv. 28–32 are about God’s response to human sins related to their cognition. The utterance of ἐπίγνωσις in describing the cause of God’s response to human sinfulness in c1–72 (v. 28) signifies the shift of interest from the behavioral dimension to the cognitive dimension of human sinfulness. This shift of interest is also shown by two other references that are relevant to human thinking in vv. 28 (νοῦν) and 32 (ἐπιγνόντες). Thus, vv. 28–32 can be thought of as another sub-unit, which focuses on the interaction between human cognitive sin and God’s response to it. Therefore, Rom 1:18–32 can be regarded as having three sub-units, vv. 18–23, 24–27 and 28–32. Each sub-unit has its own topical interest in the interaction between God and sinful humans.

Rom 1:18–23

God’s wrathful response to the sinfulness of humans including their behavioral and cognitive dimensions

Rom 1:24–27

God’s wrathful response to the behavioral dimension of human sinfulness

Rom 1:28–32

God’s wrathful response to the cognitive dimension of human sinfulness

rom :–: A. Rom 1:18–23: God’s wrath as a response to human sinfulness 1) Text analysis of Rom 1:18–23

103

104

chapter four

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 1:18–23 has one primary clause (c1–40 [v. 18]) and many following secondary and embedded clauses.12 With regard to the topical participants, this sub-unit shows two participants, God and humanity. In the primary clause, Paul depicts that it is God who takes initiative in the interaction between God and humanity by revealing his wrath (LO-G [a logical goal]) to humanity (LO-B [a logical beneficiary]). In vv. 19–20, God is also the actor of the process, and humanity the beneficiary.13 However, this pattern is reversed in vv. 21–23. Here, the humanity becomes the actor, and God only appears in the Complements (cc1–48 [v. 21], 55 [v. 23]) and Adjunct (c1–47 [v. 21]). Therefore, according to the role of the participants, Rom 1:18–23 can be divided into three parts: (1) v. 18: a primary clause where God appears as the agent; (2) vv. 19–20: the first group of the secondary and embedded clauses where God is the actor; and (3) vv. 21–23: the second group of the secondary and embedded clauses where humanity appears as the actor. b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 12.A (Supernatural Being and Power: x4) (2) about God’s attribute: 88.X; 28.B; 24.A; 67.E; 76 (3) about human nature: 32.E (Lack of Capacity for Understanding) 26 (Psychological Faculties)

Predicators

(1) 28.C (Well Known, Clearly Shown, Revealed: x2); 32.E (x2) (2) with regard to God: 87.B (Honor or Respect in Relation to Status); 33.J´ (Thanks); 57.J (Exchange) (3) with regard to humanity: 27.A (Learn); 65.D (Useful, Useless) (4) 13.A (State: εἰμί)

12

(1) Secondary clauses: cc1–42, 43 (v. 19), 44 (v. 20), 47, 49, 50, 51 (v. 21), 52 (v. 22), 55 (v. 23); and (2) embedded clauses: cc1–41 (v. 18), 45, 46 (v. 20), 48 (v. 21), 53, 54 (v. 22). 13 Even though it is not clear who the agent of καθορᾶται is in c1–44 (v. 20), the basic pattern that God has made known to humans his invisible divine attributes is the same.

rom :–:

105

(cont.) Semantic domains Complements

(1) 28.C (2) with regard to God: 87.B; 23.G (Live, Die); 12.A

Adjuncts

(1) 4 (Animals: x3): A, B, D (2) 13 (Be, Become, Exist, Happen: x3): A (x2), D (Happen) (3) 88.B (Just, Righteous: x2); 12.A (x2); 42.C (Make, Create: x2); 32.P; 32.D (4) 9.A (Human Beings: x2) (5) 1 (Geographical Objects and Features: x2): 1.A, 1.B (6) 53.A (Religious Practice); 72.A (True, False); 33.W´; 64; 6.M; 23G; 30.A (To Think, Thought)

Overall lists

(1) with regard to cognitive process: 32 (x6); 28 (x5); 31.A; 27.A; 72.A (2) 12.A (God: x7) (3) human actions or attitudes toward God: 87.B (x2); 33.J´; 57.J; 53.A (4) 88 (x3)

As far as the semantic domains of the Subject are concerned, the primary clause (v. 18) and the first part of the secondary clauses (vv. 19–20) have 12.A as the main semantic domain.14 In the second part of the secondary clauses (vv. 21–23), domains 32.E (ἀσύνετος) and 26 (καρδία) appear in the Subject, yet both are related to human nature. Regarding the Predicators and the Adjuncts, the semantic domain of the Predicator in the primary clause is 28.C (ἀποκαλύπτεται). The semantic domains in the Adjunct are relevant to God’s divine truth (ἀλήθεια [72.A]) and the negative depiction of human state (ἀσέβεια [53.A] and ἀδικία [88.B: x2]) and action (κατεχόντων [13.D]). In the case of the secondary clauses, the semantic domains of the Predicators and Adjuncts reveal different interests between the first (vv. 19–20) and second groups (vv. 21–23). In the first part of the secondary clauses, the Predicators are usually related to cognitive understanding.15 Considering the semantic domain of the Subject, the nature of cognitive understanding is human knowledge about God’s

14 ’Oργὴ θεοῦ (c1–40 [v. 18]), τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ (“what can be known about God”: c1–42 [v. 19]), God (c1–43 [v. 19]), and θειότης (c1–44 [v. 20]). 15 (1) 28.C: ἐφανέρωσεν (c1–43), cf. φανερόν (c1–42); (2) 27.A: καθορᾶται (c1–44); and (3) 32.A (Understand): νοούμενα (c1–45).

106

chapter four

attributes. In vv. 21–23, the Predicators can be divided into two according to the voice of the verbs. When the active voices are used, they all indicate the human attitude and behavior towards God: ἐδόξασαν (c1–47), ηὐχαρίστησαν (c1–49), and ἤλλαξαν (c1–55). On the contrary, whenever the passive voices are used, together with the Subject and Adjunct, they indicate the negative status of human cognitive understanding: (1) ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν (“they are futile in their reasoning,” 30.A: c1–50); (2) ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία (“their senseless heart is darkened,” 32.E: c1–51); and (3) ἐμωράνθησαν (“they become fools,” 32.E: c1–52).16 Thus, according to the semantic domains, the second group of the secondary clauses (vv. 21–23) is constructed as: A (human willful action toward God [cc1–47–49]) B (the negative status of human understanding [cc1–50–51] B´ (the negative status of human understanding [c1–52]) A´ (human willful action toward God [c1–55])

From the above analysis of the semantic domains, two interesting observations can be made. One observation is that the first group of the secondary clauses (vv. 19–20) is relevant to the divine truth in c1–41 (v. 18). It is shown through the content of the Subject, which is about God and his attributes, and the semantic domains of the Predicator, which are related to cognitive understanding (27.A, 28.C, and 32.A). The other observation is that the second group of the secondary clauses is about human acts toward God and their negative status with regard to cognitive understanding (30.A and 32.E). Therefore, it seems to be that the first and second groups of the secondary clauses are the explanations of ἀλήθειαν17 and ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων in c1–41 (v. 18) respectively.18 c) Analysis of logical relations Logically, the primary clause is linked to the preceding sub-unit through a conjunction, γάρ. What, then, is the relation between Rom 1:16–17 and Rom 1:18?19 The similarities and discrepancies between 16

The main concern of the concessive clause (c1–52) is also the cognitive understanding of humans: 32 (Understanding): φάσκοντες (32.P), and σοφοὶ (32.D). 17 R.H. Bell, No One Seeks for God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 1.18–3.20 (WUNT 106; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 35. 18 Jewett, Romans, 150. 19 There are differing opinions regarding the role of γάρ in v. 18. For example, Dodd translates it as ‘but’ (C.H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans [MNTC;

rom :–:

107

the two give some clues to infer their relation. As to the similarities between Rom 1:16–17 and 1:18, both share the same elements of transitivity. The agent (God) and beneficiary (all humans) are the same. Also, the same Predicator (ἀποκαλύπτεται) indicates that both have the same process. Thus, both Rom 1:16–17, especially v. 17, and 1:18 say that God reveals something to all humans. On the other hand, as to the discrepancies between the two, the nature of God’s revelation (LO-G, the logical goal) is different. One is God’s righteousness, which is related to the salvation of humanity (v. 17), and the other is God’s wrath, which is the divine judgment on humanity (v. 18). The condition of the beneficiary of God’s revelation is also different. In v. 16, the beneficiary of God’s salvation is described as the one who believes, but v. 18 says that God’s wrath is revealed against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of humans. Similarly, the righteous one (δίκαιος) by faith in c1–39 (v. 17) is contrasted with the one who suppresses the truth by unrighteousness (ἀδικίᾳ) in v. 18. From these similarities and discrepancies, some considerations can be drawn. First, salvation seems to mean the change of the human situation from being under the wrath of God to being under the righteousness of God. Second, the wrath of God toward sinners implies the reason for humanity to need God’s saving righteousness found in the gospel. Lastly, the only way for the sinful human to be under God’s righteousness is faith, which is the human act of believing. Therefore, as the beginning point of the actual explanation of Paul’s gospel, v. 18 works not only to illustrate that God’s wrath or judgment is a part of his gospel, but also to bring some important themes in his gospel to the fore, such as God’s righteousness, salvation, and faith.20 London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1932], 46–47); Barrett ignores this conjunction (Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 31–33). However, even though the detailed interpretations vary, most commentators read this conjunction as a “marker of cause or reason” (Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 189). 20 Some scholars think that Rom 1:18 is related to the OT quotation in v. 17. For example, Seifrid thinks that Rom 1:18ff reflects the original prophetic context of Hab 2:4, which regards God’s judgment as the vehicle of salvation. Thus, he argues that “precisely because the saving event brings with it the consummation of the judgment, Paul does not argue from ‘solution’ to ‘plight’ or vice versa, but announces both together” (M.A. Seifrid, “Unrighteous by Faith: Apostolic Proclamation in Romans 1:18–3:20,” in D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid (eds.), Justification and Varigated Nomism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxies of Paul [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], 112–13). However, although his interpretation seems to be interesting, it is not clear that the existence of the citation of Hab 2:4 controls the content and the logical flow of Rom 1:18ff. Actually, although Gal 3:11 has the same citation of Hab 2:4, there is no hint of the

108

chapter four

From c1–42 (v. 19), Paul mentions the reasons for the revelation of God’s wrath from the heavens by διότι, and gives detailed explanation of τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων (“those who suppress the truth by unrighteousness”) in c1–41 (v. 18). In the first place, Paul touches on the aspect of ‘truth’ in vv. 19–20. According to Paul, this truth is related to the knowledge of God, and all humans have already acknowledged this truth, since God has revealed it to all humans through his creation (v. 19). He re-explains such an idea from the human perspective in v. 20 through using two passive verbs (νοούμενα and καθορᾶται), which indicate the human-side reception of that knowledge about God.21 Also, he adds the result of the human acknowledgment of God’s attributes: “they have no excuse for not knowing the truth when they are judged because of their suppressing the truth.”22 After dealing with the ‘truth,’ Paul attends to the sinful behavior of humans in v. 18 (ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων). In spite of their knowledge about God, all humans ignore God and fail to worship and give thanks to him. But (ἀλλά) the actual fact is that, through this human attitude their foolishness becomes even worse (cc1–51–52).23 So, although they have the illusion that they are wise, the reality is that they are foolish in their understanding. Consequently, they change the glory of the immortal God into other images of mortals. Thus, for Paul, the sinful situation of all humans is like a vicious spiral, which begins with the refusal of God and moves forward to the deep rejection of God by way of the degradation of their cognitive understanding. In sum, Paul begins the explanation of his gospel with the wrath of God toward all sins of humanity, who suppresses the truth by unrighteousness (v. 18). However, in spite of moving directly to the explanation of the consequences of God’s wrath, he elucidates more closely the essence of human sins, the suppressing of truth by unrighteousness in vv. 19–23.

same divine judgment. Thus, one should be cautious to insist that the OT citation controls the present content of the NT. 21 In addition, the structural similarity between cc1–42 and 44 with regard to the Subject indicates their connection: τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ (c1–42); τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ (c1–44). 22 NLT translates it as “So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.” 23 In my view, the adversative conjunction (ἀλλά) and the passive voices (ἐματαιώθησαν and ἐσκοτίσθη) probably imply this progress.

rom :–:

109

3) Focality There are some prominence features in Rom 1:18–23. At the sentence level two things are noticeable. The first one is πᾶσαν in c1–40 (v. 18). This term seems to be parallel to παντί in c1–36 (v. 16) in the sense that both are related to humanity.24 Yet, while the one in c1–36 is used to stress the scope of God’s salvation, the other one in c1–40 is related to the sinfulness of all humans, which brings God’s wrath. Thus, the term πᾶσαν emphasizes that just as God’s salvation is universal including both Jews and Gentiles, the range of God’s wrath is also universal. If this is so, ἀνθρώπων in c1–40 does not seem to refer only to the Gentiles. Many scholars think that Rom 1:18–32 is only applied to the sinful state of the Gentiles, because the combination of idolatry with homosexuality may reflect the condemnation of the Gentiles in Hellenistic Jewish literature such as Wisdom 11–15. However, there are some reasons to think that Paul could have both Jews and Gentiles in mind. First, when he refers to the beneficiary of God’s wrath, he uses ἀνθρώπων (c1–40), not Ἕλληνι (c1–35) or ἔθνη (Rom 2:14). Second, as I mentioned above, the uses of ‘all’ in cc1–36 and 40 may indicate that there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles with regard to both God’s salvation and wrath.25 Third, there is no direct evidence that the person references are changed from all humans to Gentiles in Rom 1:18–32. Once the plural form of ἄνθρωπος is used in v. 18, all the following anaphoric person references including pronouns and verbs are about ‘them.’ Especially, the plural form of the person references in vv. 19–20 could be ‘all humans,’ because there is no ground to think that the revelation of God’s power and eternity through his creation is only limited to the Gentile world. In addition, since Paul says that God’s invisible nature has been shown and perceived from the time of creation, it is possible to infer that before and after the distinction between Jews and Gentiles emerged, all humans still had some knowledge about God through God’s created order.26

24 Παντὶ in c1–36 is relevant to the people themselves, and πᾶσαν in c1–40 (v. 18) is about all sinful attitudes or behaviors of humans. 25 Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 110. 26 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 104; Contra E. Adams, “Abraham’s Faith and Gentile Disobedience: Textual Links between Romans 1 and 4,” JSNT 65 (1997), 48–49. He argues that since “Paul appeals to God’s creational revelation as the standard by which these people are to be judged,” Rom 1:18–32 is not about Jews but about Gentiles. His thought is based on the notion that “the Jews are judged by God, according to Paul, on the basis of their possession of the law” (Adams, “Abraham’s

110

chapter four

The fourth reason is that it is not likely that the description of human suppression of divine truth (vv. 21–23) is only applied to Gentiles. In Rom 5:13, Paul says that sin and its result were in the world before the law came. Since it implies that both Jews and Gentiles committed sins before the Jews were prescribed as God’s people by the law, it is not too much to say that all humans, who have had knowledge about God through the created world from the time of creation to Paul’s own day, have sinned by suppressing the truth through their unrighteousness. Thus, the boundary of sinners can be enlarged to cover both Jews and Gentiles. Moreover, there is also no reason to think that the long list of human sins in vv. 29–31 is limited only to Gentiles. Actually, in the OT, God continuously points out the similar sins of Israel, which are described in vv. 21–23 and 29–32. For example, if Rom 1:23 alludes to Ps 106:20, which is about Israel’s worship of the Golden Calf, and Jer 2:11, which is about Israel’s idolatry, it could indicate that the Jews are not totally exempt from the range of God’s wrath.27 Furthermore, pointing out Jewish sin with regard to the idol in Rom 2:22, Paul reveals that he already has in mind the Jewish sin of idolatry.28 Therefore, even though many of Paul’s descriptions of human sinfulness in vv. 18–32 reflect the sins of Gentiles, especially homosexuality in vv. 26–27,29 it is not plausible that Paul’s target here is only Gentiles. Instead, the focus of Rom 1:18–32 seems to be the sinfulness of all humans, which causes God’s wrath, including Jews and Gentiles.30

Faith and Gentile Disobedience,” 48–49). However, Paul declares in Rom 5:13 that before receiving special revelation by the law, all humans had sinned. That is, for Paul, the core of sin, which is the suppression of the knowledge about God, was already performed before the coming of the law. Consequently, it is fully possible to think that the knowledge about God has already been revealed and known to all humans before and after the coming of the law. Cf. C. Bryan, A Preface to Romans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 83. 27 Although, as Fitzmyer (Fitzmyer, Romans, 298) and Schreiner (Schreiner, Romans, 81) think, Paul’s allusion to Ps 106:20 and Jer 2:11 is for the accusation of Gentiles’ sin, the Jews could not escape from Paul’s depiction of the sinful attitude and act of ‘them,’ because the temporal boundary of the depiction of human acknowledgment about God and their willful sin covers from the time of creation to Paul’s own day. cf. Porter, “A Newer Perspective on Paul,” 378. 28 Ὁ βδελυσσόμενος τὰ εἴδωλα ἱεροσυλεῖς (“You who abhor the idol, do you rob temples?”). This view is different from that in the Wisdom of Solomon, which states that Israel does not commit a sin of idolatry (Wis 15:1–6). 29 In my view, the reason for Paul to mention the sin of homosexuality is that it fits well the motif of ‘exchange’ (F. Watson, “Constructing a Hermeneutic: A Rereading of Romans 1–4” [Unpublished paper, A paper prepared for the New Testament Graduate Seminar, Duke Divinity School, November, 2004]), 2). 30 Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:104–106; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 97; Bryan, A Preface to Romans, 77–84;

rom :–:

111

The second marked expression at the sentence level is the two occurrences of ql + head in cc1–44 (αὐτοῦ δύναμις: v. 20) and 51 (αὐτῶν καρδία: v. 21). The first one is related to God, and the other is to humans. These expressions may emphasize the content of the knowledge about God and the seriousness of the sinful heart of humans. On the other hand, at the level beyond the sentence, two rhetorical expressions are used in this sub-unit. The first one is a parallel explanation of the human knowledge about God in vv. 19–20. When Paul deals with the ‘truth’ that humans suppress in v. 18, he explains it two times with different perspectives. One is from God’s side (v. 19) and the other is from the human side (v. 20). Consequently, it is enough to highlight the fact that all humans have knowledge about God, so that they are without excuse. The second rhetorical expression is an A-B-B´-A´ structure in vv. 21–23. Here, the behavioral and cognitive dimensions of sinful humans appear alternatively, and it functions to stress the sinfulness of humans toward God. In sum, according to the above observations, Paul’s emphasis seems to be on the sinfulness of humans and the universal scope of God’s wrath toward them in the interaction between God and humans. 4) Grouping a) External evidence The major external evidence for the grouping of Rom 1:18–23 as a discourse unit is the introduction of God’s wrath and human sinful status in v. 18. These new themes not only are distinct from vv. 16–17, but also pave the way for the following arguments. b) Internal evidence Rom 1:18–23 consists of three parts, vv. 18, 19–20 and 21–23, and each is linked by means of several cohesive elements. The first element is the use of conjunctions. A causal conjunction διότι connects vv. 19–20 to v. 18, and vv. 21–23 to v. 20. The second cohesive element is semantic domains. Verses 18 and 19–20 are largely linked with the semantic domain related to cognitive understanding,31 and vv. 18 and 21–23 are connected with both cognitive understanding and

Watson, “Constructing a Hermeneutic: A Rereading of Romans 1–4,” 2; Seifrid, “Unrighteous by Faith,” 116–19. 31 (1) V. 18: 72 (True, False: ἀλήθεια); and (2) vv. 19–20: 28.B (Known [the content of knowledge]: γνωστός), 32.A (Understand: νοέω), and 27.A (Learn: καθοράω).

112

chapter four

active behavior of humans in relation to God.32 The third element is the chain of person references. Throughout Rom 1:18–23, God and humanity appear as the main participants, and the chain link of each participant establishes this sub-unit as a cohesive unity. Therefore, as a discourse unit, Rom 1:18–23 show well its internal cohesive unity, and this unity can be diagrammed as below:33

Rom 1:18 ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ ὀργὴ θεοῦ ἀπ᾽οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ cognitive elements

πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν

behavioral elements

ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων, 19

διότι τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς· ὁ

θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν. 20 τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ

κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα καθορᾶται , ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους, 21

διότι γνόντες τὸν θεὸν οὐχ ὡς θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ

ηὐχαρίστησαν, ἀλλ᾽ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς

αὐτῶν καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία. φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράνθησαν

23

22

καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν

δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι . . . ἑρπετῶν.

32 (1) Human action: v. 18: 13.D (Happen: κατέχω); vv. 21–23: 87.B, (Honor or Respect in Relation to Status: δοξάζω), 57.J (Exchange: ἀλλάσσω); (2) human cognition: vv. 21–23: 28.A (γινώσκω), 30.A (Think, Thought: διαλογισμός), 32.E (Lack of Capacity for Understanding: ἀσύνετος, μωραίνω), 32.D (Capacity for Understanding: σοφός). 33 Here, even though the verb form is important in considering anaphoric chain references, I only mark the noun and pronoun forms in this diagram for the sake of convenience.

rom :–:

113

5) Summary After introducing the overall description of his gospel in Rom 1:16–17, Paul begins to explain the gospel in Rom 1:18. As in Rom 1:16–17, Rom 1:18 shows the interaction between God and humans as the basic framework in describing the gospel. However, unlike Rom 1:16–17, Rom 1:18 deals with God’s wrath against all sins of humans, who suppress divine truth by unrighteousness. Yet, instead of giving the substance of God’s wrath or its result, in the following arguments, Paul focuses on the nature of human sins, which he summarizes in c1–41 (v. 18): “suppress the truth by unrighteousness.” He deals first with the ‘truth’ in vv. 19–20, and states that all humans have had knowledge about God from the creation through the God-created world. Then, he concentrates on the sinfulness of humans, which appears in the dimensions of behavior and cognition, in vv. 21–23. These two dimensions of sinfulness of humans are delivered through rhetorical structures such as a parallel and a chiastic A-B-B´-A´structure, and through marked word orders. As a beginning of Paul’s gospel, this sub-unit functions to set the stage for the following argumentation by providing some important information: (1) a negative paradigm of the interaction between God and humans (e.g., human sins—God’s wrath), which is opposite to that in Rom 1:16–17 (e.g., human faith—God’s salvation); (2) the universal boundary of God’s initial revelation and his wrath; and (3) the sinfulness of humans, who suppress divine truth by unrighteousness in spite of God’s initial revelation of his attributes.

114

chapter four

B. Rom 1:24–27: God’s wrathful response to the behavioral dimension of human sinfulness 1) Text analysis of Rom 1:24–27

rom :–:

115

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure This sub-unit is composed of six primary, four secondary, and six embedded clauses.34 All embedded clauses appear in the Adjunct. As to the topical participants, God and humans are mentioned as the main participant. They appear as interactive counterparts in cc1– 56–63 (vv. 24–26a). In vv. 24 and 26, God appears as the actor who gave sinful humans over to their sin, and humans as the beneficiaries, who receive God’s act. Yet, in the secondary clauses of cc1–58 and 60 (v. 25), their role is switched. Humans become the actors, who do not serve God and exchange his attributes for idols, and God is the object of the human act. Moreover, humans are also mentioned as actors in vv. 26b–27, who interact with other humans, especially among one’s own sex. Thus, according to the interactive pattern among participants, this sub-unit shows the structure below.

Interactive pattern

clause

actor

object/beneficiary

Interactions between God and humans (vv. 24–26a)

c1–56 (v. 24) cc1–58–62 (v. 25) c1–63 (v. 26a)

God humans God

humans God humans

Interactions among humans (vv. 26b–27)

c1–64 (v. 26b) cc1–65–71 (v. 27)

women men

women men

b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 12.A (Supernatural Being and Power: x2) (2) 79.V (Male, Female: x3)

Predicators

(1) 57 (Possess, Transfer, Exchange: x4): H (Give: x 2), J (Exchange: x2) (2) 53 (Religious activities: x2): G, A (3) 25.B (Desire Strongly)

34 (1) Primary clauses: cc1–56 (v. 24), 63, 64 (v. 26), 65, 67, 69 (v. 27); (2) secondary clauses: cc1–58, 59, 60, 62 (v. 25); and (3) embedded clauses: cc1–57 (v. 24), 61 (v. 25), 66, 68, 70, 71 (v. 27).

116

chapter four

(cont.) Semantic domains Complements

(1) about God: 72.A (Truth); 12.A; 33.K´ (Praise); 28.C (2) about humans: 42.C (Make, Create); 58.A (Nature, Character); 23.D

Adjuncts

(1) 88 (Moral and Ethical Qualities and Related Behavior: x3): H´, T, I´ (2) 25.B (x3) (3) 58.A (x2) (4) 90 (Case: x2): K, M (Experiencer) (5) 87.D (Low Status or Rank: x2) (6) 79.V (x2)

Overall lists

(1) 57 (x4): H (x2), J (x2) (2) 25.B (x4) (3) 12.A (x3) (4) 79.V (x3) (5) 88 (x3)

The semantic domains of the Subjects are about God and humans (women and men). The main semantic domain of the Predicators is domain 57. It appears four times with a consistent pattern. When the Subject is God (cc1–56, 63), 57.H (παρέδωκεν) is used, and 57.J (μετήλλαξαν) is used whenever the Subject is human (cc1–58, 64). This use of domain 57 demonstrates that the behavioral interaction between God and humans is an important topical interest in this subunit. The second major semantic domain of the Predicators is domain 53 (ἐσεβάσθησαν [53.G], ἐλάτρευσαν [53.J]) in v. 25. Yet this domain is only used to express the sinful attitude of humans toward God. In the case of the Complement, semantic domains can be grouped into two. One group is about God (72.A and 33.K´), and it appears in relation to the interaction between God and humans. The other group is relevant to non-God (42.C, 58.A, and 23.D [Sexual Relations]), and used in the interactions among humans. Lastly, concerning the semantic domain of the Adjuncts, the major semantic domain is 88 and 25.B.35 These

35 (1) 88: 88.H´ (Impurity: ἀκαθαρσίαν [v. 24]), 88.T (Act Shamefully: ἀσχημοσύνην [v. 27]), and 88.I´ (Licentiousness, Perversion: πλάνης [v. 27]); and (2) 25B: ἐπιθυμίαις (v. 24), πάθη (v. 26), and ὀρέξει (v. 27).

rom :–:

117

two domains occur in relation to the human status, especially to sexual passion. From the above observations, the topical issue of this sub-unit is about the actions that give and take between God and humans. In addition, the highly frequent semantic domains 25.B (x4) and 88 (x3) imply that the sinfulness of humans, especially homosexuality, is also an important topical issue in this sub-unit. c) Analysis of logical relations A conjunction διό and the reappearance of God as the grammatical subject of an active verb (παρέδωκεν) in v. 24 indicate the positional role of this sub-unit in relation to the preceding sub-unit. That is, this sub-unit is not only about a direct consequence of the human sinful mind and acts toward God, which is shown in vv. 19–23, but also about the content of God’s wrath revealed in v. 18. At first, Paul mentions a response of God to sinful humans in v. 24. It is an example of divine wrath against sinners. Yet God’s wrath does not have the form of direct punishment, such as the death penalty, nor of the prohibition of sins. Instead, it is expressed as παρέδωκεν, which usually implies “the handing over of a person into the power of another.”36 That is, God’s wrath is revealed by giving humans over to the power of their immorality in the lustful desire of their hearts (ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν).37 This kind of divine wrath affects the behavioral dimension of human sins, so that sinful humans degrade their body by their own act (τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς: c1–57 [v. 24]).38 Thus, according to v. 24, God’s wrath seems

36

Byrne, Romans, 75. Here, for two reasons, it is preferred to interpret the prepositional phrase with ἐν as the actual sinful condition of humans, not as instrumental. One reason is the use of the term καρδία. It could be a reference to the foolish heart in c1–51 (v. 21), which is a cause of God’s wrath. The other is that ἐπιθυμίαις in v. 24 corresponds semantically to πάθη in v. 26, which refers to the area over which God hands humans. Thus, the prepositional phrase with ἐν can be thought to qualify the immorality (ἀκαθαρσίαν). Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 110; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:122; Jewett, Romans, 167–68; Contra Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 38; Byrne, Romans, 75. 38 There are some debates on the function of this clause and the voice of ἀτιμάζεσθαι. As to the voice of this verb, for several reasons I would regard ἀτιμάζεσθαι as middle. The main reason is the similarities between vv. 24 and 28, which have the same syntactic elements: the Subject (God), Predicator (παρέδωκεν), Complement (αὐτοὺς), a prepositional clause with εἰς, and an infinitive embedded clause. In v. 28, there are two dimensions of human sins, such as internal cognitive dimension (ἀδόκιμον νοῦν) 37

118

chapter four

to be a direct correspondence to the two dimensions of human sinfulness, i.e., an internal degradation and the external willful behavior or attitude. After mentioning a response of God to sinful humans, Paul reiterates in v. 25 the nature of human sins, which reflects the condition of human sinfulness in vv. 18–23. Even though he mentions the internal cognitive dimension of human sinfulness toward God (i.e., τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ), his main interest here seems to be in the external behavioral dimension of human sins, because the nature of all three Predicators in v. 25 is related to Material-Action (doing): μετήλλαξαν, ἐσεβάσθησαν, and ἐλάτρευσαν. It implies that what Paul concentrates on in this sub-unit is the behavioral dimension of human sinfulness, which brings God’s behavioral response to it. God’s reaction to the sinful behavior of humans is also reiterated in c1–63 (v. 26a): “because of this (διὰ τοῦτο) God hands humans over to dishonorable passion (πάθη ἀτιμίας).”39 and external willful act (ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθὴκοντα) expressed by the infinitive clause. So, it is possible to think that the infinitive clause in v. 24 refers to the willful act of humans. Moreover, the middle is more appropriate than passive, because the middle fits Paul’s concern here. If this verb is passive, the focus is put on the logical object, the human body (Jewett, Romans, 169). But, Paul’s interest in Rom 1:24–27 is not the human body itself, but human sinful act of homosexuality. So, it is possible to interpret ἀτιμάζεσθαι as middle, which focuses on the external human willful act (Byrne, Romans, 76; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 112 n. 100; RSV; NIV; NRSV; TNIV; Contra Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:122; Fitzmyer, Romans, 284; Jewett, Romans, 169; NASB). As to the role of this clause, I would prefer to see it as a result clause than epexegetical. Some think that this clause is connected to ἀκαθαρσίαν, and functions to qualify or explain the status of the immorality. However, as I have shown above, in vv. 18–23 the behavioral dimension of human sinfulness does not appear as a modifier that explains or qualifies the internal sinful mind or hearts. Instead, Paul gives an impression that he wants to deal with each dimension of human sinfulness separately, although both internal and external aspects are intermingled and go hand in hand. Consequently, since Paul describes human sin, which results in God’s wrath, as having two dimensions, it would be plausible to think that God’s response also covers such two dimensions of human sin. Therefore, I would argue that the infinitive clause is linked to the verb (παρέδωκεν), and refers to God’s treatment in response to the external behavioral dimension of human sin (Blass, Debrunner and Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, § 400 [2]; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:122; Fitzmyer, Romans, 284; Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 594; contra Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 38; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 112; Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 198. He views the infinitive clause in v. 28 as epexegesis). 39 Here, ἀτιμίας is a genitive of quality, and its meaning is related to ἀτιμάζεσθαι in v. 24.

rom :–:

119

Verses 26b–27 (cc1–64–71) are connected to vv. 24–26a with γάρ, and deals with the sins of homosexuality. Although γάρ normally introduces a causal clause, it works here to show vv. 26b–27 as an explanatory part of vv. 24–26a, because there is no hint that human sexual sin is the cause of God’s wrath in this co-text.40 Paul puts the women’s exchange of natural sexual intercourse for unnatural as the first example in c1– 64 (v. 26). The use of μετήλλαξαν and a prepositional phrase with παρά reflect the motif of sinful ‘exchange’ in v. 25. Regarding male homosexuality in v. 27, Paul mentions three phases of their sins: (1) their internal sexual desire for other men (ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους: c1–65): (2) external behavior (τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι: c1–68): and (3) its result (τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες: c1–69). These elements roughly correspond to the lustful heart (an internal sinful state of humans) and dishonoring their bodies (sinful act and its result) in v. 24, respectively. Thus, as a content of God’s wrath, the homosexuality in vv. 26b–27 serves well to show God’s appropriate response to human sins. Overall, the logical flow of this sub-unit is: A) B) A´) C1)

A statement of God’s punishment (v. 24) The reason for God’s punishment (v. 25) Restatement of God’s punishment (c1–63 [v. 26a]) The first example of God’s punishment (women’s homosexuality) (c1–64 [v. 26b]) C2) The second example of God’s punishment (men’s homosexuality) (cc1–65–71 [v. 27])

3) Focality This sub-unit shows several emphatic expressions. The first one is the marked conjunction διό in v. 24, and it indicates vv. 24–27 as a consequence of human sins described in vv. 19–23. The next notable thing is the reiteration of the sinful state of humans in v. 25. Logically, it seems natural for the reader to expect to see the content of God’s punishment or an explanation of it after v. 24, because the reason for God’s wrath has already been described in the preceding part (vv. 19–23) and the use of διό in v. 24 implies the result of human sins. In this sense, the reiteration of the sinful condition of humans could be thought of

40 Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 207; Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 658.

120

chapter four

as an emphasis, which highlights human sins.41 Moreover, the appearance of the doxology in c1–62 (v. 25) also functions to stress the sins of humans, who exchange God’s truth for a lie and despise his glory. The third one is the occurrence of ἄρσενες in v. 27. Generally, one expects to see the anaphoric reference, once the Subject is mentioned. However, although Paul uses ἄρσενες as the grammatical subject in c1–65, he repeats it with the same form in c1–67 instead of using a pronoun. Besides, the position of it in the information structure is P (Primary clause)—T (Theme)—P (Prime). Thus, it can be regarded as a marked expression that stresses the seriousness of male homosexuality.42 In sum, according to these observations, Paul focuses on human sins, which bring the inevitable divine wrath in the paradigm of interaction between God’s wrath and human sins. 4) Grouping a) External evidence There are at least three pieces of evidence for distinguishing vv. 24–27 from the preceding sub-unit. The first evidence is the summative conjunction διό in v. 24, and it signifies the move of argumentation from the reason of God’s wrath to the result of it. The second evidence is the change of the Subject from humans to God, who takes the initiative in revealing his wrath, in v. 24. The third one is παρέδωκεν in v. 24, which indicates a way of God’s punishment for human sins. All of this evidence points out that Rom 1:24–27 deals with different phase in the paradigm of interaction between human sin and God’s wrath. That is, as a logical result of Rom 1:18–23, which deals with the reason of God’s wrath, Rom 1:24–27 is about the content of God’s wrath.

41

Cf. Schreiner, Romans, 91. According to verbal aspect, while female homosexuality has only the perfective aspect, male homosexuality is expressed by the imperfective aspect. Thus, it seems that male homosexuality is more stressed than female homosexuality. 42

rom :–:

121

b) Internal evidence The internal unity of this sub-unit is well shown in the logical structure of A (a statement of God’s judgment: v. 24)—B (the reason of God’s wrath: v. 25)—A´ (restatement of God’s judgment: c1–63 [v. 26a])—C1 (the first example of God’s wrath: c1–64 [v. 26b])— C2 (the second example of God’s wrath: cc1–65–71 [v. 27]). In this structure, A and A´ have the same syntactic (παρέδωκεν [P] αὐτοὺς [C] ὁ θεὸς [S] εἰς . . . [A]) and semantic elements (25.B: ἐπιθυμίαις and πάθη and 38.B: ἀτιμάζεσθαι and ἀτιμίας). B and C1 are linked with the word μετήλλαξαν. Lastly, being connected with a correlated conjunction τε . . . τε, C1 and C2 are relevant to A (v. 24) in two ways. One is that homosexuality happens in the human body (cf. σῶμα in c1–57), and the other is the use of semantic domain 25.B (ὀρέξει [c1–65]), which refers to the sinful passion of humans (cf. ἐπιθυμίαις in c1–56 [v. 24]). Thus, this sub-unit is a closely weaved unit, in which the cause and result of God’s wrath are interconnected with each other, and they also link to the expository examples. The internal unity can be expressed as below.

A (Rom 1:24) (God’s wrath)

διὸ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι τὰ

the same syntactic structure

σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς

B (v. 25) (the reason of God’s wrath)

οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει καὶ ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα . . . ἀμήν.

A´ (v. 26a) (God’s wrath)

διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας

C1 (v. 26b) (example of God’s wrath)

αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν

C2 (v. 27) (example of God’s wrath)

ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν

χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν

τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν . . .

related to the body

122

chapter four

5) Summary In connection with Rom 1:18–23, which is about the reason for God’s wrath, Paul begins to describe the wrath of God in this sub-unit. God’s wrath is toward both internal and external dimensions of human sins (v. 24). Yet the reiteration of the cause of God’s wrath in v. 25 implies that Paul focuses here on the behavioral aspect of human sins. For Paul, the first exemplary area of God’s punishment is homosexuality. However, homosexuality itself is not depicted as the cause of God’s wrath. Rather, it appears as an area of God’s response to human sins.43 Whether it is derived from Hellenistic Judaism or not, Paul’s choice of homosexuality as an example seems to be very deliberate. Homosexuality is characterized by the combining of internal lustful passion and external sinful act that has a nature of ‘exchange.’ This feature is an exact reflection of the human sins described in vv. 21–23. Moreover, the dishonoring result of homosexuality can be thought of as God’s appropriate response to human sins, because dishonoring God is at the core of human sins (cf. v. 21). Thus, homosexuality seems to be a proper example in describing the nature of human sins and God’s response to them. Furthermore, although this sub-unit is about the content of God’s wrath, Paul does not neglect to show and emphasize human sins that bring God’s punishment. Actually, God’s punishment itself is not mentioned as stopping human sins, but as throwing humans into their own sin so as for them to be a victim of their sins. This seems to indicate that Paul’s real interest here is not to show the way of God’s judgment per se, but to highlight the sinfulness of all humans, especially the behavioral dimension of sin.

43

Cf. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 117.

rom :–:

123

C. Rom 1:28–32: God’s wrathful response to the cognitive dimension of human sinfulness 1) Text analysis of Rom 1:28–32

124

chapter four

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 1:28–32 is composed of one primary (c1–74 [v. 28]), three secondary (cc1–72, 78, 82), and eight embedded clauses (cc1–73, 75–77, 79–81, 83). In this structure, God and humans appear as the main topical participants. God, the Subject of the primary clause, appears as the one who reacts to the sin of humans. Humans are the Subject of all the secondary and embedded clauses, and they are depicted as the performers of sins and recipients of God’s wrath. Thus, the topical issue of this sub-unit is about the interaction between God and humans, especially about God’s response to human sins and its result. The overall interactive pattern between God’s wrath and human sins is that: (1) humans rejected God (c1–72 [v. 28]) ¤ (2) God handed humans over to their sins (c1–74 [v. 28]) ¤ (3) humans performed sinfulness (cc1–75–77 [vv. 28–31]) ¤ (4) humans knew God’s decree (c1–79 [v. 32]) ¤ (5) humans rejected it (cc1–78–83 [v. 32]). b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 12.A (Supernatural Being and Power)

Predicators

(1) (2) (3) (4)

42.B (Do, Perform: x2) 30.G (To Distinguish, To Evaluate, To Judge) 57.H (Give) 31.C (Agree, Consent)

Complements

(1) (2) (3) (4)

12.A 29.A (Know) 57.A 42.B

Adjuncts

(1) 88 (Moral and Ethical Qualities and Related Behavior: x13): 88.O (x5), A´ (x2), B, Z, V, P, J, U (2) 25 (x2): 25.B (Desire Strongly), C (3) 27; 42.B; 66; 59.D; 20.D; 39.E; 30.D; 10.B; 36.C; 32.E; 34.E; 12.A; 28.A; 42.C; 13.A; 65.B; 23.G; 26 (Psychological Faculties)

rom :–:

125

(cont.) Semantic domains Overall lists

(1) 88 (x13) (2) 33 (x3) (3) human cognitive dimension: 28 (x2); 30 (Think: x2); 30.D, G; 31.C; 26 (4) humans behavioral dimension: 42.B (x4)

Semantically, this sub-unit contains several notable things. The first one is the cluster of domain 88. All thirteen references belong to the Complements in cc1–74–77 (vv. 28–29), and indicate the result of God’s punishment. The second notable thing is six occurrences of the semantic domain related to human cognition.44 These words are used in relation to the cause and result of God’s wrath. The third important semantic domain is four occurrences of 42.B: ποιέω (cc1–75, 78) and πράσσω (cc1–81, 83). This domain appears only in the resulting part of God’s punishment. The last one is ἀδικία in c1–76 (v. 28). This is the same word that is used to describe the sinful state of humans in v. 18. But, while ἀδικία in v. 18 is related to the cause of God’s wrath, that in v. 28 is to the result of divine judgment. It implies that the sinful condition of humans, which brings God’s wrath, becomes even worse by the revelation of God’s judgment, in that because of human sins, God hands them over to their own sin. In sum, all four of these semantic areas are related to the sinful human condition, whether it is a cause of God’s wrath or a result. Therefore, it could be said that the overall topicality of this sub-unit is about human sinfulness. c) Analysis of logical relations Paul begins this sub-unit with restating a cause of God’s wrath: “and just as they do not see fit to have God in knowledge” (cc1–72 and 73 [v. 28]). However, unlike v. 25, where Paul makes mention of human sinful acts toward God, the picture of human sin here is related to the cognitive sense. It reflects the internal dimension of human sins in cc1–50–54 (vv. 21–22). After mentioning the cause of God’s wrath, Paul articulates the content of God’s punishment in cc1–74–77

44 (1) Domain 30: ἐδοκίμασαν (c1–72 [v. 28]) and ἐφευρετὰς (c1–74 [v. 30]); (2) domain 28: ἐπιγνώσει (cc1–73 [v. 28] and 79 [v. 32]); (3) domain 26: νοῦν (c1–74 [v. 28]); and (4) domain 31.C: συνευδοκοῦσιν (c1–82 [v. 32]).

126

chapter four

(v. 28–31). Similar to v. 24, the content of divine punishment affects both internal and external dimensions of human sin. That is, God hands humans over to the internal depraved mind (νοῦν), so that they perform (ποιεῖν) various vices.45 The secondary clauses and their subordinate embedded clauses in cc1–78–83 (v. 32) function to show clearly the sinful mind and acts of humans. Although they know God’s decree that those who practice evil things in vv. 28–31 deserve to die,46 they not only do such things, but also applaud those who practice them. This depiction of sinfulness is similar to that found in vv. 21–23, in that in spite of the knowledge about God and his decree, they ignore God in mind and behave against God. However, in v. 32, Paul adds one more evil attitude of humans that they agree and encourage others to do the same sins. In sum, in light of the analysis of the logical structure, vv. 28–32 begin with a human sin that results in God’s wrath to them, and finishes also with the description of human sinfulness. Thus, vv. 28–32 show a logical structure that the state of sinful humans (A)—God’s handing humans over to their sins (B)—a deeper sinful state of humans (A´). 3) Focality In order to characterize the salient information related to the topical issues, several expressions are used in this sub-unit. One peculiar thing is a long vice list in vv. 29–31. It indicates the seriousness of human sinfulness, which comes from their corrupted sinful mind.47 45 The vice list in vv. 29–31 could be divided into three parts according to their forms: (1) four dative nouns which have –ιᾳ ending and link to πεπληρωμένους (“filled with”): ἀδικίᾳ (“unrighteousness”), πονηρίᾳ (“wickedness”), πλεονεξίᾳ (“covetousness”), and κακίᾳ (“malice”); (2) the following five genitive words which modify μεστοὺς (“full”): φθόνου (“envy”), φόνου (“murder”), ἔριδος (“strife”), δόλου (“deceit”), and κακοηθείας (“malice”); and (3) the last twelve accusative plural words. The last part could also be divided into two: (1) the first four paired words: ψιθυριστάς (“gossipers”) and καταλάλους (“slanderers”), θεοστυγεῖς (“God-haters”) and ὑβριστὰς (“insolent”), ὑπερηφάνους (“arrogant”) and ἀλαζόνας (“boasters”), and ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν (“inventors of evil”) and γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς (“disobedient to parents”); and (2) the last four words with a prefix α-: ἀσυνέτους (“senseless”), ἀσυνθέτους (“faithless”), ἀστόργους (“loveless”), and ἀνελεήμονας (“merciless”). Jewett designates each group that (1) four basic vices conductive to social pathology; (2) five antisocial vices; (3) four pairs of evil personal identifications; and (4) four references to persons lacking necessary virtues (Jewett, Romans, 166). 46 Jewett, Romans, 191. Contra Schreiner, Romans, 99. He thinks that ‘such things (τοιαῦτα)’ in v. 32 refers to the vices in vv. 24–31. 47 On the list of vices, see Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, 194–96; C.G. Kruse, “Virtues and Vices,” in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 962–63.

rom :–:

127

The emphasis on the sinfulness of humans is also shown by the use of the stative aspect of πεπληρωμένους in c1–77 (v. 29). Moreover, three uses of semantic domain 59.D (Full, Empty: πεπληρωμένους, πάσῃ, and μεστοὺς) contribute to highlight the sinful condition of humans. Lastly, a cluster of the imperfective aspect in v. 32 also works to reveal the sinful attitude of humans: ποιοῦσιν, εἰσίν, πράσσοντες, συνευδοκοῦσιν, and πράσσουσιν. Therefore, the topical focus of this sub-unit is the depravity of sinful humans. 4) Grouping a) External evidence This part is linked with vv. 24–27 by a conjunction καί in c1–72 (v. 28). But, the reason for God’s wrath is different from that in the preceding sub-unit. Whereas vv. 24–27 are about the behavioral dimension of humans sins, c1–72 is about the cognitive dimension. Thus, Rom 1:28–32 can be thought as another sub-unit, which deals with God’s wrath caused by the cognitive dimension of human sins. b) Internal evidence The internal unity of this sub-unit is largely established by a two-fold way. One is the interaction between God and humans. This interaction shows a pattern of (1) humans sin against God—(2) God reveals his wrath to sinful humans—(3) humans sin before God. The other way is the chain references of cognitive and behavioral dimensions of human sinfulness. The chain references of these two dimensions are shown as below. Rom 1:28 καὶ καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν, ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα,

29

πεπληρωμένους

. . . μεστοὺς φθόνου φόνου ἔριδος δόλου κακοηθείας, ψιθυριστάς

30

καταλάλους

θεοστυγεῖς ὑβριστὰς ὑπερηφάνους ἀλαζόνας, ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, 32

31

ἀσυνέτους ἀσυνθέτους ἀστόργους ἀνελεήμονας·

οἵτινες τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες ἄξιοι

θανάτου εἰσίν, οὐ μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ συνευδοκοῦσιν τοῖς πράσσουσιν.

128

chapter four

5) Summary The syntactic construction and the verb (παρέδωκεν) of the primary clause point out that this part is the second major description of God’s punishment for human sins. In comparison to vv. 24–27, however, this part has three differences. The first one is that this part put much emphasis on the sinfulness of humans. This tendency is shown by the two-fold description of human sinful status, which comes before and after the primary clause. In addition, the long vice list in vv. 29–31 and the elements of focality also demonstrate that even the resultant area of God’s punishment is closely related to the sinful status of humans. The second difference is the treatment of the cognitive dimension of human sinfulness. Even though the behavioral dimension appears in this sub-unit, Paul articulates the cognitive rejection as the key cause of God’s punishment in c1–72 (v. 28). And through the semantic chain of its related terms, he reveals this interest in this sub-unit. Thus, as another example of God’s wrath, Rom 1:28–32 deals with God’s response to the cognitive dimension of human sinfulness. The third difference is that the description of God’s punishment is different. While vv. 24–27 mention homosexuality as a specific exemplary area of God’s wrath, this sub-unit demonstrates the more general but serious status of human sinfulness by touching both on the cognitive (internal) and behavior (external) dimensions of it. Therefore, Rom 1:28–32 works in the flow of Paul’s argument to provide not only the second example of God’s wrath, which is caused by the cognitive dimension of human sinfulness, but also the culminant depiction of the sinfulness of all humans.

rom :–: 2. Rom 2:1–11: Inexcusable sinful situation of humans from God’s impartial judgment A. Rom 2:1–5: Inexcusable sinful situation of ‘you’ 1) Text analysis of Rom 2:1–5

129

130

chapter four

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 2:1–5 consists of a series of primary clauses, which have three secondary and eight embedded clauses.48 The primary clauses lead Paul’s argumentation, and the three ὅτι secondary clauses work as the content of the verbs (οἴδαμεν in c2–7 [v. 2], λογίζῃ in c2–10 [v. 3], and ἀγνοῶν in c2–16 [v. 4]), which are related to the cognitive acknowledgement. As to the topical participants in this sub-unit, God and humans appear as the main participants. God is mentioned as the Subject in two secondary clauses, who interacts with humans by his wrath (c2–8 [v. 2]) and kindness (c2–17 [v. 4]). Humans are shown as the interactive counterpart of God in the primary clauses and a secondary clause (c2–14 [v. 3]). They do not understand the nature of God’s kindness and judgment, and fill up the wrath of God by their sinful deeds and attitudes. The pattern of interaction between God and humans in Rom 2:1–5 has a similarity and dissimilarity with that in Rom 1:18–32. With regard to the similarity between them, this sub-unit has the same interactive paradigm between God and humans as in Rom 1:18–32: humans commit sins in spite of the revelation of God’s good attribute to them, and God repays for their sins. For example, Paul mentions first the sinfulness of a moral person in Rom 2:1, who, in spite of judging others for committing evils listed in Rom 1:29–31,49 does the same things (τὰ αὐτὰ). Then, in the following verses (vv. 2–5), Paul speaks of the wrath of God, which will be shown in response to such sinfulness. Thus, the interaction between human sinfulness and divine wrath as a response is still the fundamental paradigm in this sub-unit. However, there is dissimilarity between Rom 1:18–32 and 2:1–5. In Rom 1:18–32, God appears as the Subject in the primary clauses (e.g., vv. 18, 24, 25, 28), and humans as the Subject in the secondary or embedded clauses. In Rom 2:1–5, however, God does not appear in the primary clauses. Only in two secondary clauses (cc2–8 [v. 2], 17 [v. 4]) is God mentioned as an agent of a process. Thus, although Rom 48 (1) Primary clauses: cc2–1, 3, 5 (v. 1), 7 (v. 2), 10 (v. 3), 15 (v. 4), 18 (v. 5); (2) secondary clauses: cc2–8 (v. 2), 14 (v. 3), 17 (v. 4); and (3) embedded clauses: cc2–2, 4, 6 (v. 1), 9 (v. 2), 11, 12, 13 (v. 3), 16 (v. 4). 49 Cf. Dunn, Romans, 80; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 130; Schreiner, Romans, 108.

rom :–:

131

1:18–32 and 2:1–5 have the same interactive pattern between human sinfulness and divine response, their descriptive angles are different. While the former seems to depict the interaction from God’s point of view, the latter is from the human point of view. This observation is also supported by the change of person reference from third to second, and the use of diatribe style, which works to bring his audiences to the interaction between Paul and his hypothetical interlocutor.50 Even the appearance of the first person plural in v. 2 works to highlight the sinful status of the one who is mentioned with the second person reference.51 Thus, the topicality of Rom 2:1–5 is related to the interactive paradigm of human sinfulness and God’s wrath, which is described from the human point of view. Who, then, is it that Paul has in mind in Rom 2:1–5? Several options have been suggested: (1) Paul’s target is only Jews;52 (2) only Jewish teachers;53 (3) only Gentiles;54 (4) Jews and Gentiles;55 and

50 According to what Stowers says, “in the diatribe the one addressed and characterized is not some opponent whom the teacher is trying to damage with polemic, but rather the one ultimately addressed is the student” (Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 110), Paul’s real interest is his actual audience. On the diatribe in Romans, see A.J. Malherbe, “ME GENOITO in the Diatribe and Paul,” in Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 25–33; Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 19–184; Stanley E. Porter, “The Argument of Romans 5: Can a Rhetorical Question Make a Difference?,” JBL 110 (1991), 655–77; idem, “Diatribe,” in Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 296–98; Changwon Song, Reading Romans as a Diatribe (StBL 59; New York: Peter Lang, 2004), 94. 51 Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 94. 52 Numerous scholars support this view, such as Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 54; Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 32; Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 113; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:136–40; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 52–54; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 78; Fitzmyer, Romans, 297; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 125–27; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 54–56; Schreiner, Romans, 103; S.J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 198; etc. 53 Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 113–15. 54 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 151; cf. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, 12. 55 T. Zahn, Der Brief an die Römer (KNT 6; Leipzig: Deichert, 1910), 104–107; Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 42; F.J. Leenhardt, The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary (London: Lutterworth Press, 1961), 74; Nils A. Dahl, “The Missionary Theology in the Epistle of Romans,” in Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing house, 1977), 79; Bassler, Divine Impartiality, 121–31; J.A. Ziesler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (TPINTC; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989), 80; Porter, “A Newer Perspective on Paul,” 378; Schlatter, Romans, 47–48; Bell, No One Seeks for God, 137–38; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 110–11; Seifrid, “Unrighteous by Faith,” 120.

132

chapter four

(5) congregation members.56 Many commentators opt for the first view for several reasons. The major reason is the relation between Rom 1:18–32 and Rom 2:1–5. They regard Rom 1:18–32 as one section, and Rom 2:1–5 as a part of another section, which treats the matter of the Jews. According to their view, Paul deals with the sinfulness of the Gentiles in Rom 1:18–32, and then begins to attack the hypocritical attitude of Jews in Rom 2:1–5.57 However, as I have noted above, there are some reasons to think of Rom 1:18–2:11 as a unity, which has the interaction of universal human sinfulness and divine response as the fundamental topical framework. In addition, while Rom 2:17–25 has some evidence to identify who Paul’s interlocutor is, Rom 2:1–5 does not have any direct evidence to think that the second person reference refers to only a Jew. Moreover, contrary to many scholars’ belief that ‘you’ in Rom 2:17 clarifies the identity of ‘you’ in Rom 2:1, the nature of Paul’s critique of ‘you’ in Rom 2:1–5 is different from that in Rom 2:17–25, although both share the theme of inconsistency.58 The problem of ‘you’ in Rom 2:1–5 has an aspect of hypocritical judgment that although they pass judgment on others, they do the same things. But in the case of ‘you’ in Rom 2:17–25, there is no such aspect of hypocritical judgment on others. Instead, the key issue is the disobedience of Jews to the law despite their claim to have Jewish privileges. Thus, it is unlikely to think the two references of ‘you’ in Rom 2:1 and 17 are complementary. Consequently, topically, Rom 2:1–5 is closely related to Rom 1:18–32, which deals with the general phenomena of sinful humans; but, it is different from 2:12–29, which deals with the matter of Jews. Another reason for insisting on the interlocutor of Rom 2:1–5 as the Jews is a similarity between Wisdom 12–15 and Rom 2:1–5. For example, D.J. Moo says that “Paul’s accusation in vv. 1–3 could apply to anyone, but v. 4 draws on language from Wis 12–15 that makes best sense if the passage is directed against the Jews.”59 It is true that Wis 12:19 and 15:1–2 mention God’s forbearance to his Jewish people. However, as in the case of Rom 1:18–32, it is not certain how much Paul reflects the thought of the Wisdom of Solomon in his writing of

56

Jewett, Romans, 197. For example, Schreiner, Romans, 103; Byrne, Romans, 78. 58 Stowers insists that the theme of inconsistency in Rom 2:1–5 and 17–29 is one of the characteristics of the diatribe in Epictetus (Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 101–104). 59 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 128. 57

rom :–:

133

Rom 2:1–5. Moreover, even in the Wisdom of Solomon, God’s mercy and forbearance are not restricted to the Jews alone, but they extend to the Gentile sinners. For instance, Moo argues that the parallel ideas between Wis 11:23 and Rom 2:4 indicate the relevance of Rom 2:1–4 to the Jews, since Wis 11:23 says that “God’s purpose in his kindness is not to excuse sin but to stimulate repentance.”60 However, it is not Jews but Egyptians that the thought of Wis 11:23 is applied to: “But you [God] are merciful to all, for you can do all things, and you overlook people’s sins, so that they may repent” (NRSV).61 Furthermore, Wis 12:10 says that even the Canaanites receive God’s mercy that leads the sinner to repentance: “But Judging them little by little you gave them an opportunity to repent, though you were not unaware that their origin was evil” (NRSV). Thus, the similar language with the Wisdom of Solomon does not give a crucial clue to think of the interlocutor of Paul as the Jews. Instead, the similarities could be used as the evidence that those whom Paul has in mind are both Jews and Gentiles. Consequently, it is possible to see that Paul’s interlocutor in Rom 2:1–5 is not the Jews alone. Instead, Paul may have in mind a general humanity including both Jews and Gentiles.62 However, the more certain and important thing is the fact that instead of identifying his interlocutor, Paul uses a diatribe style with the second person references in order to bring his audiences to his arguments. It implies that Paul’s concern is toward the audience of his letter. In sum, according to the analysis of the structure of Rom 2:1–5, Paul demonstrates the same interactive paradigm of human sinfulness and divine wrath as is shown in Rom 1:18–32 with a different angle. He describes it from the human point of view, and gives more attention to show the human side of the sinfulness than the divine response to human sins. Moreover, the change of person and style seems to

60

Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 133. Reese comments on Wis 11:15–12:2 that “Perhaps to respond to criticisms of God’s harsh treatment of the Egyptians as recorded in the biblical account of the Exodus, the text hastens to exempt God from any charge of vindictiveness in punishing. On the contrary, God’s ‘all powerful hand (11:17),’ capable of meting out any mode of punishment, even to the point of creating fearful instruments of torture, always acts with love and restraint” (J.M. Reese, “Wisdom of Solomon,” in James L. Mays [eds.], Harper’s Bible Commentary [New York: HarperCollins, 1988], 829). 62 Schreiner argues that ‘we’ in v. 2 indicates that Paul identifies himself with a perspective of the Jews (Schreiner, Romans, 107). But, it is not certain that this ‘we’ should refer to the Jews only, because, as Jewett points out, it can be an expression that “conveys Paul’s solidarity with his audience in the churches” regardless of recognizing the distinction between Jews and Gentiles (Jewett, Romans, 198). 61

134

chapter four

reveal his intention that his audiences, who may include both Jews and Gentiles, are not exempt in such a pattern of human sinfulness and divine wrath. b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) Human being (you): 92.C (Receptor, Receptors) cf. Human act: 30.G (To Distinguish, To Evaluate, To Judge) (2) God’s attribute: 56.E (Judge, Condemn, Acquit); 88.I

Predicators

(1) With regard to ‘you’: 13.A; 13.D (Happen); 56.E; 42.B; 30.A (To Think, Thought); 21.D; 88.Y; 28.A (2) With regard to God: 13.A; 36.A

Complements

(1) 25.O (Patience, Endurance, Perseverance: x2) (2) 92.C (x3) (3) 88 (x2): 88.I, X (4) 33.W´ (Defend, Excuse)

Adjuncts

(1) 88 (Moral and Ethical Qualities and Related Behavior: x2): B´, X (2) 41.E (Change Behavior: x2) (3) 28 (Know: x2): A, C (4) 42.B; 56.E; 92.C; 30.G

Addressees

(1) 9.A (Human Beings: x2) (2) 30.G (x2) (3) 42.B (Do, Perform: x2)

Overall lists

(1) (2) (3) (4)

You: 92.C (x5) Human judgment: 30.G (x4) Human act: 42.B (x4) God’s judgment: 56:E (Judge, Condemn, Acquit: x3)

Since this section shows an interaction between God and humanity (‘you’), the semantic domains of this sub-unit can be analyzed according to each participant. First, as to Paul’s interlocutor, the main semantic domains in vv. 1–2 are related to judgment (30.G [x4]) and acts (42.B [x4]). These two semantic domains characterize the interlocutor: “even though you pass judgment, you do the same evil things.” Of the two, Paul’s major critique is of the behavioral dimension, because it appears as the main reason for God’s judgment in v. 2.63 In the Predicators

63 Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 1:23–24; Schreiner, Romans, 107; contra Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 44. Longenecker argues that

rom :–:

135

and Adjuncts in vv. 3–5, the sinful condition of Paul’s interlocutor is expressed through the semantic domains of cognitive thinking and acts.64 The foolish cognitive sense and evil doings exactly resemble the universal sinful status of humans in Rom 1:18–32, particularly Rom 1:22–23: “even though they claim that they are wise, they become foolish and perform evils things that cause to bring God’s wrath.” As to God, on the other hand, the main semantic domains are relevant to judgment (56.E: κρίμα [vv. 2, 3], δικαιοκρισίας [v. 5]) and his attributes, such as merciful attributes (88.I [χρηστότης “kindness,” χρηστός “kind”] and 25.O [ἀνοχή “forbearance,” μακροθυμία “longsuffering”]), and his wrath (ὀργή). These semantic domains reflect God’s attitude toward humans. In sum, in light of the above observations, the major problem of Paul’s interlocutor, which brings God’s wrath, is his/her doing of evil things (42.B). Paul implies here that regardless of his/her confidence that he/she is exempt from God’s wrath, her/his destiny is the same as those in Rom 1:18–32, because he/she not only keeps on doing the evil things, but also his/her foolish cognitive thinking hinders his/her from repentance. c) Analysis of logical relations Rom 2:1–5 shows its connection to the preceding sub-units by διό (“therefore”). Since this word normally indicates a logical consequence, it causes a perplexity to many scholars, who have two presuppositions: (1) while Rom 1:18–32 is only for the Gentiles, Rom 2:1–5 is about the Jews; and (2) Rom 2:1–5 is a beginning part of a new section, which deals with the Jews. From their point of view, it is illogical to think that the conclusive statement of the interaction between the sinfulness of Gentiles and God’s wrath is that the Jews, who judge Gentiles, are also ‘without excuse.’ For them, the best logical connection seems to be ‘in the same manner also,’ not ‘therefore.’ So, many scholars try to solve

the reason for Paul’s critique is related to Jewish ethnocentric understanding (B.W. Longenecker, Eschatology and the Covenant: A Comparison of 4 Ezra and Romans 1–11 [JSNTSup 57; Sheffield: JSOP Press, 1991], 181–82). However, according to the semantic domains, Paul’s main concern is human acts or doing (cf. Schreiner, Romans, 107 n. 1; Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 132–33). 64 (1) Cognitive thinking: λογίζῃ in v. 3 (30.A), ἀγνοῶν in v. 4 (28.A), and καταφρονεῖς in v. 4 (88.Y [Despise, Scorn, Contempt]); and (2) acts: cf. θησαυρίζεις in v. 5 (13.D).

136

chapter four

this problem by regarding it as a meaningless transition,65 or a later interpolation,66 or a conclusion of the following argument in cc2–3–9 (vv. 1–2).67 However, their explanations are not satisfactory, because they neglect the existence of the conjunction or distort the normal function of διό. However, if one approaches this from a different perspective, a more plausible explanation can be drawn. If, as I have shown above, both Rom 1:18–32 and 2:1–5 are related to the sinful situation of universal humanity including Jews and Gentiles, the use of διό is understandable. According to this paradigm, Paul first shows the overall description of the human sinful situation, which is under God’s wrath, in Rom 1:18–32. Then, he narrows down the focus to his audiences through inviting them in the hypothetical dialogue with ‘you.’ That is, Paul says that since all humans are under the wrath of God because of their sins (Rom 1:18–32), therefore, ‘you,’ who belong to all humans and do the same things, cannot escape from the same wrath of God.68 Moreover, in this understanding, the change of subject in Rom 2:1–5 is no longer an obstacle of logical flow between Rom 1:18–32 and Rom 2:1–5.69 Instead, as another sub-unit of the same section (Rom 1:18–2:11), the shift of person could be regarded as Paul’s use of ‘zoom-in’ device, which functions to change his focus from the general human situation to his audience.70 Thus, as J.M. Bassler puts, it

65 O. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer (MeyerK; Götingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 113; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 54. 66 R. Bultmann, “Glossen im Römerbrief,” TLZ 72 (1947), 200. 67 Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 56. 68 Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:141 (however, Cranfield views Rom 2:1–5 as about Jews only); Bassler, Divine Impartiality, 131–34; contra Schreiner, Romans, 106. Modifying Murray’s view, Schreiner argues that “∆ιό, then, draws an inference from 1:18–32, but the rest of 2:1 helps us understanding precisely why this inference is drawn” (Schreiner, Romans, 106; cf. Byrne, Romans, 80). He gives a flow of thought as below: God’s wrath is revealed against all those who suppress the truth of God (1:18–32) Therefore you are without excuse when you judge others (2:1a) because you practice the very things you condemn in others (2:1b) However, in this flow of thought, he does not seem to consider who ‘all’ and ‘you’ refer to. His suggested flow of thought gives an impression that ‘all’ and ‘you’ seem to be a general reference to humanity. If the above flow of thought contains a structure of ‘the sins of all Gentiles’ in Rom 1:18–32 and ‘you, Jews’ in Rom 2:1–5,’ the logical problem with regard to διό still remains. 69 For example, Moo argues that Rom 2:1 is linked to Rom 1:18–19 because of the logical problem regarding Rom 2:1 (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 129). 70 Stowers says that “[t]he indictment in 2:1–5 not only appeals to the reader to give up pretentiousness and arrogance and to repent . . . Thus, it expresses the inclusiveness

rom :–:

137

is reasonable to think that διό links Rom 1:18–32 and 2:1–5 by signaling “a further consequence” of the preceding argument.71 Zooming in on the situation of ‘you’ through διό and the change of person reference, Paul depicts the inexcusable situation of ‘you’ in v. 1. They pass judgment on others, but ironically, it makes them the target of their own judgment, because they do the same things. Here, the consequence of their sinfulness is related to self-condemnation. However, from v. 2 the result of their sinful behavior becomes more serious in the sense that it is also relevant to God’s wrath and judgment. At first, through the use of the first person plural reference (οἴδαμεν), Paul reminds his readers of the general principle of God’s judgment (τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ), which is upon those who commit these evil things (v. 2). This principle is the reminiscence of Rom 1:18, which says that God’s wrath is revealed against all humans who suppress the truth of God.72 Then, in vv. 3–6 he restates the sinfulness of ‘you’ with regard to God’s wrath. In v. 3, Paul points out the folly of his interlocutor that he/she thinks that he/she will be safe from God’s wrath in spite of doing the same evil things. Here, the repetition of τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ emphasizes that ‘you’ is not exempt from God’s judgment mentioned in v. 2. In vv. 4–5, Paul warns them that his/her behavior and unrepentant heart are none other than blasphemous contempt of God’s mercy (v. 4), and only result in God’s future wrath (v. 5). The final statement on God’s wrath in v. 5 matches the general principle of God’s judgment in v. 2. This is because these verses speak of divine judgment against the evil doings of humans, and describe the nature of God’s judgment as an upright one (i.e., κατὰ ἀλήθειαν [“in accordance with truth”: v. 2]; δικαιοκρισίας [“righteous judgment”; v. 5]). However, the difference of the beneficiary of God’s wrath between vv. 2 (ἐπὶ τοὺς) and 5 (σεαυτῷ) signifies that God’s divine wrath is applicable to ‘you,’ and actually, it is ‘you’ also that are the target of God’s wrath. Thus, the similarities among Rom 1:18, 2:2 and 2:5 imply that, by way of narrowing down the beneficiary of God’s wrath, Paul

of the indictment of chap 1 . . .” (Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 112). 71 Bassler, Divine Impartiality, 133. 72 The similarities between the two verses are as below: (1) The Subject (agent): God’s wrath (ὀργὴ θεοῦ: Rom 1:18); God’s judgment (κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ: Rom 2:2). (2) The Adjunct (beneficiary): ἐπὶ + human (πᾶσαν . . . ἀνθρώπων: Rom 1:18; τοὺς: Rom 2:2) + human act (κατεχόντων: Rom 1:18; πράσσοντας: Rom 2:2).

138

chapter four

wants to clarify the fact that all are sinners before God, and no one, even you, my audience, can escape God’s wrath. In conclusion, according to the above logical analysis of Rom 2:1–5, Paul describes the serious sinfulness of ‘you’ in three ways. The first way is to show that the sinfulness of ‘you’ will result in self condemnation (v. 1) and the future judgment of God (vv. 3–5). The second way is to depict the interlocutor’s evil doing and its result with the temporal frame of present [vv. 1, 4] and future (v. 5). The third way is to demonstrate the fatal destiny of ‘you’ by applying a principle for general humanity to a specific audience. Through these ways, Paul states that his audience is not exempt from the interactive paradigm of human sinfulness and God’s wrath against it. 3) Focality This sub-unit contains several devices for focality, and most of the occurrences are related to the sinfulness of ‘you.’ At first, Paul’s use of the vocative case (ὦ ἄνθρωπε), and the second person references in v. 1 may work to invoke the concentration of his audience on his present argument. Then, in describing the sinful situation of ‘you’ in v. 1, he uses two rhetorical devices, which are related to the hypocritical situation of ‘you.’ One is a rough inclusion (ὁ κρίνων in cc2–2, 6]), and the other is a chiastic structure (κρίνεις [A]—τὸν ἕτερον [B]— σεαυτὸν [B´]—κατακρίνεις [A]).73 Moreover, v. 3 also shows the hypocrisy of ‘you’ in two ways. The first one is the reiteration of the hypocritical situation mentioned in v. 1.74 The second one is the use of the grammatical subject, σύ, in c2–16. These two expressions stress the fact that since ‘you’ does the same evil things, it is so foolish to think that ‘you’ can escape God’s wrath. Lastly, the contrast between the Prime positions in cc2–15 (v. 4) and 18 (v. 5) also helps to show the evil situation of ‘you.’ The former refers to God’s merciful attribute that ‘you’ despises,75 and the latter is the attitude of ‘you’ toward God.76 This contrast is reminiscent of the sinfulness of humans in Rom 1:21–

73

Harvey, Listening to the Text, 186; Jewett, Romans, 194. (1) V. 1: ὦ ἄνθρωπε . . . τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πράσσεις ὁ κρίνων; and (2) v. 3: ὦ ἄνθρωπε ὁ κρίνων τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας καὶ ποιῶν αὐτά. 74

75

Ἢ τοῦ πλούτου τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς ἀνοχῆς καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας

(“the riches of his kindness and tolerance and patience”). 76

Κατὰ δὲ τὴν σκληρότητά σου καὶ ἀμετανόητον καρδίαν (“because of your stub-

bornness and unrepentant heart”).

rom :–:

139

23: even though all humans know God, they do not glorify God, but despise him by worshiping idols. In sum, according to the above observations, the topical focus in this sub-unit is related to the interactive pradigm of human sinfulness and God’s wrath. Particularly, the sinfulness of ‘you,’ which makes ‘you’ stand under the wrath of God as in the case of those in Rom 1:18–32, appears to be emphasized more than the wrath of God. 4) Grouping a) External evidence This sub-unit is connected to Rom 1:18–32 by an inferential conjunction διό. And thematically, it follows the interactive paradigm of human sinfulness and divine wrath. However, the occurrences of the second person reference and diatribe style tell that this part is a separate discourse unit from Rom 1:18–32. Thus, it reasonable to think that Rom 2:1–5 is a beginning of the second unit (Rom 2:1–11) of the first section of the body (Rom 1:18–2:11). b) Internal evidence Several cohesive elements establish Rom 2:1–5 as one discourse unit. The first notable feature is the consistent use of the second person references. Except for v. 2, ‘you’ appears as the main participant, who interacts with God. The second element for cohesion is the use of conjunctions, and the third one is the repetition of the same expressions and the lexical chains. For example, v. 1 is connected to v. 3 through the same description of hypocritical ‘you.’ Verses 2 and 3 show their tie through a conjunction δέ and the reiteration of the same phrases, τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ and τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας. Verses 3 and 4 are also linked with a coordinative conjunction ἤ. Lastly, the connection of vv. 4 and 5 is revealed by a conjunction δέ and a lexical chain of μετάνοιάν (v. 4) and ἀμετανόητον (v. 5). In addition, two areas of semantic domains, which are related to act (42.B) and judgment (30.G and 56.E), flow throughout the whole sub-unit, and tie it as one discourse unit. The internal unity of this sub-unit can be shown as below:

140

chapter four Rom 2:1 διὸ ἀναπολόγητος εἶ, ὦ ἄνθρωπε πᾶς ὁ κρίνων· ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίνεις τὸν ἕτερον, σεαυτὸν

same expressions

domain 30.G (cognates of κρίνω)

κατακρίνεις, τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πράσσεις ὁ κρίνων. 2

οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν κατὰ

domain 42.B (Do)

ἀλήθειαν ἐπὶ τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας. 3

λογίζῃ δὲ τοῦτο, ὦ ἄνθρωπε ὁ κρίνων τοὺς τὰ

same phrase of (τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ)

τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας καὶ ποιῶν αὐτά, ὅτι σὺ ἐκφεύξῃ τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ; 4

ἢ τοῦ πλούτου τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ καὶ τῆς

ἀνοχῆς καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας καταφρονεῖς,

domain 41.E

ἀγνοῶν . . . μετάνοιάν σε ἄγει; 5

κατὰ δὲ . . . σου καὶ ἀμετανόητον καρδίαν

θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς καὶ

domain 56.E (God’s judgment)

ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ

5) Summary Based upon the general description of the interaction between human sinfulness and divine wrath in Rom 1:18–32, Paul puts the situation of his audience into that interactive paradigm in this sub-unit. For Paul, the core problem of his interlocutors is that they do the same evil things, even though they know what is evil (cf. Rom 1:32) and God’s response to it (Rom 2:2). Just as the case of the sinners in Rom 1:22–23, the evil doing and the folly of Paul’s audience make their situation even worse. They do not know that they are heaping God’s wrath on account of their evils. In this sub-unit, Paul uses various ways to deliver this perilous situation of ‘you.’ First, through the change of person reference from third to second and the use of diatribe, he narrows down his focus from general humans to his audience, which includes both Jews and Gentiles. Second, in order to demonstrate the seriousness of their situation, he uses some sorts of logical ways, such as a temporal dimension of present human sins and future divine

rom :–:

141

judgment, and a two-fold approach in depiction of the result of their sinfulness. Lastly, the use of various elements of focality also helps to articulate the situation of ‘you.’ After all, through Rom 2:1–5, Paul informs his audience that the statement of Rom 1:18 is true and also applicable even to those who listen to his letter, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. B. Rom 2:6–11: God’s impartial judgment according to human works 1) Text analysis of Rom 2:6–11

142

chapter four

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 2:6–11 begins with three secondary clauses (cc2–19 [v. 6], 20 [v. 7], 22 [v. 8]); then, three primary clauses follow (cc2–25 [v. 9], 27 [v. 10], 29 [v. 11]). The secondary clauses have three embedded clauses (cc2–21 [v. 7], 23, 24 [v. 8]), and the primary clauses have two (cc2–26 [v. 9], 28 [v. 10]). The Subject of the secondary clauses is ὅς, and it refers to God in the preceding clause (c2–18 [v. 5]). In the primary clauses, the grammatical subject is not God. But the logical actor (LS) of the processes in the primary clauses is still God, in that all the Subjects of vv. 9–11 come from God.77 As to the Complements, on the other hand, humans appear as the beneficiary of the processes (LO-B) that God performs. According to vv. 9–10, these recipients of God’s action include both Jews and Gentiles. Thus, Rom 2:6–11 also shows the interactive framework between God and humans. Of the two parties, God appears as a more focused participant, because throughout this sub-unit he is described as the one who takes the initiative in the process. b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 22.A (Trouble, Hardship, Distress: x2) (2) 87.B (Honor or Respect in Relation to Status: x2)

Predicators

(1) 57.L (Pay, Price, Cost) (2) 13.A

Complements (1) 88 (x6): A, B (x2), W, X (x2) (2) 23.G (Live, Die: x2) (3) 36.C (Obey, Disobey: x2) Adjuncts

77

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Human: 93.A (Jews and Gentiles: x4) Human act: 42.B; 90.K (x2) 88 (x2): O, A 59.C (All, Any, Each, Every [Totality]: x2)

Θλῖψις (“tribulation”) and στενοχωρία (“distress”) in v. 9; δόξα (“glory”), τιμή (“honor”) and εἰρήνη (“peace”) in v. 10; and προσωπολημψία (“impartiality”) in v. 11.

rom :–:

143

(cont.) Semantic domains Overall lists

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

88 (Moral and Ethical Qualities and Related Behavior: x8) human act: 36.C (x2); 42.B (x2); 90.K (x2); 25.A God’s positive reward: 87.B (x4); 22.G God’s negative reward: 88.X (x2); 22.A (x2) Jews and Gentiles (x2)

In the three secondary clauses, whose logical subject is God (vv. 6–8), the semantic domain of the Predicator is 57.L (ἀποδώσει). It belongs to the same semantic category of 57 (Possess, Transfer, Exchange), which is used to describe God’s response to the human sinfulness in Rom 1:18–32 (παραδίδωμι: 57.H [Give]). The semantic domains of the Complements show a pattern in which the connotation of the logical beneficiaries (LO-B) and logical goals (LO-G) goes hand in hand. That is, if the semantic domains of the LO-B have positive connotations, those of the LO-G are also positive. However, if the LO-B is expressed by negative connotations, the LO-G is also shown negatively. In v. 7, both the LO-B and LO-G are described by the semantic domains that have positive connotations.78 However, in the case of v. 8, the semantic domains of LO-B and LO-G have negative connotations.79 In the Primary clauses (vv. 9–10), the same semantic pattern also appears. In v. 9, both the LO-G (the Subject) and the LO-B (the Adjunct) have negative connotations.80 But, v. 10 mentions the positive sense of the LO-G (the Subject) and LO-B (the Complement).81 The condition of the beneficiary in both the primary and secondary clauses is mentioned by the semantic domains related to human acts: 36.C (ἀπειθοῦσι and

78 (1) LO-B: 87.B (Honor or Respect in Relation to Status: δόξαν and τιμὴν), 23.G (Live, Die: ἀφθαρσίαν [“immortality”]), and 88.A (Goodness: ἀγαθοῦ); and (2) LOG: a combination of 23.G (ζωὴν) and 67.E (Duration of Time without Reference to Points or Units of Time: αἰώνιον). 79 (1) LO-B: 88.W (Resentful, Hold a Grudge Against: ἐριθείας), a combination of the negative of 36.C (Obey, Disobey: ἀπειθοῦσι) and the positive of 72.A (True, False: ἀληθείᾳ), and a link the positive of 36.C (πειθομένοις) and the negative of 88.B (Just, Righteous: ἀδικίᾳ); and (2) LO-G: 88.X (Anger, Be indignant With: ὀργή and θυμός). 80 (1) LO-G: 22.A (Trouble, Hardship, Distress θλῖψις and στενοχωρία); and (2) LO-B: 88.O (Bad, Evil, Harmful, Damaging: κακόν). 81 (1) LO-G: 87.B (δόξα and τιμή), 22.G (Favorable Circumstances or State: εἰρήνη); and (2) LO-B: 88.A (ἀγαθόν).

144

chapter four

πειθομένοις: v. 8), 42.B (ἔργον: vv. 6, 7), 90.K (κατεργαζομένου: v. 9 and ἐργαζομένῳ: v. 10), and 25.A (ζητοῦσιν: v. 7). From the above observations, the topical interest of Rom 2:6–11 is related to the interactive framework between God and humans. In this framework, the content of God’s response (the logical goal) depends on the situation of humans (the beneficiary). If the human situation is depicted negatively, God’s response also appears negatively; but, if the state of humans is positive, God’s response becomes positive. Moreover, in this sub-unit, the act of humans appears to be the major factor for God to determine the nature of his response toward humans.

c) Analysis of logical relations Paul begins Rom 2:6–11 by articulating the basic principle of God’s response to human acts: ὃς ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ (“[He] will render to each person according to one’s deed”: v. 6). Here, Paul clearly demonstrates that God’s reaction is not according to the acts of the corporate community, but to the acts of individual persons.82 This principle justifies God’s righteous judgment over sinful ‘you’ mentioned in vv. 1–5.83 Paul explains the principle of God’s reaction in detail in vv. 7–8. In v. 7, he states that God’s positive reaction is to those whose acts have good goals (δόξαν, τιμὴν, and ἀφθαρσίαν) and attitude or manner (καθ᾽ ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ: “by patiently doing good”). Paul also mentions in v. 8 God’s negative response to sinful humans, whose attitude or manner (ἐξ ἐριθείας: “by self-seeking”) and behavior (ἀπειθοῦσι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πειθομένοις δὲ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ: “disobey the truth and obey the unrighteousness”) are evil. This negative reaction of God reflects the description of God’s response to the sinner in Rom 1:18, because both demonstrate the same concept with the same words, such as ὀργή, ἀδικία, and ἀλήθεια.84 Paul recapitulates this basic principle of God’s response in vv. 9–10. Here, three things need to be considered. The first one is the order in the description of God’s reaction. Unlike vv. 7–8, God’s negative reaction comes first, and the positive one follows in vv. 9–10. This

82 Contra N.T. Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” in J.D.G. Dunn (ed.), Paul and the Mosaic Law (WUNT 89; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 131–50. He thinks that Romans 2 deals with Israel, not an individual person. 83 Schreiner, Romans, 111. 84 Byrne, Romans, 82; Schreiner, Romans, 113.

rom :–:

145

makes a chiastic structure of positive—negative—negative—positive reactions. Moreover, together with the two general descriptions of God’s attitude toward humanity in vv. 6 and 11, this sub-unit seems to show an inverted parallelism: A (a description of God’s impartial attitude toward humans: v. 6) B (positive reaction of God: LO-B—LO-G: v. 7) C (negative reaction of God: LO-B—LO-G: v. 8) C´ (negative reaction of God: LO-G—LO-B: v. 9) B´ (positive reaction of God: LO-G—LO-B: v. 10) A´ (a description of God’s impartial attitude toward humans: v. 11)85

The second observation is that when Paul reiterates God’s impartial reaction in v. 9, he uses the same syntactical and lexical elements that are used in Rom 1:18.86 In both verses, God’s negative response (LO-G) appears as the Subject, and the logical beneficiary (LO-B) is humans.87 Moreover, both parts clearly demonstrate human action as a key reason for God’s response: κατεχόντων (Rom 1:18) and κατεργαζομένου (Rom 2:9). These observations, together with the similarities between Rom 1:18 and 2:8, imply two things. Structurally, as a rough inclusion, this correspondence identifies Rom 1:18–2:11 as one large discourse unit, a section. Thematically, since Rom 2:9 seems 85 K. Grobel, “A Chiastic Retribution-formula in Romans 2,” in E. Dinkler (ed.), Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Gebrurtstag (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964), 255–61; Fitzmyer, Romans, 302–303; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 135; L.E. Keck, Romans (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 77; Jewett, Romans, 194; cf. some scholars only admit the chiastic structure of vv. 7–10 (Dunn, Romans 1–8, 78; Harvey, Listening to the Text, 186–87; Schreiner, Romans, 111). Schreiner argues that because γάρ in v. 11 gives an overall reason for God’s response in vv. 6–10, v. 11 should not be thought as part of a larger chiastic construction but as a separate clause. For him, the structure of Rom 2:6–11 is A—B—C—C´—B—D (because God is impartial). However, γάρ seems to link only to vv. 9–10, because the natures of cc2–25 (v. 9) and 27 (v. 10) are different from that in cc2–20 (v. 7) and 22 (v. 8). The former group is the primary clauses and the latter group is the secondary clauses. Thus, it seems to be natural that just as the two secondary clauses (vv. 7, 8) are connected to the first secondary clause (v. 6) and work to give the examples of v. 6, the γάρ in the primary clause (v. 11) seems to be connected to the above primary clauses (vv. 9, 10) and gives a ground for the contents of them. If this is so, the γάρ clause (v. 11) can be a part of the larger inverted parallelism. 86 Rom 1:18: ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ ὀργὴ θεοῦ ἀπ᾽οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν καὶ

ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων. Rom 2:9: θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου τοῦ κατεργαζομένου τὸ κακόν, Ἰουδαίου τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνος· 87 (1) LO-G: ὀργὴ θεοῦ (Rom 1:18); θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία (Rom 2:9); and (2) LOB: ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων (Rom 1:18); ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου

(Rom 2:9).

146

chapter four

to give a basis for God’s wrath in Rom 1:18, it works to reaffirm the topical interest of Rom 1:18–2:11 that all humans in the interactive framework between God and humans are under the wrath of God on account of their sinfulness. The third observation is that the occurrence of the phrase, “the Jews first and also the Greek” (v. 9), gives a clue to understand the characteristic of this whole section of Rom 1:18–2:11. Since there is a correlation between Rom 1:18 and 2:9, it is possible to read Rom 1:18 with the above phrase: God’s wrath is revealed against all sinfulness of humans, both Jews and Gentiles. This reading could provide a clearer view of the contrast between Rom 1:16–17 and 18, and shows how the status of humans described in Rom 1:18–2:11 is far from that in Rom 1:16–17. What, then, is the role of the statement of God’s positive reaction in v. 10, which also has the same phrase of “the Jews first and also the Gentiles”? Even though scholars have debated the meaning of this statement and its relation to Paul’s theology,88 two factors need to be considered in order to understand the function of this statement. The first one is the co-text of this verse. This verse belongs to the sub-unit whose topic is God’s impartiality to all humans, and whose role is to

88 Several views have been proposed so far, and they can be divided into four categories: (1) this text is an example of Paul’s contradictory thought (H. Räisänen., Paul and the Law [WUNT, 29; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983], 106–107; E.P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983], 123–35); (2) the beneficiaries of God’s positive reaction are those who observe the law by the grace of God (Schlatter, Romans, 51–66; K.R. Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace—to the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul,” NTS 32 [1986], 72–93; H. Boers, The Justification of Gentiles: Paul’s Letters to the Galatians and Romans [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994], 97–99); (3) it implies Christian obedience, which is derived from faith (Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:151–53; A. König, “Gentiles or Gentile Christians? On the Meaning of Romans 2:12–16,” JTSA 15 [1976], 53–60; Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentile, 119–21; T.R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law [Grand Rapids: Baker book, 1993], 179–204; idem, Romans, 114–15); and (4) this statement is a hypothetical situation or principle (J. Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960], 56; Leenhardt, The Epistle to the Romans, 78; L. Mattern, Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus [ATANT, 47; Zürich: Zwingli, 1966], 136–38; Bassler, Divine Impartiality, 141–45; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 140–42; F. Thielman, From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework to Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans [NovTSup 61; Leiden: Brill, 1989], 92–96; A.T. Lincoln, “From Wrath to Justification: Tradition, Gospel, and Audience in the Theology of Romans 1:18–4:25,” in D.M. Hay and E.E. Johnson [eds.], Pauline Theology: Volume III: Romans [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995], 141–42; etc.).

rom :–:

147

give a basis of God’s judgment, especially the judgment on sinners (Rom 1:18–2:5). Thus, it seems that this statement of God’s positive reaction is not related to how one can get salvation, but to what is God’s attitude toward humans in a context of judgment.89 The second factor is the sinfulness of humans, which is described in Rom 1:18– 2:5. According to the depiction in Rom 1:18–2:5, no one is eligible to receive God’s positive reaction. This concept is reaffirmed in the following argument in Romans, especially in Rom 3:9–10. Thus, Paul’s statement of God’s positive response is not to give hope to humans, but to frustrate their hope for salvation. Actually, according to the focality, the focus of this sub-unit does not seem to be on God’s positive reaction, but on God’s negative reaction. Therefore, the statement of God’s positive response also functions to emphasize the desperate condition of sinful humans.90 In conclusion, according to the above logical analysis, Rom 2:6–11 is linked to the preceding sub-unit (Rom 2:1–5), and gives a ground for God’s judgment. The similarities between Rom 1:18 and this subunit provide a clue to understand God’s wrath against the sinfulness of humans in Rom 1:18–32. For Paul, God’s judgment is impartial, and it is performed in response to human acts. He describes this impartial nature of God’s judgment through a chiastic construction, which has an alternation of the positive and negative reaction of God. 3) Focality As I mentioned above, the contents of this sub-unit are delivered by an inverted parallelism of A (God’s impartial reaction)—B (positive reaction)—C (negative reaction)—C´ (negative reaction)—B´ (positive reaction)—A´ (God’s impartiality). Within this frame, various prominence markers appear both at the sentence and beyond levels. First, at the sentence level, two occurrences of πᾶς are shown in vv. 9–10. They refer to the universal scope of God’s reaction. Second, at the level beyond the sentence, the appearance of three contrastive

89 Moo aptly says that “Paul’s purpose in 2:6–11 is to establish the principle that God will judge every person on the same basis—by works, not by religious heritage or national identity. Paul’s focus is on the standard of judgment” (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 142). 90 In this sense, Bassler’s argument that Rom 1:16–2:11 is mainly about God’s impartiality is not convincing (Bassler, Divine Impartiality, 135). Even though God’s impartiality is an important theme, another axis of Paul’s major interest is the situation of sinful humans, who are under God’s impartial wrath.

148

chapter four

juxtapositions is noticeable: (1) the contrasts between vv. 7 and 8; (2) between vv. 9 and 10; and (3) between cc2–23 and 24 in v. 8. The first two contrastive juxtapositions are related to God’s positive and negative reactions to humans, and the last one is about the sinfulness of humans (ἀπειθοῦσι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πειθομένοις δὲ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ). These juxtapositions also establish three kinds of chiastic construction. One consists of the alternative descriptions of God’s positive and negative reactions: positive (v. 7)—negative (v. 8)—negative (v. 9)—positive (v. 10). The other chiastic construction appears in the combinational pattern of the logical goals (LO-G) and the beneficiaries (LO-B) in the description of God’s reaction. While vv. 7–8 show an order of LO-B and LO-G, vv. 9–10 mention these elements in reverse order.91 The third chiastic construction occurs at the middle part of the overall inverted parallelism (vv. 8–9), which is about God’s negative reaction to sinful humans. It has a structure of LO-B—LO-G (“wrath and indignation”)—LO-G (“tribulation and distress”)—LO-B. These chiastic structures seem to demonstrate that Paul’s concern is related to the interaction between human sinfulness and God’s wrath. The overall chiastic construction is as below: secondary clauses

primary clauses

A (a description of God’s impartial attitude toward humans: v. 6) B (positive case of God’s reaction: LO-B—LO-G: v. 7) C (negative case of God’s reaction: LO-B—LO-G: v. 8) C´ (negative case of God’s reaction: LO-G—LO-B: v. 9) B´ (positive case of God’s reaction: LO-G—LO-B: v. 10) A´ (a description of God’s impartial attitude toward humans: v. 11)

From the above observations, Paul’s emphasis does not seem to be on the general statement of God’s reaction (vv. 6, 11),92 nor on the positive description of God’s reaction. Instead, he seems to focus on 91

V. 7: τοῖς μὲν . . . ζητοῦσιν (LO-B) ζωὴν αἰώνιον (LO-G) (LO-B) ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός (LO-G) v. 8: τοῖς δὲ. . . . ἀδικίᾳ (LO-G) ἐπὶ . . . Ἕλληνος (LO-B) v. 9: θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία (LO-G) παντὶ . . . Ἕλληνι (LO-B) v. 10: δόξα δὲ καὶ τιμὴ καὶ εἰρήνη 92 Contra Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 136. He says that “Unlike some chiastically structured paragraphs, the main point of vv. 6–11 occurs not at the center but at the beginning and the end (vv. 6, 11): God will judge every person impartially,

rom :–:

149

God’s negative reaction to sinful humans, because the three chiastic structures show a tendency to concentrate the argument on the middle part (vv. 8–9). In addition, two other elements of the focality, such as an additional contrast between cc2–23 and 24 in v. 8 and the appearance of πᾶσαν in v. 9,93 are also mentioned in vv. 8–9. Therefore, in line with the topic of the preceding parts of this section, in Rom 2:6– 11, Paul puts much stress on the fate of sinful humans, who are under the wrath of God. 4) Grouping a) External evidence The major indicator that works to distinguish this sub-unit from the preceding part is the disappearance of the second person references. Unlike Rom 2:1–5, only the third person references are used in Rom 2:6–11. It also indicates that “the recognizable features of addressing the imaginary interlocutor end.”94 This shift of person reference reveals that Rom 2:6–11 is a different discourse unit from Rom 2:1–5, even though the relative pronoun ὅς in v. 6 signifies a relationship between the two sub-units. b) Internal evidence Internally, several pieces of evidence demonstrate the unity of this subunit. At the outset, the overall structure of the inverted parallelism, together with the small level chiastic constructions, helps to see the unity of Rom 2:6–11. Furthermore, some lexico-grammatical elements also work to show the unity. First, the use of conjunctions signifies the inner logical ties in Rom 2:6–11. Verses 7–8 and 9–10 are linked with asyndeton, and in each part, the statements of God’s positive and negative reactions are connected by μέν . . . δέ (vv. 7–8) and δέ (v. 10) respectively. In addition, γάρ in v. 11 shows a causal relation between vv. 9–10 and 11. Second, the repetitive dative cases also work as an internal evidence for the unity of this sub-unit. All occurrences are related to humans, who are the beneficiaries of God’s reaction: ἑκάστῳ (v. 6), τοῖς (vv. 7, 8), and παντί (v. 10). Lastly, there is a semantic assessing each according to the same standard—works.” But, he does not give proper evidence for his thought. 93 Jewett, Romans, 124. 94 Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 213 n. 2.

150

chapter four

chain with regard to human acts, and it contributes to the cohesive unity: ἔργα αὐτοῦ (v. 6), ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ, ζητοῦσιν (v. 7), ἀπειθοῦσι, πειθομένοις (v. 8), κατεργαζομένου (v. 9), and ἐργαζομένῳ (v. 10). The chains of the dative cases and the semantic domains related to human acts can be shown below:

Rom 2:6 ὃς ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ· τοῖς μὲν καθ᾽ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν ζητοῦσιν ζωὴν αἰώνιον, 8 τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας καὶ ἀπειθοῦσι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πειθομένοις δὲ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός.

9

θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου τοῦ κατεργαζομένου τὸ κακόν, Ἰουδαίου τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνος·

10

τὸ ἀγαθόν, Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι ·

δόξα . . . εἰρήνη παντὶ τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ 11

...

5) Summary Being connected with θεοῦ in Rom 2:5, this sub-unit plays a role to provide a basis for the understanding of God’s judgment. For Paul, impartiality is the core attitude of God’s reaction to human works: God responses to each person according to one’s own work. However, of the two responses of God to human acts, Paul has more emphasis on the negative reaction against human sinfulness. He has shown this concern by various devices. Logically, Rom 2:6–11 is related to the ground for God’s judgment on the sinful ‘you’ in Rom 2:1–5. Structurally, the use of chiastic structures functions to concentrate on the situation of sinners. In addition, other elements of focality also highlight God’s negative reaction to sinful humans. This focus on God’s negative repayment in vv. 8–9 corresponds to the revelation of God’s wrath against the sinfulness of humans in Rom 1:18. It serves to be a boundary marker for a larger discourse unit on the one hand, and to give a clue to catch the overall topicality of Rom 1:18–2:11, the miserable status of sinful humans, who are under God’s impartial wrath, on the other hand.

rom :–:

151

3. Conclusion As a beginning of his gospel, Paul deals with the desperate situation of all humans in Rom 1:18–2:11, who are under the wrath of God on account of their sinfulness. Throughout this section, three topical elements are continuously explained within the interactive paradigm of human sinfulness and divine response. The first topical element is the impartiality of God’s judgment. From the beginning of this section, God is depicted as a judge, who reveals his wrath against sinful humans (Rom 1:18). The following four main primary clauses in Rom 1:18–32 also demonstrate that God, as an actor, shows his wrath as divine response to human sins (cc1–40 [v.18], 56 [v. 24] and 74 [v. 28]). Yet God’s judgment is always described as a response of human sins. In Rom 1:18, Paul depicts God’s wrath as a judgment. But, before going into the description of human sinfulness and the content of God’s wrath, he explains the impartial nature of God’s wrath by adding the statement that God has shown his divine attributes to humans, so that no one can complain of the wrath of God (Rom 1:19–20). In describing the first example of God’s wrath (Rom 1:24–27), Paul does not neglect to show the impartial nature of God’s wrath. When Paul states that God’s judgment appears as handing humans over to their sinfulness (Rom 1:24), he clarifies the impartiality of God’s wrath by repeating that human sinfulness is its cause (Rom 1:25). Similarly, in the second example of God’s wrath (Rom 1:28–32), God’s judgment is mentioned as retribution for the willful rejection of humans, who detest having knowledge of God (Rom 1:28). Even in Rom 2:1–5, God’s wrath is not mentioned as a matter of feeling. For Paul, God’s reaction is manifested according to human deeds (Rom 2:3). He articulates God’s impartial reaction more fully in Rom 2:6–11. Thus, throughout this section, Paul speaks of that God’s judgment is impartial in the interactive paradigm of God’s wrath and human sinfulness, since it always happens as a response to human sinfulness. The second topical element is the sinfulness of humans, which is the cause of God’s wrath. From Rom 1:18 to 2:11, human sinfulness emerges as a major focus of Paul’s argument. In Rom 1:21–23, the nature of human sinfulness is well described through a chiastic structure of external behavioral dimension (A)—internal cognitive dimension (B)—internal cognitive dimension (B)—external behavioral dimension (A). Paul also shows his topical interest through the insertion of a relatively long depiction of human sins in Rom 1:25.

152

chapter four

Moreover, in Rom 1:28–31, the content of God’s punishment itself, which results from human sins, is closely related to the evils of sinful humans. In Rom 2:1–5, Paul narrows down his argumentative angle from third person to second person, and deals with the sinfulness of his audience. Here, he makes humanity the Subject of the primary clauses, so that he stresses the sinfulness of humans, who are the actors of the sinful behavior. As to the nature of human sinfulness, it consists of two dimensions: one is related to the internal cognitive corrupted mind, and the other dimension is to external sinful behavior. The combination of these two dimensions is depicted as the core of human sinfulness, and God’s response is also related to these two dimensions. In Rom 1:24–32, God’s wrath is revealed in a way that he hands humans over to their inner sinful mind, so that they do the external sinful behaviors. In Rom 2:1–5, Paul puts more emphasis on the dimension of external behavior, although he criticizes his audience’s internal false belief in Rom 2:2. This is because Paul shifts his argument from the general description of human sinfulness (third person) to a specific case of the moralism of his audience (second person). The third topical element is the scope of God’s wrath. The beginning and the ending part of this section enunciate that all humans embracing both Jews and Gentiles are the targets of God’s judgment: ἐπὶ πᾶσαν . . . ἀνθρώπων (Rom 1:18) and ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου (Rom 2:9). Within this inclusive framework, the arguments of Rom 1:18–32 and Rom 2:1–11 also demonstrate the universal scope of God’s wrath. Even the shift of person from third to second does not imply that the target of God’s wrath is changed from Gentiles to Jews. Instead, the shift of person in Rom 2:1–5 could refer to the change of Paul’s argumentative angle from the general description of sinful humans to the case of his audience. Consequently, the overall movement of Paul’s viewpoint regarding the beneficiary of God’s wrath can be said to be that, retaining the universal scope of God’s wrath, he moves his argumentative angle from general humans (Rom 1:18–32) to his audience (Rom 2:1–5), then back to the general humans (Rom 2:6–11).95

95 This corresponds to the pattern of the main Subjects in Rom 1:18–2:11. In Rom 1:18–32, God appears as the Subject of the main primary clauses. Humanity becomes the main Subject in Rom 2:1–5. Then, God is shown as the Subject of secondary clauses in Rom 2:6–11. Thus, according to the pattern of the Subjects, this section shows a structure of A (God—general humans)—B (specific humans [Paul’s audience]—God)—A´ (God—general humans).

rom :–:

153

In conclusion, Rom 1:18–2:11 functions as the initial stage of Paul’s unfolding gospel. Unlike Rom 1:16–17, he does not deal with the topic of salvation here. Instead, he keeps focusing on the interactive paradigm of human sinfulness and God’s wrath. With the above overall topical elements, Paul demonstrates that all humans, including Jews and Gentiles, are under the wrath of God because of their sin, and even his audience cannot be exempt from this judgment. The only thing needed for them is to meet God’s saving righteousness. However, Paul does not move directly to the solution of this human predicament. Instead, he deals with the matter of law in the next section (Rom 2:12–3:20), before presenting the way for salvation in Rom 3:21.

CHAPTER FIVE

ROM 2:123:20: GOD’S RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT AND THE SINFUL JEWS WHO ARE UNDER THE LAW After explaining the interaction between the universal human sinfulness and impartial judgment of God in Rom 1:18–2:11, Paul narrows down his focus on the matter of the Jews in Rom 2:12–3:20. Several features indicate the unity of this section. The major evidence is the occurrence of the law (νόμος) in Rom 2:12. Rom 2:12 shares the same topical interest in God’s reaction according to human deeds as in Rom 1:18–2:11. Yet the addition of the law as a factor in the interactive framework between God and humans is very different from the preceding section. After Rom 2:12, in fact, the law appears as a significant topical element in Paul’s gospel, in the sense that it is related not only to the relationship between the Jews and Gentiles, who are the recipients of God’s judgment or salvation, but also to the argument about the way for receiving God’s saving righteousness. The second evidence is the internal logical relations in this section. In Rom 2:12–3:20, Paul advances his argument through three kinds of delivery style. To begin with, Paul treats the relationship between the law and God’s impartial judgment with a series of statement in Rom 2:12–16. Then, he focuses on the sinfulness of the Jews with regard to the law and circumcision, and describes it by changing his delivery style into a diatribal communication in Rom 2:17–29. Yet it seems to be one way communication in that the dialogical counterpart does not appear. From the inference of Rom 2:12–29 (cf. οὖν in Rom 3:1), Paul re-adjusts the status of the Jews (Rom 3:1–8) and strengthens his previous argument about God’s judgment against human sinfulness (Rom 3:9–20). Here, he switches the argumentative style into more vivid diatribal objections and rejections. Thus, throughout this section, the interaction between human sinfulness and God’s judgment appears as the dominant topical framework. In this framework, each sub-unit deals with the law as an important topical element, even though their delivery style is different. Therefore, the topical boundary of Rom 2:12–3:20 is about the law and the interactive paradigm between human sinfulness and God’s judgment. Within this topical boundary, this section consists of two units (Rom 2:12–29 and 3:1–20),

156

chapter five

which have three (Rom 2:12–16, 17–24, and 25–29) and two sub-units (Rom 3:1–8 and 9–20) respectively. 1. Rom 2:12–29: The law and the sinfulness of Jews A. Rom 2:12–16: The law and God’s impartial judgment 1) Text analysis of Rom 2:12–16

rom :–:

157

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 2:12–16 is composed of five primary and six secondary clauses, which also have several embedded clauses.1 In this sub-unit, God and humans appear as the major topical participants. Just as in the previous section, God is mentioned as the counterpart of humans in the interactive framework. However, while Rom 1:18–2:11 usually shows God as the actor, who takes the initiative in the interactive framework, God does not appear in Rom 2:12–16 as the Subject in the primary clauses, but only as a logical actor in two passive verbs (κριθήσονται [v. 12] and δικαιωθήσονται [v. 13]). Moreover, only one out of six secondary clauses states God as the Subject (c2–44 [v. 16]). This is a very different pattern from that in Rom 1:18–2:11. It seems to give an impression that this sub-unit has more interest in the situation of humans in the interactive framework between God and humans. The other topical participants, humans, can be divided into two groups according to their relevance to the law. One group is the Jews, who possess the law, and the other is the Gentiles, who do not have the law. Both groups appear as the interacting counterparts with God in vv. 12–13. In addition, the interactions between the two groups are detected in vv. 15–16.2 Here, the main participant group is the Gentiles, because the Subject in v. 14 and the reflective pronoun in v. 15 refer to the Gentiles (ἔθνη). In sum, this sub-unit speaks of the interaction between God and humans as the fundamental topical framework. Within this framework, Paul deals with the interaction not only between God and humans, but also between the two groups, the Jews and Gentiles. According to the appearing patterns of the two human groups, the overall structure of this sub-unit is as below: A (those who do not have the law: cc2–30–31 [v. 12]) B (those who have the law: cc2–32–33 [v. 12]) B´ (those who have the law: cc2–34–35 [v. 13]) A´ (those who do not have the law: cc2–36–44 [v. 14–16])

1 (1) Primary clauses: cc2–30, 32 (v. 12), 34, 35 (v. 13), 38 (v. 14); (2) secondary clauses: cc2–36 (v. 14), 40, 41, 42, 43 (v. 15), 44 (v. 16); and (3) embedded clauses: cc2–31, 33 (v. 12), 37, 39 (v. 14). 2 This is very different observation from that of the major commentators. I will offer detailed evidence for it in the analysis of logical relations.

158

chapter five

b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 33.E (Written Language: x5) (2) Humanity: cf. 11.B (3) Human action: 42.B; 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt: x2); 24.B (Hear) (4) 26 (Psychological Faculties); 30.A (To Think, Thought); 12.A; 57.A

Predicators

(1) 33 (Communication: x3): T, V´, W (2) 13.A (State: x2); 30.G (To Distinguish, To Evaluate, To Judge: x2) (3) 34.E (Establish or Confirm a Relation); 42.B (Do, Perform); 28.C (Well Known, Clearly Shown, Revealed)

Complements (1) 33.E (x4) (2) 34.E; 42.B; 26; 92.D; 28.E; 9.A (Human Beings) Adjuncts

(1) 33 (x4): E (x3), O (2) 50.A; 57.A; 67.I; 92.A; 53.I; 93.A

Overall lists

(1) 33.E (law: x12) (2) 42.B (x3) (3) 57.A (Have, Possess, Property, Owner: x2); 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt: x2); 34.E (x2)

The most frequent semantic domain in Rom 2:12–16 is 33.E (νόμος: x12), which refers to the Mosaic law.3 It implies that the topical issue in this sub-unit has relevance to the law. With regard to the law, three kinds of semantic domains are noticeable. The first kind is the two occurrences of 57.A (ἔχω: v. 14]), and it appears as a crucial key to distinguish the Jews and the Gentiles. However, in the interactive framework between God and humans, domain 57.A is not the decisive factor in determining the nature of God’s response. Instead, the real important factor is the second kind of semantic domain, which is related to human actions, such as 42.B (ποιηταὶ [c2–35], ποιῶσιν [c2–36], and ἔργον [c2–40]), 88.L´ (ἥμαρτον [cc2–30–33: x2]), and 24.B (ἀκροαταὶ 3

Contra Stowers, A Rereading of Romans, 134–42. On the nature of νόμος, see D.J. Moo, “Law, Works of the Law, and Legalism in Paul,” WTJ 45 (1983), 79–84; idem, The Epistle to the Romans, 145 n. 7; S. Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 298–300.

rom :–:

159

[c2–34]). Among these domains, only the combination of 33.E and 42.B is mentioned as the cause of God’s positive response (c2–35 [v. 13]). Lastly, the third kind of semantic domain, which is relevant to the law, is about the response of God to human behavior. This sub-unit states both the positive (34.E [δίκαιοι, δικαιωθήσονται] in v. 13]) and negative responses of God (30.G [κριθήσσνται] and 20.C [ἀπολοῦνται] in v. 12). Thus, according to the above semantic domains, the topical issues in this sub-unit are closely related to the law in the framework of interaction between God and humans. Even though the law is important in distinguishing one human group from the other, God’s reaction only depends on one’s deed, not on the possession (57.A) of the law. Particularly, God’s positive response in relation to the law only results from one’s doing (42.B) the law. c) Analysis of logical relations By introducing a new topical entity, νόμος, Paul begins to narrow down the target of his argument to a specific group, whose identity is determined by the possession of the law. According to the logical flow in this sub-unit, his concern seems to be that the possession of the law cannot be a warrant for God’s positive response. He begins to articulate this idea in v. 12 by stating that human sinful behavior (ἥμαρτον) results in God’s impartial retribution regardless of one’s possession of the law. In addition, the scope of God’s judgment is not limited to a certain cultural-racial distinction. This universality of God’s reciprocation to human sinfulness reflects the topicality of the previous section. So, what Paul clarifies in v. 12 is that, in the paradigm of interaction between human sinfulness and God’s wrath, the possession of the law itself cannot be an indulgence of God’s judgment. The following statements in vv. 13 and 14–16 also support this concept. In v. 13, Paul points out that a mere possession or hearing of the law is of no use for being justified by God.4 Instead, only the doer of the law is eligible to receive God’s justification (c2–35 [v. 13]). This 4 Contra Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” 144. He argues that the person who does the work of the law in v. 13 is the Gentile Christians. However, his view is not convincing, because he does not consider the connection between vv. 12 and 13. In addition, although he correctly insists on seeing Rom 2:25–29 as a key clue to understanding of Rom 2:12–16, he reveals inconsistency in his actual interpretation. For example, he admits that Rom 2:25–29 deals with the two groups, the Jews and Gentiles, with regard to circumcision. However, in Rom 2:12–16, he neglects the existence

160

chapter five

statement may frustrate the confidence of those who rely on the possession of the law as the way for God’s justification, in the sense that it uproots their belief. Thus, the statement in v. 13 functions to show how far God’s justification is from the Jews who lack the obedience to the law despite their possession of it.5 Verses 14–16 also work to sustain the above thought. In order to understand the function of these verses, however, several things should be considered.6 The first thing is the nature of the ἔθνη in v. 14: Does it indicate the Gentiles7 or Gentile Christians?8 For several reasons, this term can be thought of as the Gentiles. The first evidence is the relation between ὅσοι . . . ἀνόμως ἥμαρτον in v. 12 and ἔθνη in v. 14. There is little doubt that the expression in v. 12 indicates the Gentiles

of a Jewish group, and argues that only a Gentile Christian group appears in vv. 13–16, although Paul has already implied the issue of the Jews in v. 12. 5 There have been scholarly debates on the nature of this verse, i.e., Does it mean works-righteousness or not? What is the core problem of the Jews? Is it a Jewish ethnic confidence or not? With respect to these issues, two things should be considered. First, the main concern of this verse is ‘doing’ the law, which is in contrast to committing sins (ἥμαρτον) in v. 12. Second, this verse, especially c2–35, is a reflection of the general principle of God’s judgment in Rom 2:6–11: God will response according to human deeds. Thus, it is not Jewish ethnic confidence but their sinful deeds that Paul criticizes here. Also, this verse cannot be understood as a special comment on salvation by works of the law. Instead, as an application of the overall principle of God’s judgment to the Jews, this verse functions to indict the shortage of their ‘doing’ in relation to God’s judgment. For surveys on this issue, even though the secondary literature regarding this debate is numerous, see D.J. Moo, “Paul and the Law in the Last Ten Year,” SJT 40 (1987), 287–307; F. Thielman, “Law,” in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin, and D.G. Reid (eds.), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 529–42; Calvin J. Roetzel, “Paul and the Law: Whence and Whither?,” CurBS 3 (1995), 249–75; Seifrid and Tan, “The Law,” in The Pauline Writings: An Annotated Bibliography, 160–66; Westerholm, Perspective Old and New on Paul, 101–258, idem, “The ‘New Perspective’ at Twenty-Five,” in D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid (eds.) Justification and Varigated Nomism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxies of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 1–38; etc. 6 For a discussion of the interpretative problems in these verses, see Bell, No One Seeks for God, 145–62. 7 Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 41–52, 58; Bassler, Divine Impartiality, 141–45; Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace—to the Doers,” 72–93; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 104; Fitzmyer, Romans, 311; Schlatter, Romans, 59; Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment, 193–96; idem, Romans, 120–24; Porter, “A Newer Perspective on Paul,” 379 n. 46. 8 Zahn, Der Brief an die Römer, 122; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:155–60; König, “Gentiles or Gentile Christians?,” 53–60; Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 118–22; Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” 131–50; S.J. Gathercole, “A Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2:14–15 Revisited,” JSNT 85 (2002), 27–49; Jewett, Romans, 213.

rom :–:

161

(non-Jews), who do not have the law. Then, what about ἔθνη in v. 14? Does it refer to a different group? According to the overall structure of A (non-Jews)—B (Jews)—B´ (Jews)—A´ (non-Jews), it is possible to see that ἔθνη in v. 14 is related to the Gentiles in v. 12.9 Moreover, since both cc2–35 (v. 13) and 36 (v. 14) share the same focus on the dimension of doing the law (ποιηταὶ νόμου and τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν), which is opposite to ἥμαρτον in v. 12, it is also plausible to think that, in vv. 13–14, Paul deals with the same groups of the Jews and Gentiles in v. 12 having a different focus. Thus, unless the Jews in v. 13 are Jewish Christians, there is no reason to think that Paul switches the Gentile group in v. 12 to the Gentile Christians in v. 14. The second clue for interpreting ἔθνη as the Gentiles is the content of the primary clauses c2–38. Paul depicts here a possibility that when ἔθνη, who do not have the law, do the things of the law, they become a law.10 However, if ἔθνη indicates the Gentile Christians, some serious questions arise in relation to vv. 15–16. Why does Paul depict the Gentile Christians’ doing the law as making them a law? C.E.B. Cranfield, who argues for the Gentile Christians here, interprets this passage to mean that “they know it [the law] and actually have in their hearts the earnest desire to obey it [v. 14],” so that “in the midst of their painful awareness of their sinfulness, their thoughts will also be able to remind them that they truly believed and had begun to have their lives turned in the direction of obedience [v. 15].”11 However, such an understanding results from negligence of the co-text. The focus of Rom 2:12–16 is not on the Gentile Christians, but on the Jews, especially on the correlation between the law and sinfulness of the Jews. Thus, it would be more natural to think that c2–38 refers to the change of the status of the Gentiles from those who have no law to those who have the law, when they do the things of the law. The repetition of ‘not having the law’ in cc2–37 and 39 functions to show this change more clearly, because these two embedded clauses clarify the original status of the ἔθνη.12

9 Cf. P. Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 43. 10 Οὗτοι νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόμος. 11 Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:158, 162. 12 There is a debate on the role of φύσει: Does it link to τὰ τοῦ νόμου ποιῶσιν? Whether it links to the former or not, the fundamental idea that the status of the Gentiles can be changed through doing the things of the law is the same. For the

162

chapter five

Then, what is the meaning of vv. 15–16? This is the second consideration in understanding the role of vv. 14–16. As many scholars acknowledge, vv. 15–16 have a backdrop of the eschatological judgment.13 On the last day, ἔθνη, who become possessors of the law by doing the things of the law, will show their works of the law that is in their heart. But, to whom will they show their works of the law? According to v. 16, ultimately it is God. Then, how can one understand cc2–42–43?14 Some argue that this refers to the debate among Gentiles,15 or internal conflict of Gentiles.16 However, I would propose a different view of these clauses: this accusation or defense will occur among those who have the same status with regard to the law, i.e., among Jews, who have the law, and Gentiles, who are regarded as having the law by doing the law. A main reason is the similarities between this sub-unit and Rom 2:25–29.17 Each sub-unit deals with the standard symbols of Jewishness, such as the law (vv. 12–16) and circumcision (vv. 25–29). Topically, both sub-units demonstrate that the pivotal point concerning the symbols of Jewish identity is not the possession of the symbols per se, but doing of the law (cf. vv. 12–13, 25). In addition, each sub-unit also mentions a possibility that a Gentile will be regarded as a possessor of the symbols of Jewishness, when he/she does the things of the law: (1) about the law: οὗτοι νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόμος (c2–38 [v. 14]); and (2) about circum-

discussion on this issue, see Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:156–57; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 49–50. 13 On the various options regarding v. 16, see Jewett, Romans, 217. 14

Kαὶ μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων τῶν λογισμῶν κατηγορούντων ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων

(“among them, thoughts will accuse or even defense”). 15 Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 61; Schlatter, Romans, 62–63; Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 53; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 76; Horst Balz, “μεταξύ,” EDNT 2 (1991), 419; Bell, No One Seeks for God, 146. 16 Zahn, Der Brief an die Römer, 126; Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 125; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 66; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1: 162; Fitzmyer, Romans, 311; Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 43; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 76; Byrne, Romans, 89. 17 Cf. Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” 131–50. Even though his idea of the parallel between Rom 2:12–16 and 25–29 is the same as mine, the conclusions are very different. For example, while I think that vv. 13 and 14 deal with the Jews and the Gentiles respectively, he sees that, as the Gentile Christians, ἔθνη are the participants of both vv. 13 and 14. Moreover, he regards the ethnic confidence of Jewish people as the problem of the Jews in Rom 2:12–16, but I see the core problem of the Jews is their lack of doing.

rom :–:

163

cision: οὐχ ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ εἰς περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται (c2–74 [v. 26]). Considering the similarities between Rom 2:12–16 and 25–29, it seems possible to view c2–42–43 (v. 15) as a correspondence of c2–75 (v. 27), because in both parts the agent of the communicative process is the Gentiles, especially those who are regarded as having the symbols of Jewish identity.18 The nature of the communicative process in both parts is related to a judicial situation (κατηγορούντων [“accuse”] and ἀπολογουμένων [“defense”] in v. 15] and κρινεῖ [“judge”] in v. 27]),19 and the beneficiary of that process is humans. Furthermore, both share the idea that the Jews are sinners with regard to the law (ἥμαρτον [v. 12] and παραβάτην νόμου [v. 27]).20 Consequently, as in the case of v. 27, cc2–42–43 can be understood that the Gentiles, who have the same status as the Jews concerning the law, will criticize and defend themselves against the Jews through the witness of their conscience. If this is so, the role of vv. 14–16 is understandable. The main purpose of vv. 14–16 is not to speak of the salvation of Gentiles, nor the condemnation of them,21 but to criticize the sinfulness of the Jews as in the case of v. 27. For Paul, the mere possession of the law is useless in time of God’s judgment, because even the Gentiles, who do not have the law, have a possibility to be regarded as the possessors of the law by their doing of the law. Such Gentiles will show their works of the law, and accuse and defend their status against the Jews. In summary, in Rom 2:12–16, Paul brings the matter of the law into his argumentation about the interactive framework between God and humans. According to his arguments, even though the law has a role in distinguishing the Jews from the Gentiles, the simple possession of the law is useless for sinners to escape God’s judgment, because the real matter with regard to the law is not possessing or hearing it, but

18 Rom 2:15–16: καὶ μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων τῶν λογισμῶν κατηγορούντων ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων. Rom 2:27: καὶ κρινεῖ ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία τὸν νόμον τελοῦσα σὲ τὸν διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς παραβάτην νόμου. 19 If v. 16 indicates the same situation as v. 15, both vv. 15 and 27 have in common with temporal reference of the future. 20 Interestingly, when Paul mentions the sinfulness of the Jews in vv. 17–24, he uses a citation of Isa 52:5, which has the components of the Jews and Gentiles: τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ δι᾽ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (“the name of God is blasphemed through you [Jews] among the Gentiles”). 21 Even though Paul shows a possibility for the Gentiles to possess the work of the law, it is not clear in vv. 15–16 that their possessing and showing of the works of the law is a warranty of God’s salvation.

164

chapter five

doing or obeying the law (v. 13). Moreover, since the Gentiles can even be regarded as law-possessors by doing the law, who will accuse and defend their status against the Jews (vv. 14–16), for Paul, the confidence of sinful Jews in the law is an illusion. 3) Focality There are several elements of focality in Rom 2:12–16, which help to emphasize the topical issues. At the sentence level, the emphatic (adverbial) use of καί appears two times. The first one is in c2–30 (. . . καὶ ἀπολοῦνται: v. 12), and it works to stress the idea that the impartial God will judge those who commit sins regardless of the law. The second one is shown in c2–43 (ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων: v. 15), which says that the Gentiles will even defend them. It seems that with κατηγορούντων (“accusing”), the καί functions to point out the instability of Jewish confidence in the law. This is because it stresses that even the Gentiles as well as God, who are regarded having the law by doing it, will accuse of the Jews, who commit sins despite the possession of the law. At the level beyond the sentence, a series of antitheses is noticeable. In v. 12, ἀνόμως (c2–31) is contrasted to ἐν νόμῳ (c2–33), and it refers to the division of humans according to the possession of the law. In v. 13, οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου (“the doers of the law”: c2–35) appears as an antithesis of οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου (“the hearer of the law”: c2–34). This antithesis indicates two different attitudes or behaviors with regard to the law. Lastly, another contrast occurs in v. 14. Here, the status of the Gentiles is contrasted before and after their doing of the law. Originally, they do not have the law, but if they do the things of the law, their deeds become the law to themselves. As rhetorical devices, all these antitheses are relevant to the law, and work to demonstrate not only the limitation of the law with regard to God’s judgment (v. 12), but also the significance of the aspect of one’s doing in matters of the law. Another notable expression is a long description about the Gentiles in vv. 14–16, whose structure is A (secondary clause)—B (primary clause)—A´ (secondary clauses). In comparison to the statement about the Jews in v. 13, the depiction about the Gentiles in vv. 14–16 is relatively long and detailed. However, the main concern of this long depiction is not the Gentiles per se, but the law, because, as the primary clause states (c2–38), the overall controlling factor is the law. Thus, as

rom :–:

165

a counter example of Jewish disobedience to the law, vv. 14–16 seem to function to stress the sinfulness of the Jews in relation to the law. In sum, Paul uses several devices and expressions in Rom 2:12–16 in order to emphasize topical issues, which are related to the law in the interactive framework between God and humans. According to the above observations, he seems to stress that since the dimension of doing is the most important factor in regards to the law, the possession of the law does not give any help to sinful Jews, whose sins will result in God’s judgment. 4) Grouping a) External evidence Rom 2:12–16 shares the same interactive framework between God and humans as the fundamental topical framework with Rom 1:18–2:11. However, the introduction of the law in Rom 2:12 can be regarded as external evidence for grouping. As a brand new topical entity in Paul’s arguments, it opens in the sense that, a new semantic boundary related to the Jews. b) Internal evidence The internal unity of this sub-unit is largely established by two factors. The first factor is the alternative pattern of the participants. The two participants in v. 12, which appear in an order of non-Jews and Jews, are mentioned in the following verses with an order of the Jews and non-Jews. This alternative pattern establishes a chiastic structure of A (non-Jews: c2–30 [v. 12])—B (Jews: c2–32 [v. 12])—B´ (Jews: v. 13)—A´ (non-Jews: vv. 14–16), and it contributes to the inner unity of this sub-unit. The second factor is a lexical chain of the law. Together with a semantic chain about human attitude or behavior regarding the law, this semantic chain of the law gives a crucial key to identifying Rom 2:12–16 as one discourse unit. Below is the internal unity of this sub-unit.22

22 Here, the underlined markings refer to the words related to the law, and the boxed one is human actions with regard to the law.

166 A (non-Jews) (c2–30) B (Jews) (c2–32) B´ (Jews) (v. 13)

chapter five 12

ὅσοι γὰρ ἀνόμως ἥμαρτον , ἀνόμως καὶ ἀπολοῦνται,

καὶ ὅσοι ἐν νόμῳ ἥμαρτον , διὰ νόμου κριθήσονται· 13

οὐ γὰρ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου δίκαιοι παρὰ [τῷ] θεῷ, ἀλλ᾽οἱ

ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται.

A´ (non-Jews) (vv. 14–16)

14

ὅταν γὰρ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου

ποιῶσιν , οὗτοι νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς εἰσιν νόμος·15 οἵτινες ἐνδείκνυνται τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν . . .

5) Summary By means of introducing the law as a new topical item, Paul begins to deal with the role of the law in the interactive paradigm between God and humans. Moreover, since the law appears as one of the important criteria for Jewish identity (cf. v. 12), the introduction of the law also implies that the concern of Paul’s argumentation is narrowed down from universal humans to the situation of the Jews. However, his main purpose is not to describe a positive picture of the Jews, because he clearly states in v. 12 that the interactive paradigm of human sinfulness and God’s judgment can be applied to the Jews. In addition, this depiction also indicates that the possession of the law itself does not give sinful Jews an exemption from God’s judgment. These two topical interests are strengthened by two additional arguments in vv. 13 and 14–16. Paul points out in v. 13 that since the pivotal aspect with regard to the law is not hearing but doing, those who do not do the law are far from God’s justification. Furthermore, according to vv. 14–15, there is a possibility that the sinful Jews who do not do the law will be accused by the Gentiles, who are regarded as law-possessors by their doing the law, on the day of God’s judgment. Therefore, through this sub-unit Paul shows that the Jews, who do not do the law, cannot be exempted from God’s wrath, because the possession of the law cannot be a safeguard against God’s judgment.

rom :–: B. Rom 2:17–24: The law and the hypocrisy of the Jews 1) Text analysis of Rom 2:17–24

167

168

chapter five

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 2:17–24 consists of six primary, seven secondary, and eleven embedded clauses.23 Among them, the first five primary clauses (cc2– 55, 57 [v. 21], 60, 63 [v. 22], and 65 [v. 23]) and six secondary clauses (cc2–45, 46, 47 [v. 17], 48, 49 [v. 18], and 52 [v. 19]) belong to the apodosis and protasis parts of conditional structures respectively.24 Interestingly, all the Subjects in the primary clauses, except for the OT citation in v. 24, are composed of participial embedded clauses (cc2–56, 58 [v. 21], 61, 64 [v. 22], 66 [v. 23]).

23 (1) Primary clauses: cc2–55, 57 (v. 21), 60, 63 (v. 22), 65 (v. 23), 67 (v. 24); (2) secondary clauses: cc2–45, 46, 47 (v. 17), 48, 49 (v. 18), 52 (v. 19), 68 (v. 24); and (3) embedded clauses: cc2–50, 51 (v. 18), 53, 54 (v. 19), 56, 58, 59 (v. 21), 61, 62, 64 (v. 22), 66 (v. 23). 24 Even though there is a dispute on the nature of the secondary clauses, it is certain that the secondary clauses work as a direct correspondence of the primary clauses.

rom :–:

169

In this structure, Paul’s dialogical partner, who is referred to by the second person references in the Subjects and Predicators, is a Jewish person. Even though God and other humans also appear in this subunit, they are only mentioned as the goals of the process (cf. cc2–56 [v. 21] and 65 [v. 23]), whose actor is ‘you.’ Thus, it seems that the topical issue in this sub-unit is solely related to the situation of the Jews. b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 92.C (Receptor, Receptors) (2) 33 (x6): O, Q (Teach), F, E (Written Language: νόμος), I, M´ (3) 58.F; 57.U; 88.J´; 25.Q; 6.M; 12.A

Predicators

(1) 33 (x6): 33.I; 33.M´; 33.B´; 33.Q; 33.P´; 33.E (2) 30.G; 28.A (Know); 31.I (Trust, Rely); 57.U (Steal, Rob); 53.L; 87.D

Complements (1) (2) (3) (4)

33 (x4): E (x2), Q (2) 14 (Physical Event and States: x2): 14.F, 14.G 92.C (x2) 93.A; 30.D; 65.A; 15.W; 13.A; 24.A; 32.E; 9.D; 57.A; 58.A; 23.B; 72.A; 12.A

Adjuncts

(1) 33 (x3): E (x2), Q (x1) (2) 12.A; 36.C; 92.C; 11.C

Overall lists

(1) 33 (x19): cf. E (x6), Q (x5), I (x2), M´ (Boast: x2) (2) 92.C (x4) (3) 12.A (x3) (4) 57.U (x2)

The major semantic domain of this sub-unit is 33 (Communication), and it appears nineteen times. Particularly, the five occurrences of 33.Q and the six appearances of 33.E are noticeable. Domain 33.E (νόμος) is the dominant topical theme in this sub-unit, and domain 33.Q refers to the behavioral attitude of the Jews to the law, such as their being instructed (κατηχούμενος) in the law or teaching (διδάσκων) the law. Yet, in comparison to Rom 2:12–16, where the dominant topical semantic domain is also 33.E, one significant observation is that there is no semantic domain 42.B (Do, Perform) in this sub-unit.

170

chapter five

Considering that the ‘doing’ of the law is the crucial key to receiving God’s positive response, no utterance of domain 42.B reveals that the situation of the Jews in Rom 2:17–24 is not relevant to God’s positive reaction. According to the lexical repetitions, there are correspondences between secondary and primary clauses. First, a combination of 33.E, 33.M´ (καυχᾶσαι), and 12.A (God) is shown in cc2–46–47 (v. 17) and 65 (v. 23). Second, a combination of 33.Q and 92.C (σεαυτὸν) appears in cc2–52–54 (vv. 19–20) and 55 (v. 21). Thus, there is a semantic correlation between the primary and secondary clauses. In sum, from the above observations, the major topical issue in this sub-unit is related to the situation of the Jews with regard to the law, and it is expressed through a semantic correlation between the secondary (protasis part) and primary clauses (apodosis part). But the situation of the Jews in this sub-unit is not optimistic, because there is no mention of domain 42.B. Thus, the Jews in Rom 2:17–24 appear to be under the same interactive paradigm between human sinfulness and God’s wrathful judgment, which is shown in Rom 2:12. c) Analysis of logical relations This sub-unit begins with a conjunction δέ, and the word Ἰουδαῖος in c2–45 (v. 17). Together with the change of person reference from third to second, this introduction indicates that the condition of Paul’s argumentative partner in Rom 2:17–24 is different from that of the Gentiles in vv. 14–16, who do the things of the law. Moreover, considering that the doing of the law appears as the opposite of sinful deeds in Rom 2:12–16, the adversative conjunction may also imply that the situation of the Jews in Rom 2:17–24 is relevant to their sinful state, which results in God’s judgment (cf. v. 12). The logical relations among secondary (protasis) and primary clauses (apodosis) reveal more clearly the correspondences shown in the above semantic analysis. After switching the argumentative partner to the Jews, Paul mentions their attitude toward the law (ἐπαναπαύῃ νόμῳ: “rely upon the law”: c2–46) and God (καυχᾶσαι ἐν θεῷ: “boast in God”: c2–47). Then, in v. 18, he states their knowledge about God’s will and the essential things (διαφέροντα) of the law that the Jews acquire through the law. Lastly, in v. 19, he deals with the confidence of the Jews in their position as a guide (ὁδηγὸν), light (φῶς), instructor (παιδευτὴν), and teacher (διδάσκαλον) of the Gentiles. Their confi-

rom :–:

171

dence is derived from the assurance that they have already possessed knowledge and truth in the law (cf. c2–54). In response to the situation of the Jews in the secondary clauses, Paul touches first on the issue of their teaching position in the primary clause (c2–55 [v. 21]).25 He points out their hypocrisy that even though they teach others, they do not teach themselves. Then, he suggests three examples of the inconsistency between their teaching and doing with regard to the law in cc2–57–63 (vv. 21–22). The exemplary areas are about theft, adultery, and idolatry, which are parts of the Decalogue (cf. Exod 20:3, 14–15). These examples can be regarded as a correspondence of the statement in v. 18, in that the hypocritical Jews have already known God’s will and the essential things of the law. And then, Paul deals with the attitude of the Jews toward the law and God in v. 23,26 which is a correspondence of cc2–46–47 (v. 17). The problem of the Jews is that they dishonor God (ἀτιμάζεις) by their transgression of the law as it is shown in cc2–57–63, even though they believe that they rely on the law and boast in God. Paul stresses their problem by quoting Isa 52:5 with some alterations.27 Thus, the overall conditional construction shows a close correspondence between protasis and apodosis, and this correspondence makes an inverted parallelism as below.

25 Ὁ οὖν διδάσκων ἕτερον σεαυτὸν οὐ διδάσκεις (“You, therefore, who teach others, do you not teach yourself ?”). Even though there is no punctuation in the early manuscripts, in light of the diatribe style, it is best to regard the primary clauses (cc2– 55, 57, 60, 63) as questions. 26 There is a debate on the interpretation of this verse: Is it a question (KJV, NASB, RSV, NIV, TEV) or not (NA27, NEB, JB)? Since this verse has the same syntactical structure as the preceding primary clauses (cc2–55–63), it would be wise to regard this verse as a question (Jewett, Romans, 229; contra Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 165). 27 Rom 2:24: τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ δι᾽ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. LXX Isa 52:5: δι᾽ὑμᾶς διὰ παντὸς τὸ ὄνομά μου βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. Instead of μου in LXX Isa 52:5, Paul uses τοῦ θεοῦ in order to link his citation with θεὸν in v. 23. Also, he omits διὰ παντὸς, and brings τὸ ὄνομα to the fore (cf. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 85–88; Jewett, Romans, 230).

172

chapter five

A: The attitude of the Jews toward the law and God (cc2–46–47 [v. 17]) Protasis B: The Jews know God’s will and the essential things through the law (v. 18) C: The confidence of the Jews in their position as a teacher of the truth (vv. 19–20) C´: The hypocrisy of the Jews: they teach others, but Apodosis not themselves (cc2–55–56 [v. 21]) B´: The Jews know the teachings of the law, but do not obey them (cc2–57–64 [vv. 21–22]) A´: The Jews confide in their good attitude to the law and God, but dishonor God by their transgressing the law (vv. 23–24)

From this structure, two observations can be drawn. The first observation is that the law emerges as the key factor to understand the situation of the Jews. In the protasis (vv. 17–20), the law is at the center of Jewish claims. They rely on the law, and discern God’s will and the essential things through the law. The confidence in their position in comparison with the Gentiles is also derived from their self-assurance of the knowledge of the law (vv. 19–20). On the other hand, the law is also closely related to the sinfulness of the Jews in the primary clauses (vv. 21–24). Although they know the things that God hates through the law, they transgress the law by conducting the very same things. Moreover, their dishonoring God is connected with their transgression. Therefore, the law is shown as the central element in the structure of Rom 2:17–24. The second observation is that Paul’s criticism is related to the disparity of the Jews between their claims and performance. The Jews believe that they have superior privilege of leading the Gentiles into God’s truth, because they not only have the law, but also know the will of God through the teaching of the law. In spite of their belief, however, they do not obey the law, and this fact makes them hypocrites. In this sense, the core problem of the Jews is their disobedience to the law.28

28 The nature of Jewish sinfulness in this sub-unit has no dimension of passing judgment on others, which is shown in Rom 2:1 and 3. So, it is not likely to see the whole of Romans 2 as one unit, since the description of sinful ‘you’ here is different from that in Rom 2:1. In addition, the view that the main issue of Rom 2:17–24 is Jewish ethnic superiority to the Gentiles is not plausible (contra Dunn, Romans 1–8,

rom :–:

173

In summary, according to the logical analysis, the topical issue in this sub-unit is Jewish sinfulness with regard to the law. Even though they distinguish themselves as ‘Ἰουδαῖος’ on account of their possession of the law and the instructions of it, they fail to obey the teaching of the law. As a result, their identity as a Jew derived from the law does not give any help in escaping from the negative response of God. 3) Focality Several prominence markers help to stress the topical issues in this sub-unit. At first, the stative aspect of πέποιθάς is shown in v. 19. It may indicate the strong confidence of the Jews in their superior advantage over the Gentiles. Their confidence is also emphasized by a marked expression of ὁδηγὸν εἶναι τυφλῶν in c2–53 (v. 19). Here, a verb (εἶναι) breaks the close connection between a head term (ὁδηγὸν) and a qualifier (τυφλῶν). Yet, the most significant feature is a series of antitheses in the primary clauses (apodosis). Structurally, except for the OT citation in v. 24, all the Subjects of the primary clauses consist of the participial embedded clauses, and they reflect the situation of the Jews in the above secondary clauses (protasis). But the original situation of the Jews is immediately turned into the hypocritical situation through the Predicators and Adjuncts. This series of antitheses emphasizes the sinfulness of the Jews, in that it clearly demonstrates their hypocrisy. In addition, Paul also stresses the seriousness of their sinfulness by a citation of the OT in v. 25.

They teach others (c2–56 [v. 21])

They do not teach themselves (c2–55 [v. 21])

They proclaim not to steal (cc2–58–59 [v. 21])

They steal (c2–57 [v. 21])

They say not to commit adultery (cc2–61–62 [v. 22])

They do adultery (c2–60 [v. 22])

They hate idolatry (c2–64 [v. 22])

They rob temples (c2–63 [v. 22])

They boast the law (c2–66 [v. 23])

They transgress the law (c2–65 [v. 23])

116). Rather, Rom 2:17–24 can be understood as an explanation of c2–34 (v. 12), which discloses Jewish acts of sin in spite of the possession of the law.

174

chapter five

Therefore, in order to deliver the topical issue with emphasis, Paul uses several devices in this sub-unit, and all are focused on the sinfulness of the Jews. Even though he stresses the confidence of the Jews in their superior position over the Gentiles, it also works to highlight their sinfulness, because Paul changes every situation of the Jews in the protasis into a hypocritical situation in the apodosis. 4) Grouping a) External evidence Rom 2:17–24 has a connection to Rom 2:12–16, in that both have the law as the major topical entity. However, this sub-unit is distinct from the preceding sub-unit in two ways. One is the use of second person references, and the other is a change of delivery style from a series of statements to a dialogical style between ‘I’ and ‘you.’ b) Internal evidence Internally, three elements are used to signify Rom 2:17–24 as a unity. First, the chain links of second person references and the word νόμος show the internal unity of this sub-unit. Second, this sub-unit has a large conditional construction, in which there are a long protasis and apodosis. As observed in the semantic and logical analyses, this protasis and apodosis match each other well, and show an inverted structure of A (cc2–46–47 [v. 17])—B (v. 18)—C (vv. 19–20)—C´ (cc2–55–56 [v. 21])—B´ (cc2–57–64 [vv. 21–22])—A´ (vv. 23–24). The evidence of internal unity can be diagrammed as below.29

29 Here, bold markings are the second person references, and the boxed marking means the semantic correspondences between protasis and apodosis. The marking with italics and underlines refers to the law.

rom :–: Protasis

εἰ δὲ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ

(A)

καὶ ἐπαναπαύῃ νόμῳ

175

boasting God and the law

καὶ καυχᾶσαι ἐν θεῷ καὶ γινώσκεις τὸ θέλημα

(B)

καὶ δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφέροντα κατηχούμενος ἐκ τοῦ νόμου πέποιθάς τε σεαυτὸν ὁδηγὸν εἶναι τυφλῶν . . . παιδευτὴν

(C)

teaching ἀφρόνων, διδάσκαλον . . . ἀληθείας ἐν τῷ νόμῳ

(C´)

ὁ οὖν διδάσκων ἕτερον σεαυτὸν οὐ διδάσκεις;

(B´)

ὁ κηρύσσων μὴ κλέπτειν κλέπτεις;

contents of ὁ λέγων μὴ μοιχεύειν μοιχεύεις;

the law

ὁ βδελυσσόμενος τὰ εἴδωλα ἱεροσυλεῖς;

(A´) Apodosis

ὃς ἐν νόμῳ καυχᾶσαι , διὰ τῆς παραβάσεως τοῦ νόμου τὸν θεὸν ἀτιμάζεις· τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ δι᾽ὑμᾶς . . .

5) Summary Through a change of delivery style from a series of statements in Rom 2:12–16 to a dialogue between ‘I’ and ‘you,’ Paul demonstrates the sinfulness of the Jews in this sub-unit. According to his description, the core problem of the Jews is their disobedience to the law. The Jews confide in their identity, and are convinced of not only their loyalty to God and the law, but also their higher position as a teacher of the Gentiles. However, their disobedience to the law only shows their hypocrisy, which results in disgracing God’s name among the Gentiles. In this sense, this sub-unit seems to work to explain the statement in c2–32 (v. 12): “whoever has sinned in the law will be judged by the law.”

176

chapter five

C. Rom 2:25–29: The law and the true symbol of Jewish identity 1) Text analysis of Rom 2:25–29

rom :–:

177

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 2:25–29 consists of eight primary, five secondary, and one embedded clauses.30 The first three secondary clauses are parts of the protasis in the conditional structure, and the first four primary clauses are parts of the apodosis. As to the topical participants of this sub-unit, the main participant in the first two conditional structures (v. 25) is Paul’s Jewish interlocutor, who has circumcision as an identity marker. In the third conditional structure (vv. 26–27), the participant is changed into the Gentile, who does not have circumcision. Then, the Jew emerges again as a main participant of vv. 28–29. There have been debates on the nature of the participants in vv. 27– 29: Are they Gentile Christians or not? Does the Jew in v. 29, who is one inwardly (κρυπτῷ), refer to a Gentile Christian or not? Although many scholars regard ἡ ἀκροβυστία as referring to a Gentile Christian,31 it is unlikely that the Gentile Christian is in view in vv. 26–29. The first reason is that if ἡ ἀκροβυστία refers to a Gentile Christian and circumcision signifies a symbol of covenant people, v. 26 means that the Gentile Christian will be reckoned as the covenant people through obedience to the law. However, this concept is directly against Paul’s theology, because, for Paul, Christian obedience to the law is not the factor by which one is reckoned as the covenant people.32 Second, if ἡ ἀκροβυστία in v. 26 and the true Jew in v. 28 are the same Gentile Christian, Paul’s argument would mean that the Gentile Christian will be reckoned as a true Jew through obeying the law. Would this make sense to Paul? In addition, if one observes that

30 (1) Primary clauses: cc2–69, 72 (v. 25), 74 (v. 26), 75 (v. 27), 77–80 (vv. 27–29); (2) secondary clauses: cc2–70–71 (v. 25), 73 (v. 26), 81– 82 (v. 29); and (3) embedded clause: c2–76 (v. 27). 31 Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 58; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:173; Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” 134–35; Schreiner, Romans, 139–40; etc. 32 Schreiner insists that the use of λογισθήσεται testifies to ἡ ἀκροβυστία as a Gentile Christian, because “Paul uses λογισθήσεται often, especially in Romans (cf. Rom 3:28; 4:3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 22, 23, 24; 9:8; 2 Cor 5:19; Gal 3:6), of those who are reckoned to be in a right relationship with God” (Schreiner, Romans, 141). However, contrary to his observations, all the occurrences of λογισθήσεται in Romans 3 and 4 appear in relation to faith, not obeying the law. Thus, the use of λογισθήσεται in v. 26 cannot be evidence for regarding the uncircumcised as a Gentile Christian.

178

chapter five

the term Ἰουδαῖος refers to an ethnic group in the Pauline letters,33 which is used to distinguish one ethnic group (Jews) from another (non-Jews),34 such an interpretation becomes more counter-Pauline. According to this interpretation, Paul’s argument is that one ethnic group (a Gentile Christian) becomes another ethnic group (a Jew) by keeping the law. However, this very idea is what Paul strongly attacks in Galatians.35 Third, the phrase ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι in v. 29 does not give strong evidence for insistence that the participants are the Gentile Christians. Many scholars, who are for the view of the Gentile Christian, point out the similarities between this verse and other passages, such as Rom 7:6; 2 Cor 3:6; Phil 3:3.36 However, they seem to neglect the differences between them. All other passages clearly have cotextual evidence to think that Paul deals with the Christian situation. But Rom 2:26–29 does not have such explicit co-textual evidence. Moreover, if one admits that true circumcision (περιτομὴ καρδίας) in v. 29 is related to doing the law because Paul says in vv. 25–27 that the validity of circumcision depends on obedience to the law, the phrase ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι is also relevant to obeying the law.37 However, in Rom 7:6 and 2 Cor 3:6, the contrast between πνεῦμα and γράμμα does not appear in a co-text of doing the law, but that of being released from the law. In Phil 3:3, the contrast is not between the Holy Spirit and the letter, but between πνεῦμα and the flesh (σάρξ). Moreover, although Paul links the true circumcised people (Christians) to the Holy Spirit in Philippians 3, it is extremely unlikely for Paul to think that this linkage results in the change of the Christians into the ethnic

33 Rom 1:16; 2:9, 10, 17; 3:1, 9, 29; 9:24; 10:12; 1 Cor 1:22, 23, 24; 9:20; 10:32; 12:13; 2 Cor 11:24; Gal 2:13, 14, 15; 3:28; and Col 3:11. 34 In this sense, Esler translates this term as “Judean” (Esler, Conflict and Identity in Roman, 62–74). 35 Contra Schreiner, Romans, 141. He says that the key factor for the Gentile in v. 26 to be the people of God is “being a Jew in secret . . ., that is, in the heart, and possessing ‘the circumcision of the heart.’ ” However, he misses the very important point that in this co-text, to be a true Jew and possess true circumcision only results from faithful obedience to the law. So, he seems to miss the target of Paul’s argument. 36 For example, Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” 134–35. 37 I think that the contrast between the Holy Spirit and the letter is the impetus that makes the circumcision of the heart. That is, it is not the letter of the law per se but the Holy Spirit that enables one to have true circumcision, which is related to observing the law. However, the use of πνεῦμα is not crucial evidence for the argument about the Gentile Christian, because in the OT, some passages tell of the connection between obedience to the law and the works of the Holy Spirit (Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 36:25–29).

rom :–:

179

Jews. Therefore, it is very unconvincing to rely on other Pauline passages that have an antithesis of πνεῦμα and γράμμα in order to determine the identity of ἡ ἀκροβυστία as a Gentiles Christian. On the contrary, it is more plausible to think of ἡ ἀκροβυστία in v. 26 as a pious Gentile. First, the similarity between Rom 2:13–14 and 25–27 indicates that the uncircumcised is a Gentile. In both parts, the limitation of Jewish symbols is mentioned first, then the case of the Gentiles appears as the counter example of the Jews. So, if the ἔθνη in v. 14 does not refer to the Gentile Christian, there is no reason to think of ἡ ἀκροβυστία as the Gentile Christian.38 Second, if ἡ ἀκροβυστία refers to the Gentile, the concept that one ethnic group (the Gentile) could be revealed as another (the Jew) is understood without conflicting with Pauline theology in other letters. Verse 25 would mean that there will be a possibility for one ethnic group (the Gentile) to be reckoned as another (the Jew) through obedience to the law. The Gentiles could even be true hidden Jews, because, for Paul, the key criterion of a Jewish identity is not the possession of outward circumcision, but inner circumcision, which is related to doing the law.39 However, regarding the participant in v. 29, there is no need to restrict the boundary of the true Jews to the Gentiles, since originally the idea of the circumcision of the heart is a command and promise to the Jews.40 Thus, the participants in v. 29 seem to be the pious people including Jews and Gentiles.41 In summary, as regards the topical participants, there are two groups in this sub-unit: the Jew and Gentile. The Jew appears as Paul’s interlocutor and is mentioned by the second person references in vv. 25 and 27. The pious Gentile appears in vv. 26–27 as the counter example of the Jew, who is unfaithful to the law despite his circumcision.

38 Contra Schreiner, Romans, 139–40; Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” 144. Even though Schreiner vigorously insists that ἔθνη in v. 14 refers to Gentiles, he does not consider this correspondence between vv. 13–14 and 25–27, and argues that ἡ ἀκροβυστία is the Gentile Christian. On the other hand, Wright acknowledges the similarity between the two parts, but he contends that both ἔθνη and ἡ ἀκροβυστία are the Gentile Christians. 39 Here, to be reckoned as the Jews does not mean physical change. Instead, it implies the participation of the Gentiles in Jewish privilege or status. Jewett says that “Paul’s point is that if Gentiles obey the law of God, they suffer no disadvantage in comparison with circumcised Jews” (Jewett, Romans, 234). 40 Cf. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25; 31:31–34; Ezek 11:19; 36:25–29; Jub. 1:20–21; Odes Sol. 11:1–3. 41 Bell, No One Seeks for God, 194–200; Jewett, Romans, 236.

180

chapter five

In vv. 28–29, even though Paul’s interlocutor seems to be such an unfaithful Jew, he still opens the possibility of being a true Jew both to the Jews and Gentiles. b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 92.C (Receptor, Receptors) (2) 53.F (Dedicate, Consecrate: περιτομή: x3), cf. 11.B (Socio-Religious: ἀκροβυστία) x2 (3) 33.E (Written Language: νόμος: x2); 26 (Psychological Faculties: x2); 24.A (see: x2) (4) 58.A; 36.C; 8.A; 60.B; 12.A; 33.K´

Predicators

(1) 13 (x3): B (Change of State: x2), A (State) (2) 30 (Think: x2): A, G (3) 42.B (Do, Perform); 36.C

Complements (1) (2) (3) (4)

33.E (x5) 53.F (x3), cf. 11.B 36.C (Obey, Disobey: x2) 12.A; 33.G´; 93.A

Adjuncts

9.A; 12.A

Overall lists

(1) (2) (3) (4)

53.F (x6), cf. 11.B (x3) 33.E (x7) 36.C (x4), cf. 42.B 13 (Be, Become, Exist, Happen: x3) (5) 24 (x2); 26 (x2); 30 (x2)

According to the frequency of the semantic domains, the major topical item of this sub-unit is related to circumcision: περιτομή (domain 56.F: x6) and ἀκροβυστία (domain 11.B: x3). Mainly, these semantic domains appear in the Subjects and Complements. The next frequent semantic domain is seven occurrences of 33.E, which refers to the law. The third is 36.C (φυλάσσῃ, τελοῦσα, and παραβάτης [x2]). Together with 42.B (πράσσῃς) in c2–72 (v. 25), domain 36.C indicates human actions with regard to the law. It demonstrates that the dimension of human action is an important topical issue in relation to the law. The fourth frequent semantic domain is 13. Together with 93.A (Persons: Ἰουδαῖος) in vv. 28 and 29, three uses of domain 13 seem to imply that the matter of Jewish identity is another issue in Rom 2:25–29.

rom :–:

181

Therefore, from the above observations, the topical issue of this subunit is relevant to a correlation among Jewish identity, circumcision, and human actions with regard to the law. Here, circumcision works to signify one’s Jewish identity, and obedience to the law appears as the key factor to verify oneself as having the true circumcision. c) Analysis of logical relations As the analysis of semantic domains shows, the topical issue in this sub-unit is about the correlation among Jewish identity, circumcision, and human behavioral attitude toward the law. For Paul, the fundamental premise is that the validity of circumcision only depends on obedience to the law. This premise is shown through two contrasting conditional clauses in v. 25. In the first conditional construction (cc2–69–70), Paul admits the positive value of circumcision on the condition that the Jews keep the law.42 However, in the second conditional construction (cc2–71–72), he shakes the assurance of the value of circumcision by pointing out the negative possibility that, if they transgress the law, their circumcision becomes useless and they can be regarded as uncircumcised. Moreover, in the third conditional construction (vv. 26–27), he even shows the possibility that the uncircumcised Gentile will be reckoned as the circumcised, and will judge the Jew, who transgresses the law despite possession of the letter (γράμματος) and circumcision.43 Probably, just as in Rom 2:14–15, this situation means that the law-observing Gentile will be reckoned as having the same status with regard to the symbols of identity, and will reveal the sinfulness of the Jews, who do not obey the law. Here, Paul’s intention is not to explain the salvation of the Gentiles, nor the contrast between the Jew and Gentile per se. Rather, it is to demonstrate the basic premise that the simple

42 Here, ὠφελεῖ is not related to salvation, but to membership in the Jewish covenant, which distinguishes the Jews from the Gentiles (Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 85; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:171; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 119–20; Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 65; contra Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 167; Schreiner, Romans, 138). 43 I regard the prepositional phrase διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς as attendant circumstantial, not instrumental. This is because, in this co-text, Paul does not give any hint that the possession of the law and circumcision promotes the sins of the Jews. Rather, Paul’s concern here is that the Jews commit sins regardless of the possession of the law and circumcision (Contra Dunn, Romans 1–8, 124; Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 149).

182

chapter five

possession of the symbol of Jewish identity is useless to those who do not obey the law. Lastly, Paul makes his idea clear by providing a summative explanation of who is the true Jew in vv. 28–29. Through several contrasts, he manifests that to be a true Jew is not related to the outward possession of identity marker. Instead, it is relevant to the hidden inward thing, such as the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit, which is closely related to obeying the law. Also, by means of the contrast in the final clauses (οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλ᾽ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ: cc2–80–81), Paul states that praise (ἔπαινος) for the true Jew does not come from the people, who regard the outward possession of identity markers as important, but from God, who sees the inner hidden things. In summary, the main topical concern in this sub-unit is the relationship between human behavioral response to the law and Jewish identity symbolized by circumcision. In the sense that Rom 2:25–29 is about Jewish identity, this sub-unit seems to link to the claim of Paul’s interlocutor in c2–45 (v. 17) that “I call myself a Jew (Ἰουδαῖος).”44 In response to this claim, Paul declares that even though circumcision can be an identity marker, its validity is in effect only when obedience to the law accompanies it. Moreover, considering that a true Jew is not determined by an outward physical marker, but by the inner circumcision of the heart, which is relevant to observing the law, the confidence of Paul’s interlocutor in his identity marker is an illusion because of the fact that he does not obey the law. 3) Focality Several devices are used to emphasize the topical issues at the sentence level and the level beyond the sentence. First, at the sentence level, the phenomenon of secondarization, which is the reversal of the normal order of protasis-apodosis, is shown in cc2–69–70 (v. 25). Since this phenomenon emphasizes the content of the if-clause (protasis), Paul’s stress here is on the aspect of obeying the law, not on the possession or value of circumcision. The other two prominence markers occur in c2–72 (v. 25). When Paul states the positive value of circumcision in c2–69, he does not use the second person genitive pronoun (σου). However, in mentioning the possibility that circumcision will

44 Actually, when Paul deals with the true identity marker of the Jew in vv. 28–29, he uses Ἰουδαῖος two times.

rom :–:

183

be regarded as uncircumcision due to transgression of the law, he adds σου and uses the stative aspect of γέγονεν, so that he emphasizes the content of c2–72 that ‘your’ circumcision ‘becomes’ uncircumcision. Second, at the level beyond the sentence, Paul uses rhetorical devices to stress his intention. The major devices are repetition and contrast. Through two sorts of contrast, he demonstrates the importance of doing the law in matters of Jewish identity and circumcision in v. 25. One contrast is an antithesis between περιτομή and ἀκροβυστία, and the other is between νόμον πράσσῃς and παραβάτης νόμου. Moreover, Paul even stresses his intention by putting these antitheses in a chiastic structure of A (apodosis: περιτομή)—B (protasis: νόμον πράσσῃς)—B´ (protasis: παραβάτης νόμου)—A´ (apodosis: ἀκροβυστία). In vv. 26– 27, Paul also uses the above two sorts of contrast, and shows the opposite situation of the Gentile and ‘you’ (the Jew).45 In vv. 28–29, four contrasts are used to explain the true Jew and circumcision: (1) ἐν τῷ φανερῷ vs. ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ; (2) ἐν σαρκὶ περιτομή vs. περιτομὴ καρδίας; (3) πνεύματι vs. γράμματι; and (4) ἐξ ἀνθρώπων vs. ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ. In sum, all of the above devices focus on the situation of ‘you,’ and work to stress that the outward circumcision is not a guarantee of one’s true Jewish identity unless he disobeys the law. 4) Grouping a) External evidence Rom 2:25–29 is linked to the previous sub-unit in several ways, such as the sharing of the second person references and the theme of obeying the law as an important topical issue. Especially, the theme of Jewish identity with the term Ἰουδαῖος reveals the connection of this subunit to the claims of the Jew in Rom 2:17. However, Rom 2:25–29 is distinct from Rom 2:17–25 because of the appearance of περιτομή as the new topical item. It gives a new topical boundary, so, it works as an important evidence for grouping.

45

The Gentile With regard to circumcision ἀκροβυστία, περιτομή With regard to the law τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσση τὸν νόμον τελοῦσα

‘You,’ the Jew περιτομή παραβάτης νόμου

184

chapter five

b) Internal evidence Internally, conjunctions work to give a cohesive unity to this sub-unit. The first and second conditional constructions, which are about the Jew, are linked by μέν . . . . δέ. The third conditional construction (vv. 26–27) shows its relation to the preceding two conditional clauses by οὖν. The conjunction γάρ in v. 28 connects vv. 28–29 to 26–27. In addition to conjunctions, the lexical chains also contribute to the unity of Rom 2:25–29. The repetitions of the four important semantic domains, 53.F (περιτομή), 11.B (ἀκροβυστία), 33.E (νόμος), and 42.B (human actions), are especially useful. The internal unity of this subunit can be diagrammed as below:

Rom 2:25 περιτομὴ μέν γάρ ὠφελεῖ

Contrasts

ἐὰν νόμον πράσσῃς ἐὰν δὲ παραβάτης νόμου ᾖς ἡ περιτομή σου ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν 26

ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ

οὐχ ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ εἰς περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται; 27

καὶ κρινεῖ ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία τὸν νόμον τελοῦσα σὲ τὸν διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς παραβάτην νόμου

28

οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖός . . . σαρκὶ περιτομή

29

ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος, καὶ περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι οὐ

γράμματι, οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλ᾽ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ

5) Summary In Rom 2:25–29, Paul deals with circumcision, which works as an identity marker of the Jews. In response to his argumentative partners’ claim that they are Jews because of their outward physical circumcision, he points out that obedience to the law, not the outward symbols,

rom :–:

185

is significant in matters of Jewish identity. In this sense, this sub-unit is connected to the preceding sub-unit, especially the statement in c2–45 (v. 17). According to topicality and focality, the core problem of the Jews is their transgression of the law. For Paul, this transgression not only nullifies the confidence in their outward identity marker, but also indicates that they cannot be exempt from the principle of God’s judgment in v. 12. Thus, through this sub-unit, Paul speaks out that the fate of the Jews is the same as that of the Gentiles in the interactive paradigm between human sinfulness and God’s wrathful judgment. This is because the Jews have sinned before God in spite of the claims of having privileges, such as the possession of the law, circumcision, and the knowledge of God. 2. Rom 3:1–20: Objections and Rejections with regard to Jewish sinfulness and God’s judgment A. Rom 3:1–8: Jewish sinfulness and the righteous judgment of God 1) Text analysis of Rom 3:1–8

186

chapter five

rom :–:

187

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 3:1–8 consists of a series of questions and answers, which are mainly delivered through the primary clauses.46 The secondary and embedded clauses work to support the questions or answers in a dialogue. As regards the topical participants of this sub-unit, God and humans appear as the major participants. The first interaction between the two participants is shown in cc3–5 (v. 2): “[the Jews] have been entrusted with the oracles (λόγια) of God.”47 Here, the focus is on the human part, because the Subject of c3–1 is a Jew. Other kinds of interactions emerge through forms of questions in cc3–8 (v. 3), 16 (v. 5), and 23 (v. 7), and these are related to the result of the interaction between human unfaithfulness and God’s faithfulness. In vv. 3–4, God and his faithfulness become an issue, since it is God who is the logical Subject of the additive OT citation (cc3–13–14). In vv. 5–6, God also appears as the main participant, and as the Subjects of in cc3–18 and 22. However, in vv. 7–8, the focus is shifted from God to human beings, in the sense that the Subject of the primary clause (c3–24) is a human (κἀγώ). Thus, this sub-unit shows interactions between God and humans, and within these interactions the focus has changed to an order of humans—God—God—humans.

46 Cc3–1, 2 (v. 1), 3, 4 (v. 2), 6, 8 (v. 3), 9, 10, 11 (v. 4), 17, 18 (v. 5), 21 (v. 6), 24 (v. 7), and 25 (v. 8). 47 Several options have been proposed to understand this term: (1) the law in relation to the Messianic promises (Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 70; Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 133; Jewett, Romans, 237); (2) God’s self-revelation both in the OT and NT (Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:179; Ziesler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 96); (3) the promises of the OT (Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 78–79; J. Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983], 105; Williams, “ ‘The Righteousness of God’ in Romans,” 266–67) or the whole OT (J.W. Doeve, “Some Notes with Reference to ΤΑ ΛΟΓΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ in Rom III. 2,” in J.N. Sevenster and W.C. van Unnik [eds.], Studia Paulina in Honorem Jahannis de Zwaan septuagenarii [Haarlem: F. Bohr, 1953], 121; D.R. Hall, “Romans 3:1–8 Reconsidered,” NTS 29 [1983], 185; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 1:164; Fitzmyer, Romans, 326; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 182–83; Schreiner, Romans, 148–89; Bell, No One Seeks for God, 203). In my view, the third option seems to be correct.

188

chapter five

Then, who is the human counterpart of God in the above interactions? It is not hard to answer this question, because Paul clearly says that the Jews are the beneficiaries of God’s oracles. But the vexing question is this: Who is Paul’s dialogue partner? Is it a real Jewish opponent or not? Who are ‘I’ (cc3–20, 23–24) and ‘we’ (cc3–16–17, 25–28) in this sub-unit? Is it Paul or not? Many scholars have thought that the questions raised here are from the voice of Paul’s real opponents.48 However, since, as S.K. Stowers and others observe,49 Rom 3:1–8 shares many typical features of the diatribe, it is fully possible to think that this sub-unit consists of a diatribal dialogue, in which Paul himself creates objections and rejections to deliver or sharpen his argument.50 Consequently, it is not necessary to stick to the idea that the questions in this sub-unit are the voices of Paul’s real opponents.51 Then, what are the voices of Paul’s dialogue partner in this sub-unit? Stowers argues that the first objection (v. 1) and two rejections with μὴ γένοιτο (vv. 4, 6) are the voices of a fictitious Jewish interlocutor, and vv. 2–3, 5, and 7–8 are those of Paul.52 However, due to the use of μὴ γένοιτο and the OT citation as the supporting material (v. 4), it is more likely to think that the rejections in vv. 4 and 6 are Paul’s.53 If this is 48 For example, Käsemann regards that the questions in vv. 5–8 originated from Paul’s real opponents (Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 78–83). 49 Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 119–20, 133–37, 148–54; idem, “Paul’s Dialogue with a Fellow Jew in Rom 3:1–9,” CBQ 46 (1984), 707–22; Malherbe, “ME GENOITO in the Diatribe and Paul,” 25–33; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 118–22; Song, Reading Romans as a Diatribe, 94–95; contra Hall, “Romans 3:1–8 Reconsidered,” 184–85. 50 R. Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (FRLANT 13; Götingen: vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), 10–11. Cited from Malherbe, “ME GENOITO in the Diatribe and Paul,” 28. 51 Moo says that “Paul is not so much reproducing for his readers an argument between himself and another person as he is posing question and objections to himself in order to make his views clear to the Romans” (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 81; Wendy Dabourne, Purpose and Cause in Pauline Exegesis: Romans 1.16–4.25 and a New Approach to the Letters [SNTSMS 104; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999], 136–37; Jewett, Romans, 252; Contra Bryan, A Preface to Romans, 97 n. 76). 52 Stowers, “Paul’s Dialogue with a Fellow Jew in Rom 3,” 715; Keck, Romans, 89; Byrne argues that vv. 1, 3, 5, 7–8 are Paul’s and vv. 2, 4, 6 are the interlocutors’ (Byrne, Romans, 106–107). 53 If, as Stowers understands, the rejections with μὴ γένοιτο are from Jewish interlocutors, the Jewish interlocutor plays a role in answering a genuine truth, while the role of Paul becomes that of giving foolish objections that are against his preceding arguments. This situation is rhetorically possible. However, it can make Paul run the risk of disgracing the trustworthiness of his authority. On the contrary, the more convincing view is that it is Paul who makes the rejections and corrections of the absurd questions. This view, without risk of losing the trustworthiness of Paul, enables us to

rom :–:

189

so, the objections in vv. 1, 3, 5 (cc3–16–20), 7, and 8 (cc3–25–30) can be attributed to the voice of Paul’s interlocutor.54 Thus, the dialogue pattern between the fictitious interlocutor (I) and Paul (P) in this subunit is like this:

topical participants

Dialogue patterns

Humans (the Jews)

I: τί οὖν . . . (v. 1) P: πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον . . . (v. 2)

God

I: τί γάρ . . . (v. 3) P: μὴ γένοιτο . . . (v. 4)

God

I: εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία . . . τί ἐροῦμεν . . . (cc3–16–19: v. 5) P: κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω (c3–20: v. 5) P: μὴ γένοιτο . . . (v. 6)

Humans (the Jews)

I: εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀλήθεια . . . τί ἔτι κἀγὼ . . . καὶ μὴ . . . cc3–23–30: vv. 7–8 P: ὧν τὸ κρίμα ἔνδικόν ἐστιν (c3–31: v. 8)

b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

12.A (God: x4) 88 (x3): A, B, X 92 (Discourse Referentials: x2): A (‘I’), B (‘we’) 65.E (Advantageous, Not Advantageous: x2) 93.A; 53.F; 31.I; 9.A; 90.N; 70; 56.E

understand the rejections and corrections as Paul’s rhetorical sharpening. cf. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 119; Dabourne, Purpose and Cause in Pauline Exegesis, 137–38; Jewett, Romans, 328; etc. 54 Bell insists that the questions with μή in vv. 3 and 5 are Paul’s, because it anticipates a negative answer ‘no’ (R.H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11 [WUNT 2.63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994], 74–75; idem, No One Seeks for God, 203, 207; Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 136; Hall, “Romans 3:1–8 Reconsidered,” 190). However, he does not seem to consider the nature of this conversation that it is Paul who controls the whole conversations. That is, in some sense, all questions are made by Paul, and even the objector can be regarded as an output of Paul’s rhetorical creation. Thus, as a rhetorical strategy, it is possible for Paul to create a foolish objection that anticipates a negative answer, and to put it as a voice of his imaginary interlocutor.

190

chapter five

(cont.) Semantic domains Predicators

(1) 33 (Communication: x6): F (Speak, Talk: x4), P´ (Insult, Slander), E (2) 13 (x5): A (State: x2), D (Happen: x3) (3) 56.E (Judge, Condemn, Acquit: x2); (4) 31.I (Trust, Rely); 35.E (Entrust To the Care Of: ἐπιστεύθησαν); 76; 28.C; 59.F; 42.D

Complements (1) (2) (3) (4)

88 (x6): B (Just, Righteous: x4), E, O 12.A (x3) 33 (x3): D, R, F 31.I; 39.L; 9.A; 92.B

Adjuncts

(1) 92 (x3): A, C (Receptor, Receptors: x2) (2) 33 (x2): F, R (3) 56.E; 9.A; 87.B; 88.L´(Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt)

Overall lists

(1) 33 (x11): F (x6), R (Speak Truth, Speak Falsehood: x2), etc. (2) 88 (x10): B (x5), L´ (x1), etc. (3) 12.A (x7) (4) 92 (x6): A (x2), B (x2), C (x2) (5) 13 (x5): A (x2), D (x3) (6) 56.E (x4) (7) 31.I (x3). cf. ἐπιστεύθησαν (35.E)

According to the frequency of the semantic domains, some interesting observations can be drawn. At the outset, the eleven occurrences of domain 33, especially 33.F (x6), indicate the conversational nature of this sub-unit. Seven appearances of 12.A seem to imply that the topic of Rom 3:1–8 is relevant to God and his attributes in regards to interaction with humans. Moreover, the three semantic domains of 88.B (x5), 56.E (x4), and 31.I (x3: cf. ἐπιστεύθησαν [35.E]) provide the content of the topical issues in the interaction between God and humans. These domains appear like a chain reaction in a series of objections and rejections. First, 35.E (ἐπιστεύθησαν) is shown in the first rejection of Paul in v. 2. Then, three instances of 31.I (ἠπίστησάν, ἀπιστία, and πίστιν) are mentioned in the following second objection (v. 3). When Paul rejects the second objection in v. 4, he uses semantic domains 88.B (δικαιωθῇς) and 56.E (κρίνεσθαί). The combination of these two semantic domains becomes the main agenda in the following objections in vv. 5 and 7–8 (cc3–23–30) and rejections in vv. 6 and

rom :–:

191

8 (c3–30).55 Therefore, the analysis of semantic domains reveals that the topical issues of this sub-unit are about the interaction between God and humans, whose contents are related to (1) the faithfulness οf God with regard to Jewish unfaithfulness, and (2) the combination of human unrighteousness (88.B) and God’s righteous judgment (56.E). c) Analysis of logical relations This sub-unit begins with the objection of the imaginary interlocutor in v. 1, who asks the advantage of Jewishness and its identity marker. This objection is derived from the previous arguments in Rom 2:12–29, especially Rom 2:25–29, where Paul argues that the outward identity marker and Jewishness are invalid unless one obeys the law inwardly.56 Contrary to the expectation that the Jews have no advantage with regard to circumcision because of their failure to do the law, Paul defends the advantage of Jewishness in v. 2. For him, one of the profits of Jewishness is to be entrusted with the oracles of God. This may refer to the possession of the divine revelation through the law. Then, is this profit relevant to their salvation? Certainly not. Paul does not give here any clear indication of the correlation between the entrustment of God’s oracles and the salvation of the Jews.57 Moreover, if the advantage of the Jews here is related to their possession of the law, it implies that Paul basically agrees with the claims of the Jews in Rom 2:17–20 (cf. Rom 2:25). However, since Paul demonstrates in Rom 2:17–29 that the mere possession of the law is useless in escaping God’s judgment, the privilege of entrustment of God’s oracles in Rom 3:2 cannot warrant God’s salvation unless it is accompanied by doing the law. Actually, the premise of the following argument of Paul in Rom 3:3–8 is that the Jews, who do not obey the law, cannot be exempted from God’s judgment despite their advantage.

55 Verse 5: 88.B (ἀδικία, δικαιοσύνην, and ἄδικος); cf. ὀργή (Rom 1:18–2:29 shows it as another rendering of God’s judgment); v. 6: 56.E (κρινεῖ); v. 7: 56.E (κρίνομαι); and v. 8: 56.E (κρίμα). 56 Semantically, ὠφέλεια in Rom 3:1 recalls to ὠφελεῖ in Rom 2:25. 57 Schreiner insists that Paul links the profit (ὠφέλεια) of the Jews in Rom 3:2, who have circumcision, to their salvation, because the cognate word ὠφελέω in Rom 2:25 refers to the “saving advantage” (Schreiner, Romans, 148). However, as I have shown, the co-text of Rom 2:25 is not about the relationship between circumcision and salvation of the Jews. Thus, his understanding of ὠφέλεια in Rom 3:1 as “saving advantage” is not convincing (Jewett, Romans, 242).

192

chapter five

In Rom 3:3–4, Paul deals with the faithfulness of God in the areas of the covenantal relationship and the judgment. In the first place, he responds the objection (v. 3): “if some (Jews) are not faithful, their unfaithfulness will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?”58 Paul rejects such idea with μὴ γένοιτο and reaffirms the faithfulness of God through the contrast between God’s ‘faithfulness’ and Jewish ‘faithlessness’ in v. 4.59 Moreover, Paul even says by the citation of LXX Psalm 50 that the contrast between God’s faithfulness and Jewish faithlessness results in the manifestation of God’s justice (δικαιωθῇς), when God judges sinners. This is because God has already promised judgment on disobedience as well as blessing for obedience in his words (i.e., his oracles). Thus, for Paul, God’s faithfulness cannot be negated by the unfaithfulness of the Jews. Instead, even God’s judgment on the sinfulness of the Jews exhibits God’s faithfulness to his oracles. From the rejection in v. 4, especially in regard to God’s judgment in cc3–13–15, Paul again draws false conclusions and puts them in the voices of the imaginary interlocutor in vv. 5 and 7–8. The questions of the interlocutor have the same assumption, and it is expressed by a conditional construction (cc3–16 [v. 5] and 23 [v. 7]): if God’s divine faithfulness (righteousness [δικαιοσύνη]60 and truth [ἀλήθεια]) is manifested through the unfaithfulness (unrighteousness [ἀδικία] and lies [ψεῦσμα]) of the Jews . . .61 Upon this assumption, the dia58 Some scholars regard that ἠπίστησάν and ἀπιστία in v. 3 also have a meaning of unbelief (Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 71; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:180; H. Räisänen, The Torah and Christ: Essay in German and English on the Problem of the Law in Early Christianity [PFES 45; Helsinki: Finish Exegetical Society, 1986], 189–90; Bell, No One Seeks for God, 204; Jewett, Romans, 244). However, as Keck correctly points out, the co-text is not about Jewish disbelief but about unfaithfulness of the Jews, who disobey the law despite its possession: “their apistia is not their ‘unbelief ’ [NASB], or ‘lack of faith’ [NIV]; the issue is not their ‘faith’ but their infidelity with respect to God’s logia” (Keck, Romans, 91; Moo The Epistle to the Romans, 184). 59 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 184. 60 Some scholars regard this as God’s saving righteousness (Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 126), or the victory over all creation (Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 80–81), or covenantal fidelity (Dunn, Romans 1–8, 134; Piper, The Justification of God, 105–10). However, in this sub-unit, there is no concept of salvation. Rather, the δικ-words only occur in the co-text of God’s judgment. Thus, God’s δικαιοσύνη should be understood as “God’s faithfulness to his own person and word, particularly, as v. 4b [cc3–12–15] reveals, as this is revealed in his judgment of sin” (Hall, “Romans 3:1–8 Reconsidered,” 186–88; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 190). 61 As I have shown in the analysis of semantic domains, these two clauses share the same semantic domains or cognate words with those in v. 4. So, as Schreiner observes

rom :–:

193

logue partner raises a two-fold absurd question about the justness of God’s judgment. One is related to God, who judges sinful humans. In v. 5, the interlocutors cavil at Paul’s preceding statement (v. 4) and ask back about God’s justness in c3–18, “The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is he?” In response to this question, Paul declares the justness of God’s judgment in v. 6. The other sort of absurd question is relevant to humans, especially the Jews, who are the target of God’s judgment. In v. 7, the interlocutor poses a question regarding the unfairness of his/her being a victim of God’s judgment: “But if God’s truth abounds to his glory through my lie, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?” Moreover, the content of the interlocutor’s additional question in cc3–25–30 (v. 8), which is ascribed to Paul’s preaching, is also related to the defense of his/her sinful behavior: “why not say . . . ‘Let us do evil that good may come’?” In regard to this impudent objection, Paul curtly rejects it and affirms the justness of God’s judgment on such people (cc3–31 [v. 8]). Therefore, in vv. 5–8, Paul deals with the matter of the justness of God’s judgment through a two-fold ridiculous objection of the interlocutor. By means of rejecting such absurd questions, he manifests the righteous nature of God’s judgment, on the one hand, and the impudence of the sinners, on the other hand. In summary, according to this analysis of logical relations, some observations can be drawn. First, even though Paul admits the advantage of Jewishness, in that the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God, the possession itself does not guarantee the exemption of the sinners from God’s judgment. Second, the nature of God’s judgment on the sinner is just and righteous, and it is consistent with his covenantal faithfulness towards the Jewish people. Lastly, the Jews cannot be exonerated from God’s righteous judgment, because they are unfaithful and sinful before God. 3) Focality Some prominence markers help to focus on the topical issues in this sub-unit. First, at the sentence level, Paul stresses the advantage of Jewishness in v. 2 with a relatively weak emphatic marker μέν (“indeed”).62 (Schreiner, Romans, 149), I would regard δικαιοσύνη and ἀλήθεια as other renderings of God’s faithfulness, and ἀδικία and ψεῦσμα as those of Jewish unfaithfulness. 62 Louw and Nida (Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 1:811) categorize it as domain 91.B (Markers of Emphasis).

194

chapter five

In c3–11 (v. 4), the use of πᾶς works to emphasize that the Jews belong to the unfaithful humans. His emphasis on the sinfulness of the Jews is also shown through the change of person references in questions of the interlocutor. In the first objection (v. 3), Paul uses the third person plural (τινες and αὐτῶν) to identify the unfaithful Jews. Then, he broadens the boundary of the unfaithfulness to all humans in c3–11 (v. 4). However, when Paul mentions the second objection of the interlocutor in v. 5, he uses the first person plural (ἡμῶν) to identify the interlocutor with the unfaithful people in v. 4. Moreover, when he touches on human sinfulness in v. 7, he makes the interlocutor’s question with the emphatic form of the first person singular (κἀγώ).63 These changes of the person references probably reflect Paul’s rhetorical strategy. Through the effect of narrowing the person references from general third person plural to a specific emphatic form of first person singular, he strongly demonstrates the sinful nature of the interlocutor. On the other hand, Paul also uses prominence markers at the sentence level to stress God’s attributes. In c3–16 (v. 5), he expresses God’s righteousness with a marked word order of qualifier (ql) and head term, θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην. Here, he even emphasizes God’s righteousness through a chiastic contrast of ἀδικία (head term: A)—ἡμῶν (ql: B)—θεοῦ (ql: B´)—δικαιοσύνην (head term: A´). Moreover, the repetitions of the contrast between humans and God work to highlight God’s faithfulness as well as human sinfulness: ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ (c3–8 [v. 3]); ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην (c3–16 [v. 5]); and ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ ψεύσματι (c3–23 [v. 7]). At the level beyond the sentence, the device of contrast between humans and God is also used in cc3–10–11 (v. 4): γινέσθω δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής, πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης. Another device for emphasis is double negation. When Paul puts absurd questions into the mouth of his imaginary interlocutor in vv. 3, 5 and 8 (c3–25), he makes questions with μή, which anticipates a negative answer from the reader.64 Then, he himself refutes such questions with μὴ γένοιτο (vv. 4 and 63

I regard that this first person reference refers to the Jews rhetorically, not to Paul himself (C.H. Cosgrove, “What If Some Have Not Believed? The Occasion and Thrust of Romans 3:1–8,” ZNW 78 (1987), 90–92; Schreiner, Romans, 157; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 193–94; contra Dunn, Romans 1–8, 136; Hall, “Romans 3:1–8 Reconsidered,” 194). 64 Jewett comments on μή in v. 8 that “[a]s a question with μή, the citation of the motto requires a negative answer from the audience that places them firmly on Paul’s side against the insidious interlocutor” (Jewett, Romans, 251).

rom :–:

195

6), or with a short but strong negative response (ὧν τὸ κρίμα ἔνδικόν ἐστιν). The juxtaposition of the μή–question with an answer μὴ γένοιτο is shown in relation to God’s attributes, such as his faithfulness and judging righteousness, and the double negation in v. 8 is related to human sinfulness. Thus, as a rhetorical device, double negation is used in order to stress God’s faithfulness and judging righteousness, and human sinfulness, which is the cause of God’s judgment. In summary, according to the above observations, Paul focuses on three topical issues: (1) the advantage of Jewishness; (2) God’s faithfulness and the justness of his judgment; and (3) the sinfulness of the Jews, who deserve to be under God’s judgment. Among them, it seems that Paul put more emphasis on the last two topical issues. 4) Grouping a) External evidence Rom 3:1–8 is distinguished from the preceding sub-unit by several factors. One is the occurrence of a new interrogative τί οὖν in v. 1. It indicates that Rom 3:1–8 is a different phase in Paul’s argument in spite of the inferential relation to the preceding sub-unit. The second factor is the change of person references from the second person to the third and first persons. In relation to this factor, the third evidence is the use of vivid dialogical style. Even though the use of the second person reference in Rom 2:17–29 reveals its dialogical nature, it seems like an one-way inquest, because there is no response to Paul’s interrogation. However, the dialogical style in Rom 3:1–8 is more obvious, in that the dialogue in this sub-unit consists of a two-way communication. b) Internal evidence As to the internal unity, the framework of dialogical give-and-take helps to see the coherent unity of this sub-unit. Also, the semantic chains in these dialogical interactions contribute to establishing the internal unity of this sub-unit. As observed in the analysis of semantic domains, the semantic domain 31.I connects Paul’s first answer in v. 2 to the second question of the interlocutor in v. 3. This domain also links the second question of the interlocutor to Paul’s second answer in v. 4. This connection provides a semantic ground for the interlocutor’s third question in vv. 5 and 7: δικ-words (ἀδικία, δικαιοσύνην, and ἔνδικόν), κρι-words (κρίνομαι and κρίμα), ἀλήθεια, and ψεύσματι. Thus, the successive questions of the interlocutor result from their attack on Paul’s words. The internal unity of this sub-unit is like this:

196 about Jewish advantage about God’s faithfulness in the covenantal relationship and judgment

chapter five I

1

τί οὖν τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου ἢ τίς ἡ ὠφέλεια . . .

P

2

πολὺ . . . ὅτι ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ

I

3

τί γάρ; εἰ ἠπίστησάν τινες, μὴ ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν

τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ καταργήσει;

P

4

μὴ γένοιτο . . . δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἀληθής . . . ἄνθρωπος

ψεύστης . . . δικαιωθῇς . . . νικήσεις ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε

about God’s justice in his judgment on sinful Jews

about the sinfulness of the Jews that results in God’s judgment

I

5

εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην συνίστησιν ,

τί ἐροῦμεν; μὴ ἄδικος ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν;

P

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω

P

6

μὴ γένοιτο . . . κρινεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον;

I

7

εἰ δὲ ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ θεοῦ . . . ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ ψεύσματι . . .

τί ἔτι κἀγὼ ὡς ἁμαρτωλὸς κρίνομαι; 8

P

καὶ μὴ . . . ὅτι ποιήσωμεν τὰ κακά . . . τὰ ἀγαθά;

ὧν τὸ κρίμα ἔνδικόν ἐστιν

5) Summary As an inference from the preceding argument, Paul touches on the profit of Jewishness and circumcision in Rom 3:1 through the voice of his imaginary interlocutor. For him, the entrustment of God’s oracles (λόγια) is one of the advantages of Jewishness. However, he does not give any false impression to the Jews that the possession of God’s word itself works as an indulgence for their sinfulness. On the contrary, his intention is the other way around. Through the successive questions and negations that he makes, Paul clarifies the point in Rom 1:18–2:29, especially 2:27–29, that the Jews belong to the framework of interaction between human sinfulness and God’s wrath as a response. First, as to the sinfulness of the Jews, Paul explains it by way of the absurd objections of the imaginary interlocutor and his rejections of their claims. The three conditional constructions in this sub-unit are

rom :–:

197

about the sinfulness of the Jews (ἠπίστησάν [v. 3], ἀδικία [v. 5], and ψεύσματι [v. 7]). The assumption of the interlocutor in cc3–16 (v. 5) and 23 (v. 7) arises from Paul’s preceding answer in v. 4, but it also reflects the counter understanding of what Paul argues in Rom 1:18– 2:29, i.e., human sins cause the bringing of God’s wrath. Moreover, the contents of the interlocutor’s question are none other than the direct refutation of Paul’s argumentation that God’s divine wrath is revealed to sinners (cf. Rom 1:18, 2:12).65 But, by way of the device of double negation, Paul not only shows the groundlessness of the objection, but also reaffirms the soundness of his argument that even the Jews are in the realm of sinners. Second, as to the righteous judgment of God, Paul also manifests this idea through the absurd question of his interlocutor and his rejections. Through double negations with μὴ γένοιτο and the contrasts between the unfaithfulness of the Jews and God’s faithfulness, he strongly defends the justness of God’s judgment on sinners, which is one of his major arguments in Rom 1:18–2:29, particularly in Rom 2:12. Therefore, at a glance, this sub-unit may seem to be a digression in Paul’s logic.66 In fact, however, this sub-unit should be understood as a necessary part of Paul’s argument, because, before going into the solution, this sub-unit allows the reader to confirm that the interaction of ‘human sinfulness—divine response (judgment)’ is true even to the case of the Jews who possess the law (cf. Rom 2:12). Paul delivers his intentions through the diatribal conversation and various elements of focality.

65 Actually, c3–24 (v. 7) is strongly reminiscent of Rom 2:12, because both mention the same situation with the same semantic and syntactic elements. Semantically, both clauses contain the same semantic domains: 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt: ἥμαρτον [Rom 2:12] and ἁμαρτωλὸς [Rom 3:7]) and 56.E (Judge, Condemn, Acquit: κριθήσονται [Rom 2:12] and κρίνομαι [Rom 3:7]). Syntactically, God appears as the logical subject, who judges sinners, and the Jews as the logical object of God’s judging action. 66 E.g., Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 70–71; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 183. Cranfield thinks that v. 5 is a digression, because vv. 5–8 deal with the misunderstanding of Paul’s doctrine of grace. However, his idea is not convincing, since he seems to fail to catch Paul’s real concern here. According to the above observations, Paul’s real intention is not to correct the misunderstanding, nor to deliver the right doctrine of grace, but to demonstrate the sinfulness of the Jews. Thus, probably, the best word to describe the mood of this subunit is not grace but judgment.

198

chapter five

B. Rom 3:9–20: Universal sinfulness of humans including Jews and Gentiles 1) Text analysis of Rom 3:9–20

rom :–:

199

200

chapter five

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure This sub-unit consists of six primary, twenty-two secondary, and seven embedded clauses.67 The first four primary clauses constitute the conversation between Paul and his fictitious interlocutor. The secondary clauses are divided into two groups: one is a long OT citation (cc3– 37–58 [vv. 10–18]), and the other is the contents of Paul’s final statement on the law and justification (cc3–60–64). The first six embedded clauses appear in the first group of the secondary clauses. As far as the topical participants are concerned, the major participant in this sub-unit is humans, because all the Subjects are about humans.68 God only appears as the logical actor of the passive verb δικαιωθήσεται in v. 20. Whom, then, does Paul have in mind in this sub-unit? Primarily, it is certain that Paul has the Jews in mind, because the diatribal conversation in v. 9 is related to the preceding dialogues in vv. 1–8. In addition, he mentions that the OT citation is fundamentally applied to the Jews (v. 19). However, it is not unlikely that Paul is only interested in the matters of the Jews in this sub-unit. The OT citations in vv. 10–18 should be understood as the depiction of the sinfulness of both Jews and Gentiles, although the primary intention is to describe the sinful Jews. Moreover, in cc3–62–63, he explains that the sins of the Jews are related to the rest of humanity. Therefore, even though the topical participant of this sub-unit is mainly relevant to the Jews, Paul also has in mind the situation of the Gentiles. b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 8 (Body, Body Parts, and Body Products: x5): B (x4), C (2) 88 (x4): B (Just, Righteous: x2), A, L´

67 (1) Primary clauses: cc3–32, 33, 34, 35 (v. 9), 59 (v. 19), and 65 (v. 20); (2) secondary clauses: cc3–37, 38, 39 (v. 10), 40, 42 (v. 11), 44, 45, 46, 48 (v. 12), 49, 51, 52 (v. 13), 53 (v. 14), 54 (v. 15), 56 (v. 16), 57 (v. 17), 58 (v. 18), 60, 62, 63 (v. 19), and 64 (v. 20); and (3) embedded clauses: cc3–36 (v. 9), 41, 43 (v. 11), 47 (v. 12), 50, (v. 13), 55 (v. 15), and 61 (v. 19). 68 Although God is mentioned as a genitive (φόβος θεοῦ) in c3–58 (v. 18), it should be understood as the objective genitive.

rom :–:

201

(cont.) Semantic domains (3) 12.A (x2); 33 (x2): E (Written Language), F; 9.A (Human Beings: x2) (4) 27.D; 32.A; 42.D; 4.D; 20.C; 22.A; 25.V; 28.A Predicators

(1) (2) (3) (4)

13 (x6): A (State: x5), D (Happen) 33 (x3): V´, E, F 28.A (Know: x2); 65 (Value: x2): E, D 88.U; 59.D; 68.D; 34.E

Complements

(1) 88 (x2): L´, Z (2) 33 (x2): C´´, E (3) 93.A; 11.B; 13.A; 60.B; 7.G; 79.X; 67.E; 41.A; 22.G; 56.D; 12.A

Adjuncts

(1) 8.B (Parts of the Body: x4) (2) 33.E (x2) (3) 89.T; 60.B; 47.A; 42.D

Overall lists

(1) 33 (x9): E (Written Language: the law: x5), F (Speak, Talk: x2), V´, C´´ (2) 8 (x9): B (Parts of the Body: x8), C (3) 13 (x7): A (State: x6), D (4) 88 (x7): B (Just, Righteous: x2), A, L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt: x2), U, Z (5) 12.A (x3) (6) 28.A (Know: x3)

According to the semantic domains, different semantic patterns appear between the first (vv. 10–18) and second secondary groups (vv. 19– 20). In the first secondary group, the OT citation, the most frequent semantic domain is 8 (x8), especially 8.B (x7). It clusters in vv. 13–18, and is composed of the citation of LXX Pss 5:10 (cc3–49–51 [v. 13]); 139:4 (c3–52 [v. 13]); 9:28 (v. 14); Isa 59:7–8 (vv. 15–17); and Ps 35:2 (v. 18). All words are used to describe the sinfulness of the Jews, who are under the power of sin. The second most frequent domain is 13.A (εἰμί: x6). Together with οὐκ, this domain indicates the condition of the Jews in vv. 12–13, a citation of LXX Ps 13:1–3.69 On the other hand, in the case of the second secondary clause group, the main semantic domain is 33.E (νόμος: x4). In relation to this semantic domain, one notable thing is that it appears with other 69 For more detailed explanations on the citations, see Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, 89–99; Jewett, Romans, 259–64.

202

chapter five

important words, such as ἔργων (42.D), σάρξ (9.A) and ἁμαρτίας (88. L´). This combination implies the limitation of the law with regard to salvation. All in all, the above observations reveal that the topical interests in this sub-unit are about the sinfulness of the Jews and the relevance of the law to salvation. c) Analysis of logical relations Rom 3:9–20 begins with a diatribal question τί οὖν, which implies an inference to the preceding sub-unit. Yet the meaning of the following two clauses, προεχόμεθα and οὐ πάντως, is very problematic.70 To begin with, as regards προεχόμεθα, this verb can be read as middle or passive. If προεχόμεθα is understood as middle, it means, “Are we making excuses?” or “Do we have an advantage?” The former understanding has an assumption that the objection in v. 9 is related to Paul’s defense against the interlocutor’s charge in v. 8.71 However, this explanation is not likely, because the co-text does not give any implication of Paul’s polemic against his opponents. Instead, the focus of v. 8 is to show the sinfulness of the Jews, who refute the justness of God’s wrath. The latter reading focuses on Jewish privilege, so it connects to the interlocutor’s question in Rom 3:1.72 According to this view, Rom 3:9–20 seems to work as a reiteration of what Paul argues 70

Textual variants reflect the problematic nature of these clauses. The reading of

προεχόμεθα οὐ πάντως is attested by ‫ א‬B (Dc προκατεχόμεθα) K 33 the majority text. Προεχώμεθα οὐ πάντως is found in A L. The variant προκατεχόμεθα περισσόν is found

in D* G. Among these readings the first one seems to be original, not only because it is attested by many important MSS, but also this reading can explain the existence of other readings. Some MSS read only προεχόμεθα and Dahl (N.A. Dahl, “Romans 3:9: Text and Meaning,” in M.D. Hooker and S.G. Wilson [eds.], Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honor of C.K. Barrett [London: SCPK, 1982], 184–204) and Dunn (Dunn, Romans 1–8, 114–15) insist on reading this as original. However, their contention should be rejected, since this reading is attested by only very weak MSS (P Origen Ephraim). See B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Societies, 1971), 507–508; Jewett, Romans, 253. Interestingly, UBS4 has no mention of these textual variants. 71 T.H. Tobin, “controversy and Continuity in Romans 1:18–3:20,” CBQ 55 (1993), 316; idem, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 121. Some insist on understanding of προεχόμεθα as middle but the Subject is the Jews, “Are we Jews making excuses for ourselves?” (Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 54–55). However, this question does not match well the following arguments. 72 For more explanation on this view, see Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 66–68; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:188–90.

rom :–:

203

in Rom 3:1–8, because both deal with Jewish sinfulness despite their advantage. However, this option has some problems. The first problem is that to translate the middle form of προέχω as ‘have an advantage’ cannot be found elsewhere. The second one is that the question (προεχόμεθα) and Paul’s negation (οὐ πάντως) in Rom 3:9 seem to contradict Rom 3:1, where Paul admits the advantage of Jewishness regarding the law.73 Actually, even in Rom 2:17–29, he does not deny the fact that the Jews have a privilege in relation to the law. Rather, what he criticizes is not their privilege about the law per se, but about their sinful disobedience to the law. On the other hand, if a passive reading is taken, it means “Are we excelled?” or “Are we in a worse position (than they)?” According to this interpretation, since “Paul strongly affirms the justness of God’s wrath against Jewish unfaithfulness in vv. 5–8 and seems to eliminate God’s mercy and forgiveness toward Israel,” he deals with the disappointment or doubtfulness of the advantage of the Jews.74 Consequently, the reason for Paul to reject the disadvantage of the Jews is that, as he has already accused, the Gentiles (Greeks) as well as the Jews are under sin (c3–35). Paul’s citation of the OT also works to describe the sinfulness of all people, including Gentiles. This interpretation seems to be more proper than the understanding of προεχόμεθα as the middle, because it does not meet the above problems. Moreover, this interpretation appears to give a more cogent explanation about the mentioning of Ἕλληνας in c3–35. If προεχόμεθα is understood as the middle meaning, ‘have an advantage,’ there seems to be no need for Paul to mention the sinfulness of the Gentiles. That is, since he has already pointed out the sinfulness of the Jews and the justness of God’s wrath against them in Rom 3:1–8, he can fully respond to the interlocutor’s question without mentioning the sinful case of the Gentiles. However, if προεχόμεθα is about disadvantage of the Jews, this is a new phase in the dialogue between Paul and his Jewish interlocutor, so it seems to be appropriate to use a comparison between the sinful situation of the Jews and Gentiles in order to fortify his negation.

73

Byrne, Romans, 119. Stowers, “Paul’s Dialogue with a Fellow Jew in Rom 3:1–9,” 720; cf. Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of St. Paul, 266–67; Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 76; Fitzmyer, Romans, 330; Keck, Romans, 94–95; Jewett, Romans, 253. 74

204

chapter five

Thus, it would be better to understand προεχόμεθα as a passive verb, which implies the disappointment of the Jewish interlocutor about his advantage. As noted, in response to the interlocutor’s question, Paul negates the disadvantage of Jewishness by οὐ πάντως, and provides the rationale in cc3–35–36 (v. 9) that since all humans, without distinction between the Jews and Gentiles, are under (ὑπό) sin, they are equal in God’s judgment. The wording of these clauses evokes Rom 2:12, where Paul says that God will judge those who commit sins, both the Jews and Gentiles.75 Then, he uses OT citations in vv. 10–18 as the supporting material for his argument.76 Through vv. 19–20, Paul recapitulates various issues of his previous arguments. First, in relation to Rom 2:12, vv. 19–20 function to explain why the Jews cannot be exempt from God’s judgment. According to Paul, there are two reasons for insisting that the Jews are under God’s wrath. One reason is the sinfulness of the Jews, which is already attested by the law (c3–60–61 [v. 19]). The Jews possess the law, but they neglect the fact that what is important before God is not the possession of the law itself, but the obedience to the law. Moreover, their 75

Cf. Rom 3:9: Ἰουδαίους τε καὶ Ἕλληνας πάντας ὑφ᾽ἁμαρτίαν εἶναι Rom 2:12: ὅσοι γὰρ ἀνόμως (Gentiles) ἥμαρτον, ἀνόμως καὶ ἀπολοῦνται καὶ ὅσοι ἐν νόμῳ (Jews) ἥμαρτον διὰ νόμου κριθήσονται 76 The description of the sinfulness of the Jews and Gentiles is very similar to that in Rom 1:18–2:29. For example, Keck compares Rom 3:10–18 with Rom 1:29–32 as below (Keck, Romans, 98): 3:10 There is no one who is righteous 1:29 Filled with all unrighteousness (ἀδικία) (δίκαιος) 3:11 There is no one who understands 1:31 They are foolish (ἀσυνθέτους) (ὁ συνίων) 3:12 There is no one who shows kindness

1:31 They are heartless, merciless

3:13 The venom of vipers is under their lips

1:30 They are slanderers, gossips

3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood 1:29 They are full of murder 3:17 The path of peace they have not known

1:29 They are full of strife

3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes

1:32 They know . . . that those who do these things deserve to die, and yet they not only do them but applaud those who practice them

rom :–:

205

actual sinful attitude and behavior prove their situation as sinners, upon whom God’s wrath will pour out. The other reason is the limitation of the law in bringing God’s salvation. Although Paul mentions a principle in Rom 2:13 that the doer of the law will be justified by God, the Jews cannot be justified by the works of the law, because no σάρξ (v. 20)77 under the power of sin (3:9) is able to perform the works of the law perfectly (cf. Rom 8:3).78 In this situation, the law itself cannot give any power for humans to perform God’s will, since the role of the law is only to reveal what sin is. Thus, the possession of the law cannot be a warrant for God’s salvation. This also implies that even some Gentiles’ doing of the law in Rom 2:14–15 and 26–27 cannot be a way for God’s justification, since they are also the σάρξ under the power of sin. Second, vv. 19–20 provide a key why Paul deals with the matter of the Jews in his argument about God’s judgment on sinful humans. In cc3–62–63 (v. 19), he states that the sinfulness of the Jews causes all people to stand before God’s judgment. It means that, concerning the power of sin, on the one hand, “if Jews, God’s chosen people, cannot be excluded from the scope of sin’s tyranny, then it surely follows that Gentiles, who have no claim on God’s favor, are also guilty.”79 As regards doing the law, on the other hand, “If the Jews, who had the privilege of being God’s covenantal and elected people, could not keep the law, then it follows that no one, including the Gentiles, can.”80

77

Even though σάρξ in v. 20 is another rendering of human being, Paul’s use of this term is not meaningless (contra Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 206 n. 64), since Paul uses this term in the following arguments to designate a weak and feeble human being, who easily succumbs to the power of sin in spite of the possession of the law (esp. Rom 7: 5, 18, 25; 8:3). Actually, the use of σάρξ in Rom 3:20 gives a basis to understand the following occurrences of this term, because σάρξ here is related to the Jews and Gentiles in v. 9, who are under the power of sin, and shows the inability to obtain justification despite the works of the law. 78 The meaning of the ‘works of the law’ is a hot debated issue in Pauline theology. But, according to the previous analyses, this phrase is relevant to one’s keeping the law, not to the Jewish ethnic superiority. So, the traditional reading is more correct than that of the new perspective camp. For the comparison between the two views, see J.D.G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul,” BJRL 65 (1983), 95–122; idem, “New Perspective on Paul: Paul and the Law,” in Romans 1–8, lxiii–lxxii; idem, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 354–71 (New Perspective); C.E.B. Cranfield, “The Works of the Law in the Epistle of the Romans,” JSNT 43 (1991), 89–101; D.J. Moo, “Paul, ‘Works of the Law,’ and First-Century Judaism,” in The Epistle to the Romans, 211–17; Westerholm, Perspective Old and New on Paul, 300–21 (Traditional view). 79 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 206. 80 Schreiner, Romans, 168.

206

chapter five

Therefore, it seems that Paul’s reason to deal with the sinfulness of the Jews is not to give a polemic against his opponents, but to clarify the content of his gospel that all human beings are under the wrath of God, and they urgently need God’s saving righteousness. In summary, Paul begins this sub-unit with the interlocutor’s query about the disadvantage of Jewishness, which is relevant to the situation of the Jews under God’s wrath. In response, however, he does not defend the innocence of the Jews. Instead, by mentioning the equality of the Jews and Gentiles with regard to their sinfulness, Paul not only indicts the sinfulness of the Jews, but also fortifies what has been said that all humans are sinners. Then, he strengthens his argument by appealing to OT citations. Lastly, Paul concludes in vv. 19–20 that the Jews as well as the Gentiles are under God’s impartial judgment by pointing out four important facts: (1) despite the possession of the law, the Jews are sinners because of their disobedience; (2) the law is not the means of justification, but only a way for acknowledging sins; (3) the works of the law cannot bring God’s salvation to all humanity, because all flesh, who are under the power of sin, cannot obey God’s will perfectly; and (4) if the Jews, who know God’s will through the law, fail to keep the law, there is no hope for the Gentiles to be saved by their deeds, because they do not even possess God’s law. Therefore, through this sub-unit, Paul clarifies that all humans are in the paradigm of interaction between human sinfulness and God’s wrathful judgment against it. 3) Focality At the sentence level, several prominence markers work to emphasize the topical elements. To begin with, a frequent use of πᾶς is notable. Except for the case in c3–34 (v. 9), the five occurrences of πᾶς are used to describe the state of humans. According to the use of this word, Paul wants to stress the inclusiveness of human beings with regard to (1) the enslaved condition by the power of sin (cc3–36 [v. 9], 44 [v. 12]; cf. οὐδὲ εἷς [v. 10], ἕως ἑνός [v. 12]),81 (2) the situation of being judged by God (cc3–62–63 [v. 19]), and (3) the inability to achieve God’s saving righteousness by the works of the law (c3–64 [v. 20]). Another

81 Here, the last two have the same meaning as ‘all,’ and also work to emphasize the inclusiveness of sinful human beings.

rom :–:

207

prominence marker is the stative aspect of ἀνεῳγμένος in c3–50 (v. 13), which is also used to depict the sinners. On the other hand, at the level beyond the sentence, the long OT citation can be regarded as a way of highlighting the sinfulness of both Jews and Gentiles. It is one of the longest OT citation passages in Romans. Verses 19–20 are also very special, in that they contain several markers of focality. First, vv. 19–20 contain a relatively high use of πᾶς, three occurrences in two verses. Second, some important topical entities in the previous sub-units are gathered here, including references to the inclusiveness of the Jews and Gentiles, the law, the works of the law, justification (δικ-word), sin, the judgment situation (ὑπόδικος) of human beings before God,82 and the impossibility of all humans to be justified by God. Thus, this sub-unit seems to work as a conclusion to not only this sub-unit, but also the preceding subunits. In summary, according to the above observations, Paul’s focus here is on the inclusive boundary of sinful human beings, from which the Jews are not excluded. This inclusive boundary is also applied to God’s judgment on them, which is irrelevant to the possession of the law. 4) Grouping a) External evidence Just as in Rom 3:1–8, this sub-unit begins with diatribal questions in v. 9, and the dialogical partner is a hypothetical Jewish person(s).83 However, the use of τί οὖν in c3–32 may work as external evidence for grouping, because in many cases in Romans, this expression is used to signify a topical movement from one discourse unit to another (cf. Rom 3:1; 4:1; 6:1, 15; 7:7, 13; 8:31; 9:14, 30).84 In addition, the questions

82

The semantic domain of ὑπόδικος is 56.D (Judicial Hearing, Inquiry). Some scholars think of Rom 3:1–9 as one discourse unit (Stowers, “Paul’s Dialogue with a Fellow Jew in Rom 3:1–9,” 715; Fitzmyer, Romans, 324), or Rom 3:1–18 as one (Porter, “A Newer Perspective on Paul,” 380). 84 Categorizing as an introducing marker of a new subject or a new aspect of a subject, Beekrman and Callow explain this rhetorical question that “These questions introduce conclusions, some of them Paul’s own, some of them false conclusions, representing the view of those who distorted Paul’s teaching” (Beekman and Callow, Translating the Word of God, 243). 83

208

chapter five

in v. 9 show a different pattern in comparison with the three questions in Rom 3:1–8 (vv. 3, 5, 7). The questions in Rom 3:3, 5, and 7 are raised by sharing the same semantic domains with Paul’s preceding answers or rejections (vv. 2 and 4). But the instance in v. 9 has no semantic link to the previous dialogues. Instead, it gives an impression that the interlocutor’s questions are not drawn from a specific word or phrase in Paul’s answers, but from the overall content of his preceding argument. In this sense, even though the interlocutor’s questions in v. 9 do not signify a complete separation of Rom 3:9–20 from Rom 3:1–8, they can be regarded as a beginning of another phase in Paul’s ongoing argumentation. b) Internal evidence In order to be a unity, this sub-unit relies on coherent relations, conjunctions, and cohesive elements, such as a repetitive phrase or semantic domains. The first three primary clauses are composed of questions (cc3–32–33) and answer (c3–34). The fourth primary clause links to c3–34 with γάρ, and the long following OT citations (vv. 10–18) show their connection to v. 9 by καθώς. The OT citation itself also reveals its unity through the repetitive pattern (οὐκ ἔστιν) or semantic domains, such as domain 8 (Body, Body parts, and Body Products). Moreover, the clause ὅσα ὁ νόμος λέγει (c3–61) in v. 19 work to show its relation to vv. 10–18, in that what the scripture says in vv. 10–18 is none other than what the law says. Lastly, vv. 19–20 consist of a series of inferential conjunctions such as ἵνα, διότι, and γάρ. Therefore, as far as the internal evidence for the unity of Rom 3:9–20 are concerned, the coherent elements are used to link the main thread of this sub-unit, and within such thread, the conjunctions and cohesive elements also help to establish the unity of this sub-unit. The internal unity of this sub-unit can be shown as below:

rom :–:

209

Interlocutor (cc3–32–33 [v. 9])

Rom 3:9 τί οὖν; προεχόμεθα;

Paul’s rejection (cc3–34–36 [v. 9])

οὐ πάντως· προῃτιασάμεθα γὰρ Ἰουδαίους τε καὶ

The OT citations (cc3–37–58 [vv. 10–18])

Ἕλληνας πάντας ὑφ᾽ἁμαρτίαν εἶναι 10

καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς

11

οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ συνίων

(repetition)

οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν . . . 12 . . . οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ποιῶν χρηστότητα, ἕως ἑνός 13

Concluding Statement (cc3–59–65 [vv. 19–20])

τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν,

ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν, ἰὸς

(semantic

ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν·

domain 8)

14

ὧν τὸ στόμα ἀρᾶς καὶ πικρίας γέμει

15

ὀξεῖς οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν ἐκχέαι αἷμα . . .

17

καὶ ὁδὸν εἰρήνης οὐκ ἔγνωσαν

18

οὐκ ἔστιν φόβος θεοῦ . . . ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν.

19

οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὅσα ὁ νόμος λέγει . . . νόμῳ λαλεῖ,

ἵνα πᾶν στόμα φραγῇ καὶ . . . πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ θεῷ· 20

διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται . . .

5) Summary On the basis of the argument in Rom 3:3–8, especially vv. 5–8, Paul recapitulates the sinfulness of the Jews and Gentiles by dealing with the interlocutor’s question about their situation under God’s judgment. According to Paul, there is no partiality with regard to God’s judgment, because all humans, including the Jews and Gentiles, are under the power of sin. He attests his thought through long OT citations with several emphatic devices in vv. 10–18. Then, in vv. 19–20, he concludes his arguments by revealing his intention of dealing with the sins of the Jews and God’s impartial judgment upon them. Pointing out the feeble nature of human beings (σάρξ) and the limitation

210

chapter five

of the law, Paul explicates that if the Jews cannot cope with the power of sin despite possession of the law, then there is no possibility for the Gentiles, who do not have the law, to be exempted from God’s judgment. In this way, this sub-unit provides a conclusion to Paul’s argument on the interaction of Jewish sinfulness and God’s wrath in Rom 2:12–3:20, on the one hand, and wraps up the first stage of his gospel (Rom 1:18–3:20), on the other hand. 3. Conclusion As an initial stage of his gospel, Paul explains the universal paradigm of the interaction between human sinfulness and divine wrath in Rom 1:18–2:11. Upon this overall theological paradigm, he deals with the matter of Jewish law from Rom 2:12. Paul provides three important topical elements in Rom 2:12, and all the following arguments in this section go around them. The first element is the law. It is at the center of the issue of Jewishness, and even circumcision is related to the law (Rom 2:17–29). For Paul, the most important thing with regard to the law is not the possession itself, but doing the law. He mentions the connection of the obedience to the law and God’s justification in Rom 2:13. In 3:2, Paul states that the possession of God’s oracles, which includes the law, is regarded as one of the profits of Jewishness. The second topical element is sin (ἁμαρτία) or the act of sin (ἁμαρτάνω). From Rom 2:12 on, the cognates of ἁμαρτία are used to depict the situation of humans, who are under God’s wrathful judgment. As regards the Jews, sin is related to their disobedience to the law (Rom 2:23, 25, and 27). Paul describes the features of Jewish sinfulness through rhetorical questions in Rom 2:17–24, and he accuses the Jew of being a sinner (ἁμαρτωλός) in Rom 3:7. Yet, sinfulness is not the exclusive situation of the Jews. Paul clearly states in Rom 3:9 that all humans including the Jews and Gentiles are under the power of sin. The OT citations in Rom 3:10–18, which describe the sinfulness of the Jews, are also applicable to the Gentiles. The third topical element is God’s judgment on the sinfulness of the Jews. This is a background situation of this section, as well as in Rom 1:18–2:11. In this backdrop, Paul demonstrates the correlation between the law and the sin of the Jews that, although the Jews possess the law, their disobedience makes them unable to be exempt from the interactive paradigm of human sinfulness and divine wrath. Particularly, he delivers this thought through the vivid dialogical interactions

rom :–:

211

with his interlocutor in Rom 3:1–18. Here, the main topical issues are the faithfulness and justness of God, on the one hand, and the unfaithfulness and sinfulness of the Jew, on the other hand. Gathering the above three topical elements, Paul explicates his overall topical interest in light of God’s saving righteousness in Rom 3:19–20. According to Paul, because of the fact that all humans are under the power of sin, it is impossible for them to achieve the benefit of the principle that those who perform the perfect works of the law can be justified (Rom 2:13). Also, the role of the law is not to give salvation, but to make known what sin is. Thus, sinful Jews cannot be exonerated from God’s judgment, despite their possession of the law. Furthermore, such a situation of the Jews makes for the non-Jews to be inexcusable and inescapable in time of God’s judgment on their sins, for all Gentiles are also sinners and the best status of for them is to be in the same state as having the law by their doing the law naturally (cf. Rom 2:14, 26). Therefore, they definitely need to meet the true way for receiving God’s saving righteousness, which is the topic of the following arguments of Paul.

CHAPTER SIX

ROM 3:214:25: GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS THROUGH HUMAN FAITH: A NEW SALVIFIC INTERACTIVE PARADIGM As the first phase of Paul’s gospel, Rom 1:18–3:20 has dealt with the universal interactive paradigm that God’s just judgment will reveal in response to the sinfulness of all humans, including the Jews and Gentiles. Paul manifested that the law cannot be a way for salvation in this framework. However, from Rom 3:21, he begins to explain a different kind of interactive paradigm, focusing on the interaction between human faith and God’s gracious salvation. There is evidence indicating Rom 3:21–4:25 as a new section. Externally, the major evidence is the appearance of faith (πίστις) as a substitute for the law in Rom 3:21–22. Since the law works as the key topical issue in Rom 2:12–3:20, the introduction of faith as the counterpart of the law can imply a topical shift in Paul’s argument. In addition, considering that πίστις has never been mentioned in Rom 1:18–3:20 as a human behavior or attitude that brings God’s salvation,1 the use of this term in relation to God’s saving righteousness signifies a new stage in the ongoing explanation of Paul’s gospel. This observation is also supported by a topical connection of Rom 3:21–22 to Rom 1:16– 17, where Paul states the overall description and content of his gospel of salvation. Both have two important topical elements in common: (1) the universal scope of God’s salvation; and (2) the combination of human faith and God’s saving righteousness. Thus, the beginning of Rom 3:21–4:25 signifies not only a topical shift from Rom 1:18–3:20, but also a topical connection to Rom 1:16–17. In the above topical relations, some internal evidence shows the unity of this section. Among the features, the major evidence is a new salvific interactive paradigm that God’s saving righteousness is

1 Even though the cognates of πίστις appear in Rom 3:2–3, all are about God’s faithfulness (πίστιν) or human unfaithful attitude (ἠπίστησάν, ἀπιστία) with regard to God’s entrustment (ἐπιστεύθησαν) of the law.

214

chapter six

only to those who believe. After being introduced in Rom 3:21–22, it appears throughout this section as the fundamental conceptual framework of Paul’s argument. In this paradigm, each sub-unit links to the preceding one by a lexical or topical connection. For example, Rom 3:27–31 shows its connection with Rom 3:21–26 by the importance of faith, and this topic also links between Rom 4:1–8 and Rom 3:27–31. Rom 4:1–8 and 9–12 are connected by a word μακαρισμός, and Rom 4:9–12 and 13–25 by the concept of father (πάτωρ) and descendants (σπέρμα). Lastly, in the new salvific interactive paradigm, several lexical chains, such as about God’s salvation and human behavior or attitude, also signify the internal cohesion of this section more clearly. The overall depiction of the new salvific interactive paradigm and lexical chains related to it can be shown as below.2

Rom 3:21–26 Overall depiction of the new interactive paradigm (human faith —God’s salvation)

justifica• tion/righteousness apart from the law justifi• cation/righteousness through faith

χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (3:21)

Rom 3:27–31

Rom 4:1–25

• δικαιοῦσθαι • δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (3:28)

χωρὶς ἔργων (4:6)

δικαιοσύνη • δικαιοῦσθαι • ἐπίστευσεν θεοῦ διὰ πίστει (3:28) δὲ Ἀβραὰμ πίστεως (3:22) • ἐκ πίστεως/ τῷ θεῷ καὶ διὰ τῆς ἐλογίσθη πίστεως αὐτῷ εἰς (3:28) δικαιοσύνην

(4:3) • ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ εἰς δικαιοσύνην

(4:3) • δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως

(4:11)

2 Basically, this is borrowed from Benjamin Schliesser (Benjamin Schliesser, Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4 [WUNT 224; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007], 310; cf. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 126), but I modify and re-organize it according to the new interactive paradigm.

rom :–:

215

(cont.) Rom 3:21–26 Rom 3:27–31 Human to the dimension believer(s)

• πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας

(3:22) • τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ (3:26)

Rom 4:1–25

(cf. περιτομὴν • τῷ ἐκ πίστεως ἐκ πίστεως καὶ ἀκροβυστίαν διὰ τῆς πίστεως

Ἀβραάμ

(4:16)

[3:30]) circum• περιτομὴν • περιτομὴν cision and . . . καὶ ἀκρο- ἢ . . . ἀκροuncircumβυστίαν βυστίαν (4:9; cision (3:30) cf. 4:10–12) faith and • πίστεως Ἰησοῦ • πιστεύουσιν Christ/God Χριστοῦ (3:22) ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείρπίστεως Ἰησοῦ αντα [θεόν]) (3:26) (4:24) exclusion of • ἡ καύχησις; • καύχημα, οὐ boasting ἐξεκλείσθη πρὸς θεόν (3:27) (4:2) divine by grace dimension

• τῇ χάριτι (3:24)

(forgiveness • πάντες ἥμαρτον of ) sin (3:23) • πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων

• κατὰ χάριν (4:4) • κατὰ χάριν (4:16) • ἐπεκαλύφθησαν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι (4:7) (παραπτώματα

[4:25])

(3:25)

Based upon the unity of this section, I divide Rom 3:21–4:25 into two units according to topical shift, Rom 3:21–31 (faith and righteousness) and 4:1–25 (an example of Abraham’s case), which have two (Rom 3:21–26, 27–31) and three sub-units (Rom 4:1–8, 9–12, 13–25) respectively.

216

chapter six

1. Rom 3:21–31: A revelation of a new salvific interactive paradigm: God’s righteousness by faith in Jesus A. Rom 3:21–26: The theocentric description of a new salvfic interactive paradigm: God’s initiative through Jesus and human response by faith 1) Text analysis of Rom 3:21–26

rom :–:

217

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 3:21–26 consists of five primary, and two secondary clauses, which have three embedded clauses respectively.3 The primary clauses deliver Paul’s argument about a new salvific interaction between human faith and God’s saving righteousness, and the secondary clauses function to specify God’s work for salvation through Jesus. As to the topical participants, there appear three participants, God, Jesus, and humans. The human beings are shown as the actors of sinful behavior (cc3–71–72 [v. 23]), and as the beneficiary of God’s saving righteousness in the Adjunct (πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας in c3–69 [v. 22] and δικαιούμενοι in c3–73 [v. 24]) and the Complement (τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ in c3–77 [v. 26]). These two depictions denote the difference of their situation: the former refers to the original situation of sinful humans, which brings God’s judgment, and the latter to a new situation in which believers experience God’s saving righteousness through faith. The references to Jesus occur five times (cc3–68 [v. 22], 73 [v. 23], 74 [ὃν, αὐτοῦ αἵματι: v. 25], and 78 [v. 26]), and all are mentioned in relation to the process of God’s salvation. Yet, even though Jesus plays an important role in such a salvific process, Paul does not seem to focus on the active role of Jesus in this sub-unit. It is because Jesus only appears as the object of human faith and as the medium of God’s salvation in the Adjuncts and Complement. Lastly, God appears in this sub-unit as the most significant participant in the process of salvation. It is God who takes the initiative and gives salvation to humans (cc3–66 [v. 21], 68 [v. 22], 73 [v. 24]).4 Also, God is the actor who puts Jesus as the medium of his salvation (c3–74 [v. 25]). Moreover, when God is mentioned in the Adjuncts in vv. 25–26, the centrality of God is revealed by the repetitive descriptions that God’s righteousness is the purpose of his salvific action.5

3 (1) Primary clauses: cc3–66 (v. 21), 68, 70 (v. 22), 71, 72 (v. 23); (2) secondary clauses: cc3–74, 76 (v. 25): and (3) embedded clauses: cc3–67 (v. 21), 69 (v. 22), 73 (v. 24) in the primary clauses; cc3–75 (v. 25), 77, 78 (v. 26) in the secondary clauses. 4 Here, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (c3–68) contains the connotation of the subjective genitive, i.e., God’s initial saving activity, and the logical actor of the passive verb πεφανέρωται (c3–66) and participle δικαιούμενοι (c3–72) is God. 5 (1) Εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ; (2) πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ (v. 25); and (3) εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον κτλ. (v. 26).

218

chapter six

Therefore, according to the above observations, the overall principle of the interaction between God and humans is the same as that in Rom 1:18–3:20, in that God responds to the human behavioral attitude. However, the content is very different. In the new salvific interactive paradigm, God takes the initiative by putting Jesus as the medium of redemption, and reveals his saving righteousness as a new response to the sinful humans, who respond to God by faith. Moreover, even though the role of Jesus is important, it is God who is the central participant in this new interactive paradigm in Rom 3:21–26. Consequently, this sub-unit should be understood as a theocentric description on the justification by faith, not as Christocentric.6 b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 12.A (x3) (2) 34.E: (Establish or Confirm a Relation: justification: x2) (3) 58.F

Predicators

(1) 13.A (State: x2) (2) 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt); 30.D; 28.C (Well Known, Clearly Shown, Revealed)

Complements

(1) 79.E; 12.A; 40.B

6 Contra D.A. Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26 (JSNTSup 65; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 191–97. Relying on the repetition of διὰ + genitive structures, such as (1) διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (v. 22), (2) διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (v. 24), and (3) διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως (v. 25), he argues that Rom 3:21–26 should be read as Christological, because the focus of these διὰ + genitive structures is on Jesus. However, his view is not likely. According to Campbell, the second διά construction does not connect to δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι because of its repetitive pattern. Contrary to his contention, however, it should be seen that the second διά construction links to the preceding two Adjuncts (δωρεὰν and τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι) in v. 24. Here, the head term in the διὰ + genitive structure is not Jesus but ἀπολυτρώσεως, whether it is linked to δωρεὰν and τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι in v. 24 or to πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in v. 22. The more important thing is that the nature of ἀπολυτρώσεως is related to God, not Christ, in that it is God who redeems sinful people. In this sense, ἀπολυτρώσεως should be connected to δωρεὰν and τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι in v. 24, because these two are related to God. Consequently, it is more natural to think that together with δωρεὰν and χάριτι, ἀπολυτρώσεως can be viewed as another depiction of the means of God’s salvation. Therefore, since the second διὰ + genitive structure cannot be isolated from v. 24, his threefold parallel construction cannot be established, and his Christological view is highly doubtful.

rom :–:

219

(cont.) Semantic domains Adjuncts

(1) 88 (x5): B (Just, Righteous: x3), L´, I (Kindness, Harshness) (2) 31.I (Trust, Rely: x4) (3) 93.A (Persons: Jesus Christ: x3) (4) 33 (Communication: x3): E (Written Language: the law: x2), T (5) 34.E (x2); 28.C (x2); 13 (x2): A, D; 67.E (x2) (6) 53.I; 57.H (Give); 37.J (Release, Set Free); 8.B (Parts of the Body); 30.B; 25.O; 12.A; 28.C

Overall lists

(1) δικ-words (x7): 88.B x3; 34.E (x4) (2) 12.A (x4); 31.I (cognates of πίστις: x4); 13 (x4):A (x3), D; 33.E (x2) (4) 93.A (x3), 28.C (x3) (5) 33.E (x2), 67.E (x2), 88.L´ (x2)

The main semantic domain of the Subject is 12.A (God: x3). The appearance of 12.A as the actor of προέθετο in v. 25 refers to God as an initiator of the salvation process, and the combination of 12.A and 34.E (δικ-words) in vv. 21–22 demonstrates God as the provider of salvation. In the Adjuncts, various semantic domains appear, such as 31.I (πιστ-words: x4), 88.B (x3), 93.A (x3), 33.E (νόμος: x3), 34.E (x2), 28.C (ἔνδειξιν: x2), 88.I (χάρις), 57.H (δωρεάν), and 37.J (ἀπολυτρώσεως). In the Complement in c3–73 (v. 25), three semantic domains appear: 12.A, 31.I, and 40.B (ἱλαστήριον). With regard to the topical participants, the above semantic domains show certain patterns. God (12. A) links with several semantic domains, such as δικ-words (34.E, 88.B), 40.B, 88.I, and etc. Jesus (93.A) appears in relation to 40.B and 8.B (αἷμα), and human beings are mentioned with 31.I, 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt), and 34.E. To identify these semantic domains seems to be easy, on the surface. However, it is not always simple to determine the exact nature and meaning, so that many words in the above semantic domains have been issues of scholarly debate. Just like a bombshell, each word has been exploded whenever interpreters touch it.7 The first one is the nature of πίστις (31.I). Here, 31.I and 33.E (the law) are mentioned as

7 Campbell surveys the issues in this sub-unit and classifies the questions into four major categories: (1) lexical; (2) grammatical; (3) syntactical; and (4) theological questions (Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26, 34–37).

220

chapter six

an antithetical means of salvation. Especially, with the combination of 93.A (Jesus), 31.I is said to be the only way for humans to be justified before God. However, what is the nature of πίστις? Is it the human act of believing or divine faithfulness, such as the faithfulness of Jesus? Those who interpret Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in v. 22 as the subjective genitive insist that the phrase πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ should be understood as ‘the faith(fullness) of Jesus Christ.’8 They contend that the core contrast between the works of law and πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is the antithesis between human and divine works, not between human good works and believing. In other words, for them, Paul’s purpose is to show the contrast between human-based salvation and divine-based salvation. Even though their view seems to be theologically attractive, the text does not support their perspective. In the first place, externally, there is “a conscious change” of the genitive structure (διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) into the dative (διὰ πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) in the manuscript of Alexandrinus, which is “the fourth oldest extant interpretation of this verse.”9 It implies that the ancient scribes seemed to acknowledge the problem of this phrase and inserted ἐν to make clear that “it is not a faith that originates with Christ or his faithfulness, but a faith that resides in Christ.”10 In the second place, internally, contrary to the contention of the subjective reading of πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Jesus is never mentioned as the active actor in Rom 3:21–26.

8 For example, R.N. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 149–52; G. Howard, “On the ‘Faith of Christ’,” HTR 60 (1967), 459–65; idem, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 (1973–74), 212–15; D.W. Robinson, “Faith of Jesus Christ—A New Testament Debate,” RTR 29 (1970), 71–81; G.M. Taylor, “The Function of πίστις Χριστοῦ in Galatians,” JBL 85 (1966), 58–76; S.K. Williams, “Again Pistis Christou,” CBQ 49 (1987), 431–47; Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, 156–61; idem, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ and Pauline Christology: What Is at Stake?,” in E.E. Johnson and D.M. Hay (eds.), Pauline Theology. Volume IV: Looking Back, Pressing on (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 35–60; L.E. Keck, “ ‘Jesus’ in Romans,” JBL 108 (1989), 452–57; M.D. Hooker, “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” NTS 35 (1989), 321–42; B.W. Longenecker, “πίστις in Romans 3:25: Neglected Evidence for the ‘Faithfulness of Christ’?,” NTS 39 (1993), 478–80. 9 S.E. Porter, “The Rhetorical Scribe: Textual Variants in Romans and Their Possible Rhetorical Purpose,” in S.E. Porter and D.L. Stamps (eds.), Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible (JSNTSup 195; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 417. 10 Porter, “The Rhetorical Scribe,” 417. This observation also breaks some scholars’ unwarranted romantic conjecture that “[t]he ancients . . . were not nearly so troubled by analysis of ambiguity as we are—indeed they relished it. Critics who refuse to take that seriously are simply failing to face the realities of ancient usage” (Bryan, A Preface to Romans, 109; cf. N. Turner, A Grammar of NT Greek. ΙΙΙ. Syntax [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963], 210).

rom :–:

221

In fact, although God and even humans appear as the logical actor in this sub-unit, no words about the act or thought appear in relation to Jesus, except for πίστις in v. 22. Even though Paul mentions the significance of Jesus’ obedience to death in the process of salvation in Romans 5, he never designates such obedience of Jesus as πίστις. More importantly, in the following argument, faith only appears in a co-text where the ‘doing’ dimension of human action is contrasted with its ‘believing’ dimension. For example, when Paul speaks of Abraham’s case in Rom 4:2–3, he uses the human act of believing (ἐπίστευσεν) as a counterpart of human works (ἐξ ἔργων). Thus, in light of the flow of Paul’s argument, the best reading of πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is ‘faith in Jesus Christ.’11 The second vexing problem is the character of redemption (ἀπολυτρώσεως) in v. 24. As for this, R. Jewett lists four kinds of understanding:12 (1) a deliverance of a group from any form of captivity;13 (2) a ransoming of captives by paying the price of exchange;14 (3) freeing a slave either by legal writ of manumission or by purchase;15 and (4) a specialized theological concept of salvation through forgiveness of sins.16 These four options share a common concept, in that this word denotes emancipation from certain bondage. Especially in this subunit, it is related to the liberation from slavery of the power of the sin (cf. Rom 3:9). However, the problem is whether this freedom involves a payment or not. In my view, redemption in Christ here has a concept of cost, because Paul spells out the ‘free’ nature of God’s salvation with δωρεάν and χάριτι. Moreover, the sacrificial blood of Jesus could be

11 For more detailed defense of this view, see Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” 61–81; Byrne, Romans, 124–25, 130; Schreiner, Romans, 181–86; C.E.B. Cranfield, “On the Πίστις Χριστοῦ Question,” in On Romans and Other New Testament Essays (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 81–97; R.B. Matlock, “Detheologizing the ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate: Cautionary Remarks from a Lexical Semantic Perspective,” NovT 42 (2000), 1–23; Lee, “Against Richard B. Hays’s ‘Faith of Jesus Christ’,” 51–80. 12 Jewett, Romans, 282–83. More extensively, Campbell lists ten options (Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26, 120–21). 13 Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 77–78; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 1:189; M. Black, Romans (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 59; Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26, 119–30. 14 Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 86; Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 76; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 116; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 229. 15 A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (Rep.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 322–34. 16 K. Κertelge, “ἀπολύτρωσις,” EDNT 1 (1991), 138.

222

chapter six

regarded as the cost of redemption.17 Thus, ἀπολύτρωσις refers to the redemption from slavery of sin, which occurs as a result of Christ’s sacrificial death. The third problem is the meaning of ἱλαστήριον in v. 24. Does it denote a ‘mercy seat’ in Leviticus 16 or a general means of propitiation?18 Does it mean expiation, a removal of sins,19 or propitiation, an appeasement of God’s wrath?20 As to the former question, even though there are some overlapping areas between the general Greek usage of this term and that of Jewish cultic meaning, the analogy of Leviticus 16 seems to be more plausible for several reasons. First, since Paul, a Jew, has already given the OT as a witnesses of God’s salvation in v. 21, it is not too much to think that Paul has the situation of Leviticus 16 in mind in connecting ἱλαστήριον with God’s handling of human sin (ἁμάρτημα) by the blood (αἷμα).21 In Leviticus, 16, ἱλαστήριος refers to a lid of the ark in the Holy of Holies, on which the sacrificial blood is sprinkled for the removal of sins. Thus, it is possible to think that through this word, Paul describes Jesus’ death as the locus of

17

I.H. Marshall, “The Development of the Concept of Redemption in the New Testament,” in R. Banks (ed.), Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L.L. Morris on His Sixtieth Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 153–69; Schreiner, Romans, 190–91; contra Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26,130. 18 A. Deissmann, “ἱλαστήριος und ἱλαστήριον: Eine Lexikalische Studie,” ZNW 4 (1903), 207–208; L. Morris, “The Meaning of ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3:25,” NTS 2 (1955–56), 36–37. 19 C.H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), 82–95. 20 L. Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London: Tyndale Press, 1955), 125– 85; R.R. Nicole, “C.H. Dodd and the Doctrine of Propitiation,” WJT 17 (1954–55), 117–57. 21 Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26, 130–33. The idea that the allusion of martyrdom theology in 4 Macc 17:21–22 is present is not likely. Even though the early date of 4 Maccabees is accepted (E. Bickermann, Studies in Jewish and Christian History [Leiden: Brill, 1976], 275–81), it is more plausible to think that Paul interprets the role of Jesus in the process of God’s salvation through the lens of the OT than that of contemporary writing (P. Stuhlmacher, “Recent Exegesis on Romans 3:24–26,” in Reconciliation, Law and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology [trans. E. Kalin; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], 94–109; Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26, 134 n. 1; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 234 n. 74; contra E. Loshe, Märtyrer und Gotteskbecht: Untersuchngen zur ruchristlichen Verkündigung vom Sühntod Jesu [Götingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955], 150–52; S.K. Williams, Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept [HDR 2; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975], 40–41; J.S. Pobee, Persecution and Martyrdom in the Theology of Paul [JSNTSup 6; Sheffield: JSOP Press, 1985, 61–63; Stowers, A Rereading of Romans, 206–13; Schreiner, Romans, 192 n. 24).

rom :–:

223

sacrificial atonement, on which God deals with the problem of human sins. Accordingly, it is possible to translate this term as ‘a mercy seat,’ although ‘a means of propitiation’ is not totally incorrect. As to the latter question, on the other hand, the nature of ἱλαστήριον seems to be expiation, because Jesus’ death is linked with the removal of human sin on the day of atonement.22 However, the concept of propitiation cannot be excluded in Paul’s wording with ἱλαστήριον, because the whole of Rom 1:18–3:20 is about the relationship between human sinfulness and God’s wrath against it. Thus, as to the latter question, it is better to say that atonement through Jesus’ sacrifice results in both the removal of human sin and of the wrath of God. The fourth problem is the meaning of the righteousness of God in vv. 25–26. There is little objection to interpreting δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ in vv. 21–22 and δικαιούμενοι in v. 24 as God’s saving righteousness and its resultant state, respectively. However, the problem is whether the δικ-words in vv. 25–26 have the same connotation as God’s saving righteousness. Although many scholars argue that all δικ-words in this sub-unit indicate God’s saving righteousness,23 I would insist that the δικ-words in vv. 25–26 refer to God’s judging righteousness, except for δικαιοῦντα in c3–78 (v. 26).24 The first reason is the purpose infinitive clause εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον in c3–77 (v. 26). The δικ-word in this clause denotes God’s attribute of justice, and it indicates that the purpose of God’s putting forward Jesus as ἱλαστήριος is to manifest his righteous attributes. Consequently, the δικαιοσύνη in the two infinitive phrases in vv. 25 and 2625 can be interpreted as God’s justice, because these clauses also signify the purpose of God’s putting forward

22 Jewett says that “Since blood had a cleansing rather than a directly atoning function with regard to the mercy seat, the long-standing debate about propitiation or expatiation is largely irrelevant for the interpretation of this verse (Jewett, Romans, 285–86; cf. C.M. Tuckett, “Atonement in the NT,” ABD 1 [1992], 519). However, his reading is not correct, because the core process of the atonement in Leviticus 16 is not the burnt offering but the sprinkle of blood. The burnt offering does not appear in the context of the removal of Israel’s sins. 23 Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 160; W.G. Kümmel, “πάρεσις and ἔνδειξις: A Contribution to the Understanding of the Pauline Doctrine of Justification,” JTC 3 (1967), 5; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 1:193–98; Stuhlmacher, “Recent Exegesis on Romans 3:24–26,” 99; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 173–75; Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26, 157–76. 24 Schliesser, Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4, 292. 25 Εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ (v. 25); and πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ (v. 26).

224

chapter six

Jesus as a means of sacrificial atonement.26 The second reason is the understanding of διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων. Those who argue for the saving righteousness often understand the structure of διὰ + accusative as instrumental or telic in meaning, and πάρεσιν as ‘forgiveness.’27 However, there is little grammatical and lexical support for these options. Indeed, the more natural reading of it is “because of passing over the sins committed before.”28 Therefore, I would interpret the righteousness in vv. 25–26 as God’s righteous character.29 In sum, from the above observations, domain 12.A (God) emerges as the main semantic domain in the Subject, and it is a very important factor to untangle the complexities of several words in the Adjuncts. That Jesus appears with blood and a sacrificial death signifies the role of Jesus as the medium of God’s salvific process. Lastly, the semantic domains related to human beings are sin, the act of believing, and δικword. The first two are related to the human response to God, and the δικ-word refers to the result of human faith. c) Analysis of logical relations Paul begins Rom 3:21–26 with νυνὶ δέ, which implies the contrasting nature of this sub-unit to the preceding part. As many scholars think, this phrase may contain a temporal dimension, in that what this sub-unit deals with is a salvation-historical change, which consists of a contrast between before and after God’s salvation through Jesus.30 However, it is possible to understand for several reasons that the main thrust is not a temporal shift, but a logical contrast. First, although νυνὶ δέ may imply a shift in salvation history,31 the use of the perfect 26

Schreiner, Romans, 195. In this case, this phrase is translated as “by way of (or for the purpose of ) the forgiveness of the sins committed before” (cf. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 98). 28 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 238–39. 29 For more detailed explanation, see Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:208–18; Piper, The Justification of God, 115–30; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 237–40; Schreiner, Romans, 195–98. 30 E.g., Leenhardt, The Epistle to the Romans, 98; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 164; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 221; Schreiner, Romans, 180; etc. 31 The concept of salvation history may contain both logical and temporal antitheses. Yet it is not likely that every passage related to salvation history deals with these two kinds of antithesis with equal emphasis. That is, depending on the argumentative context, it is possible for Paul to put one of the two more forward than the other. Thus, one needs to consider various deictic markers to decide the more stressed dimension of the two, although sometimes the clear-cut distinction is not necessary. 27

rom :–:

225

passive verb πεφανέρωται does not justify the temporal shift of this sub-unit, because, except for this, there is no suggestion of the temporal change in vv. 21–22.32 Indeed, the perfect tense can be regarded as a device for focusing on the state of the revelation of God’s salvific righteousness, which is contrasted to the revelation (ἀποκαλύπτω) of God’s wrath in Rom 1:18. Second, the relationship between vv. 20 and 21–22 gives more emphasis to the logical change. Verse 21 is related to c3–65 (v. 20), in that both verses mention the function of the law. Yet v. 21 states that the function of the law, which is related to the knowledge of human sins (v. 20), is useless in experiencing God’s salvation. Hence, the focal point of the contrast shown in v. 21 is the means of God’s salvation, i.e., the contrast between διὰ νόμου and χωρὶς νόμου. Verse 22 is also relevant to c3–64 (v. 20), in that they share common elements, such as God’s salvation (δικαιωθήσεται [v. 20] and δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ [v. 22]), a means of salvation (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου [v. 20] and διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [v. 22]), and the beneficiary of salvation (πᾶσα σὰρξ [v. 20] and εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας [v. 22]). Here, the contrasting point is the means and beneficiary of God’s salvation.33 Even in the contrast of the beneficiary, the key difference is the existence and nonexistence of believing. Therefore, according to this comparison, Paul wants to put more stress on the logical contrast between vv. 20 and 21–22, and νυνὶ δέ here is used to introduce such logical contrast.34 The heart of the contrast is a means of experiencing God’s salvation. After introducing the true way of being justified by God, Paul states through a reason clause (c3–70 [v. 22]) that the impartiality of God is even applied to the process of salvation. Then, in the following clauses, he elucidates why there is no distinction in God’s salvation. The reason is two-fold. One is that all humans, before being saved, have the same condition, in that they all are sinners and fall short of the glory

32 Contra Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:201–202. Porter says that “any conception of the Perfect function cannot be essentially temporally based, not only since the analogy of the Aorist and Present tense cannot hold…, but since the Perfect itself functions in a variety of temporal contexts” (Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, 256). 33 In this sense, vv. 20–22 show a chiastic structure of A (a means of salvation [ἐξ ἔργων νόμου] and its beneficiary [πᾶσα σὰρξ])—B (the role of the law [διὰ νόμου])— B´ (the role of the law [χωρὶς νόμου])—A´ (a means of salvation [διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] and its beneficiary [εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας]). 34 Jewett, Romans, 272.

226

chapter six

of God (cc3–71–72 [v. 23]). The other reason is that the justification of a sinner is not determined by the human condition or situation. But it is only through God’s grace and his deliverance of sinners from the power of sin in and through Jesus Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ). In this sense, Paul designates the justification of sinners as God’s free gift (δωρεάν) in c3–73 (v. 24). When Paul explains the impartiality of God’s salvation, he also deals with another important dimension in vv. 25–26.35 In comparison to Rom 1:18–3:20, where Paul mentions an interactive paradigm of human sinfulness and God’s wrath against it, he provides in vv. 23–24 an interaction between human faith and God’s salvation as a new interactive paradigm between sinful humans and God. Where, then, is God’s justness in the new interactive paradigm, which is the crucial factor in the former paradigm (e.g., Rom 1:17–18; 2:12; 3:5)? In vv. 25–26, Paul deals with this issue in connection with redemption in Christ (c3–73). At first, Paul reveals by putting God as the actor of the redemptive process that salvation through Jesus is from God’s initial plan and acts.36 Then, through a purpose and reason prepositional construction in v. 25,37 he explains the relationship among Jesus’ sacrificial atonement, God’s justness, and God’s passing over human sins previously committed. God’s setting forth Jesus as an atoning sacrifice is related to his overlooking the sins of those who lived before Christ’s death.38 It implies that God has planned to show and satisfy his justness through the death of Jesus, which is a substitution of human sins (cf. Rom 4:25). Accordingly, God’s overlooking the previous sins of humans is not contradictory to his righteous attribute, for he indeed performed his plan and revealed his full righteousness through the 35 Even though there is a debate on the origin of this part, one thing that should not be neglected is that this part is under Paul’s control. That is, regardless of its origin, it is Paul who writes the contents of vv. 25–26 in the flow of his argumentation. Thus, before everything else, Rom 3:25–26 should be understood in light of the present co-text and the flow of Paul’s arguments. As to the debates on the origin, see Campbell, The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26, 37–57; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 220–21 nn. 7, 8. 36 Προέθετο (Predicator: middle voice verb) ὁ θεὸς (Subject: logical actor) ἱλαστήριον (Complement: logical goal). 37 Εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ (purpose) and διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων (reason). 38 In a salvation-historical perspective, I agree to a view that “the sins committed before (τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων)” are the sins of those who were before Christ’s atonement (Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:212 n. 1; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 239–41; Schreiner, Romans, 195).

rom :–:

227

cross of Jesus in the present era of salvation history (ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ). Moreover, God’s justness is even satisfied when he justifies those who put their faith in Jesus (c3–77 [v. 26]). Therefore, concerning the question of God’s justness and forgiveness of sins in the new interactive paradigm of human faith and divine salvation, Paul’s answer is the cross of Jesus, which God puts at the center of his salvation process in order to reveal his saving and judging righteousness. T.R. Schreiner aptly summaries this issue: Vv. 25–26 also solve the problem that has been building since 1:17. How do the saving and judging righteousness of God relate to each other? How can God mercifully save people without compromising his justice? Paul’s answer is that in the death of Jesus the saving and judging righteousness of God meet. God’s justice (εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον) is satisfied in that the death of his Son pays fully for human sin. He can also extend mercy (καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ) by virtue of Jesus’ death to those who put their faith in Jesus.39

In summary, from the above logical relations, three topical issues with which Paul deals in this sub-unit can be drawn: (1) God’s righteousness and the human faith in Jesus as the means of experiencing God’s salvation (vv. 21–22); (2) the impartiality of God in his salvation (vv. 23–24); and (3) a question of God’s justness in the new salvific interaction between human faith and divine grace or salvation (vv. 25–26). In all of these three topical issues, God is located at the center of Paul’s argument. 3) Focality In relation to the topical issues, several expressions are used to stress them. First, at the sentence level, two stative aspect verbs, πεφανέρωται (v. 20) and προγεγονότων (v. 25), are noticeable. The former works to emphasize the appearance of a new situation, which is very different from that in vv. 19–20. Besides, it also stresses the change of God’s response to humans from his wrath in Rom 1:18 to his saving righteousness. Denoting human sinful behavior, the latter seems to stress the contrast between God’s overlooking human sins in the past and his justness in the present era, because νῦν καιρῷ in c3–76 is contrasted to the prefix of προγεγονότων. Another prominence marker is πᾶς in cc3– 69 and 71. It implies the contrast between the universal scope of God’s

39

Schreiner, Romans, 198.

228

chapter six

salvation (c3–69) and human sins (c3–71).40 In v. 24, a marked word order of ‘ql (qualifier)—head term’ appear in cc3–73 (αὐτοῦ χάριτι) and 74 (αὐτοῦ αἵματι). As the means of salvation, each stresses God’s grace and the centrality of Jesus’ death in the process of salvation, respectively. Lastly, the device of repetition is also used to show Paul’s topical interests. In v. 22, he highlights the importance of the human act of believing by mentioning it twice: πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας. When Paul explains God’s justification in c3–75 (v. 25), he emphasizes its nature with three Adjuncts, all of which exclude room for human effort for salvation.41 Second, at the level beyond the sentence, Paul also uses rhetorical devices, such as repetitions and contrasts, in order to stress his topical interests. When describing the change in the process of salvation in vv. 21–22, he reveals the importance of God’s saving righteousness by a device of repetition. Also, he stresses the role of the human act of believing through an antithesis between the law (χωρὶς νόμου) and faith (διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). In vv. 23–24, the change of human condition is expressed by a contrast between their prior sinful condition and present righteous state. In vv. 25–26, Paul also uses a device of repetition. Here, he mentions ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ two times in order to stress the correlation between God’s putting forward Jesus as an atoning sacrifice and his justness. Moreover, he uses a peculiar feature to demonstrate this theme, such as a series of prepositional structures without any connections: διὰ . . . ἐν . . . εἰς . . . διὰ . . . ἐν . . . πρὸς . . . ἐν . . . εἰς . . .42 In sum, according to these observations, Paul’s topical focus seems to be on (1) the human act of believing, which is the way for humans to experience God’s salvation, (2) the initiative of God in the process of salvation, (3) the scope of God’s salvation, (4) the importance of Jesus’ death, and (5) God’s justness in the process of salvation. All of these interests are mentioned in relation to God’s salvation.

40 Here, the ‘all’ in c3–69 is different from that in c3–71, in that the ‘all’ in c3–69 only applies to those who believe. 41 Jewett, Romans, 281. 42 Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:199.

rom :–:

229

4) Grouping a) External evidence Although νόμος in v. 21 implies a connection of Rom 3:21 to the preceding sub-unit, νυνὶ δέ and the contrast between the law and faith signify a transition of Paul argumentation into a new phase. The introduction of the cognates of πίστις in Rom 3:22 especially serves as clear external evidence for regarding this sub-unit as a new discourse unit. This is because these terms have never been mentioned as a human act of believing or a factor for salvation in Rom 1:18–3:20. Thus, this sub-unit can be viewed as the beginning of the new phase in Paul’s argument. b) Internal evidence The internal unity of this sub-unit is established by two important factors. One is the use of conjunctions. The three kinds of conjunctions (δέ, γάρ, and καί) connect the five primary clauses. First, δέ connects the first (v. 21) and second primary (v. 22) clauses. Yet its function is not to signify the adversative relationship between the two clauses, but to show with stress that v. 22 works as an exposition of v. 21.43 Second, γάρ links the universal efficacy of God’s salvation in c3–69 to the impartiality of God’s saving righteousness in c3–70. Similarly, this conjunction also connects cc3–71–72 (vv. 23–24) to c3–70, and indicates that cc3–71–72 provide a rationale for the statement of God’s impartial salvation in c3–70. Lastly, καί connects cc3–71 and 72, which mention human sinfulness and its result. The second factor in the internal unity of this sub-unit is lexical chains. Particularly, the chains of πιστ-words and δικ-words are important. Throughout this sub-unit they designate the human behavioral attitude and God’s response to it respectively. Moreover, each group also appears in connection with the major topical participants, such as God and Jesus. Thus, the lexical chains of πιστ-words and δικ-words, together with their connection with God and Jesus, help to identify of the internal unity of this sub-unit. The above observations can be diagrammed as below:

43 Porter views the use of δέ in v. 22 as emphatic (Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 208).

230 God

chapter six 21

νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται . . .

22

δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς πάντας

Jesus τοὺς πιστεύοντας. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολή 23

πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον καὶ ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ

24

δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι . . . τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

25

ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ . . . ἁμαρτημάτων

26

ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ . . . ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ . . . εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ

πίστεως Ἰησοῦ

5) Summary By way of contrasting the contents of Rom 3:20, Paul begins to provide a new interactive paradigm between humans and God in this sub-unit. While the dominant interactive paradigm in Rom 1:18–3:20 is the interaction between sinful humans and God’s wrath against it, the new paradigm is the interaction between human faith and divine grace or salvation. The introduction of this new interactive paradigm signifies that Rom 3:21–26 is an inauguration of a different phase in Paul’s argument. This sub-unit is also related to the heart of his gospel, because Rom 3:21–22 shares several topical elements with Rom 1:16–17, such as God’s saving righteousness, human faith as a means of experiencing God’s salvation, and the openness of salvation to all humans. In addition to these elements, the new phase of God’s salvific process contains other significant factors. One factor is the role of God, who begins and operates the process of salvation. In this sub-unit, Paul states this factor as a more prevailing topical issue than others. The other factor is Jesus, whom God put at the center of the salvific process. Through the sacrificial death of Jesus, God deals with not only the problem of human sins, but also the question of his justness that arises in the process of passing over the sin. Moreover, this role of Jesus also determines the nature of human faith. In short, what Paul states in this sub-unit is the salvific stage of his gospel. With a theocentric perspective, he puts God as the one who

rom :–:

231

begins the process of salvation and operates it through a crucial role of Jesus Christ. Moreover, for Paul, the act of believing in Jesus is also an important element for humans to participate in such a salvific process. B. Rom 3:27–31: The importance of faith 1) Text analysis of Rom 3:27–31

232

chapter six

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 3:27–31 is structured around thirteen primary clauses, which are terse questions and answers. Interestingly, only two out of these thirteen clauses have the Subject (cc3–79 [v. 27] and 87 [v. 29]), while the remaining six clauses have the Adjunct (cc3–81–84 [v. 27]) or the Adjunct and Complement (cc3–88–89 [v. 29]) only. The secondary clauses (cc3– 90–92) appear in v. 30, and one embedded clause is in v. 28 (c3–86). As to the topical participants, one needs to consider two kinds of participants on account of the dialogical nature of this sub-unit. The first kind is the participants of the dialogue, who have a give-andtake conversation. It is certain that Paul is a leading participant. Who, then, is his dialogical partner? Several pieces of evidence help to indicate the nature of the interlocutor. At first, the interlocutor’s position seems to be relevant to the Jews, because the question in v. 31 is about the status of the law. Second, the imaginary interlocutor shows a positive attitude towards Paul’s thought. Whereas the interlocutor in Rom 3:1–8 emerges as an objector to Paul’s argument, the one in this sub-unit seems to appear as a simple questioner, who does not resist Paul’s argument.44 Moreover, in two instances, this interlocutor agrees with Paul’s thought. By οὐχί, Paul’s dialogue partner induces a positive answer to the status of the Gentiles before God in cc3–88–89 (v. 29). The interlocutor also appears to be one of the sharers of Paul’s argument in c3–93 (v. 31). Together with the first person plural reference (καταργοῦμεν), the question in v. 31 is derived from the acknowledgment of the crucial function of the law. Consequently, unlike in Rom 3:1–8, Paul’s imaginary interlocutor in this sub-unit is not a protestor, but a sympathizer to Paul’s argument. The other kind of participant is those who appear in the content of the dialogue, and they are relevant to the topic of the dialogue. With regard to this kind of participants, this sub-unit shows three topical participants: (1) God, who appears in the Subjects of cc3–87 (v. 29) and 90 (v. 30); (2) the Jews (c3–87 [v. 29]) or the circumcised (περιτομή: c3–91 [v. 30]); and (3) the Gentiles (cc3–88–89 [v. 29]) or the uncircumcised (ἀκροβυστία: c3–92 [v. 30]). The last two are designated as ἄνθρωπος

44 In this sense, Stowers designates the conversation in this part as “dialogical exchange” (Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 155). Tobin thinks of this sub-unit as rhetorical questions and replies (Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 143 n. 46).

rom :–:

233

in c3–86 (v. 28). According to the pattern of these participants, this sub-unit can be divided into three parts: (1) Rom 3:27–28, where there is no mention of God; (2) Rom 3:29–30, where all three references of God, the Jews, and the Gentiles are shown; and (3) Rom 3:31, where there is no mention of any participants. In accordance with the above two levels of participants, the structure of this sub-unit is as below:

Participants in the contents of a dialogue

Dialogue patterns

General humans

I (Interlocutor): ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησις; (c3–79 [v. 27]) P (Paul): ἐξεκλείσθη (c3–80 [v. 27]) I: διὰ ποίου νόμου; τῶν ἔργων; (cc3–81–82 [v. 27]) P: οὐχί ἀλλὰ διὰ νόμου πίστεως . . . (cc3–83–86 [vv. 27–28])

God, the Jews, and the Gentiles

I: ἢ Ἰουδαίων . . . οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν; (cc3–87–88 [v. 29]) P: ναὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν… διὰ τῆς πίστεως (cc3–89–92 vv. 29–30])

Non-human participant (the law)

I: νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως; (c3–93 [v. 31]) P: μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ νόμον ἱστάνομεν (cc3–94–95 [v. 31])

b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 12.A (x2) (2) 33.M´

Predicators

(1) 13.D (Happen: x2); 76 (Power, Force: x2) (2) 30.A; 34.E

Complements (1) 33.E (Written Language: the law: x3) (2) 11.B (Socio-Religious: the Gentiles [ἔθνος, ἀκροβυστία]: x3) (3) 9.A; 42.D; 60.B; 53.F; 34.E; 31.I Adjuncts

(1) 31.I (Trust, Rely: πιστ–words: x4) (2) 33.E (Written Language: νόμος); 42.D (Work, Toil); 92.G, 33.G´ (Law, Regulation, Ordinance: νόμος)

Overall lists

(1) (2) (3) (4)

33.I (x5) 33.E (x4), cf. 33.G´ 11.B (x3) 42.D (x2); 12.A (x2), 34.E (Establish or Confirm a Relation: Justification: x2)

234

chapter six

According to the frequency of the semantic domains, the most frequent domains are 31.I (x5) and 33.E (x4) including 33.G´.45 In two occurrences (cc3–81 and 85), the combination of 33.E and 42.D appear as an opposite to 31.I. This pattern implies that the topical issue is related to the contrast between faith and the law, and it forms a topical connection between Rom 3:27–31 and Rom 3:21–26. Yet in comparison to the semantic patterns in Rom 3:21–26, this sub-unit shows two discrete topical interests. First, even though both Rom 3:21–26 and 27–31 have the antithesis between the law and faith in common, the focus is different. Rom 3:21–26 reveals its topical interest in human faith and God’s salvation through high frequency semantic domains, such as δικ-words (x7), 12.A (God: x4), 31.I (x4), and 13 (x4). But, Rom 3:27–31 seems to concentrate on the antithesis between the works of the law and faith, because the most frequent semantic domains are 31.I and 33.E. Second, in dealing with such an antithesis, this sub-unit brings up the issue of the relationship between the Jews and Gentiles. While Rom 3:21–26 does not have reference of the Jews and Gentiles, this sub-unit shows domain 11.B three times, and reference of the Jew (Ἰουδαῖος and περιτομή) two times. Moreover, since these references to the two groups appear in relation to God’s salvation (δικ-words) and faith, another topical issue of this sub-unit seems to be the status and relationship between the two ethnic groups in the process of salvation. In sum, linking to the preceding sub-unit, Paul makes the relationship between the works of the law (42.D + 33.E) and faith as the major

45 The nature of νόμος in c3–84 [v. 27] is disputed. Some regard it as the Mosaic law and interpret νόμου πίστεως as a different perspective on the same Mosaic law, such as (1) the law testifies to faith (G. Friedrich, “Das Gesetz des Glaubens Röm 3:27,” TZ [1954], 401–17; C.T. Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law [SBLDS 55; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981], 67–70); or (2) the law summons humans to have faith (Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:220); or (3) the law as viewed from the perspective of faith (H. Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1984], 138–39); or (4) the law as it is fulfilled in faith (N.T. Wright, “The Messiah and the People of God,” [unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 1980], 117–18). However, I would opt for the view that as a play on words, the law here means ‘principle,’ or ‘order,’ ‘rule,’ ‘religious system,’ or ‘norm’ (Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 83; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 122–23; Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 132; Fitzmyer, Romans, 363; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 247–50; etc.). The major reason is that the idea of the two perspectives of the same Mosaic law, which assumes “the close relationship between the law of Moses and faith,” is dissonant to the antithetical environment of this passage (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 248).

rom :–:

235

issue in this sub-unit. In addition, in relation to this antithesis in the process of salvation, he also deals with the relationship between the Jews and Gentiles. c) Analysis of logical relations Based upon the statement in vv. 21–26, especially vv. 21–22, Paul begins to deal with the antithesis between the works of the law and faith in relation to God’s righteousness. The first question is about a basis for boasting in the process of salvation (v. 27): “Where then is boasting?” In light of Paul’s preceding and following arguments, this boasting is related to human work in salvation. Particularly, with regard to the law, the boasting seems to assume a process that (1) a human, especially a Jew, works or obeys the law; (2) through the merit of such behavior, one can be in right relation with God; and (3) therefore, there is a reason for a human to boast of his/her behavior in salvation.46 Paul’s response to this question is ‘NO,’ for the justification of a human does not depend on the works of the law but on faith in Jesus (v. 28). Here, the antithesis of faith and work also excludes the idea that faith is another category of human works. This is because, in vv. 21–26, Paul already states that God is the initiator and the operator of the salvific process, and Jesus is the center of God’s salvation. Faith should be regarded as an appropriate means of human response to the process of God’s salvation (v. 21). From the principle that a human being is justified only by faith, Paul draws another theological implication through the voice of his imaginary interlocutor in cc3–87–88 (v. 29). It is about the status of believing Gentiles before God. With regard to this issue, Paul agrees to the view of interlocutor that God is also the God of the Gentiles

46 Gathercole describes this concept as “works ¤ Justification ¤ boasting” (Gathercole, Where Is Boasting?, 226). Although the camp of the New Perspective insists that this boasting is relevant to national or ethnic superiority (Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 33; Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 170–71; R.W. Thompson, “Paul’s Double Critique of Jewish Boasting: A Study of Rom 3:27 in Its Context,” Bib 67 [1986], 520–31; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 185–86; Longenecker, Eschatology and the Covenant, 206), their reading is not likely, because the co-text of this passage deals with the human behavior as the counterpart of faith (T.R. Schreiner, “ ‘Works of Law’ in Paul,” NovT 33 [1991], 21–44; S.J. Gathercole, “Justified by Faith, Justified by his Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21–4:5,” in D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid [eds.], Justification and Varigated Nomism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxies of Paul [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], 150–56).

236

chapter six

(ναὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν [v. 29]). Then, he provides a two-fold rationale for his argumentation. One is the oneness of God (εἷς ὁ θεὸς), who gives saving righteousness. The other is that regardless of the possession of a Jewish identity marker (circumcision [v. 30]), faith is the only way for a human to meet God’s justification. Here, Paul reaffirms his argument in v. 22 that God’s impartial saving righteousness extends to all who believe in him. In v. 31, Paul provides a question, which is a corollary of the preceding argument: if God is the one who justifies the Jew and Gentile through faith, apart from the law, then what is the relationship between the law and faith? Does faith nullify the law? He denies such an idea with μὴ γένοιτο, and asserts that “on the contrary, we, who believe in Jesus, establish the law” (c3–95 [v. 31]). Even though he does not elaborate on the reason for his negation, it does not mean, according to his previous argument, that faith establishes the law to play a role in salvation. What, then, is the role of the law that Paul has in mind? Largely three options have been proposed: (1) the testifying role of the law, as is shown in v. 21;47 (2) the convicting role of the law;48 and (3) commanding role of the law in relation to God’s norm.49 Among them, the third view is the most plausible because of two reasons. On the one hand, in the co-text of vv. 27–28, ‘the works of the law (ποίου νόμου)’ and ‘[law] of works (τῶν ἔργων)’ imply the commanding aspect of the law that the Jew should obey. On the other hand, such an aspect of the law is also dealt with in Paul’s later arguments, e.g., Rom 7:7–12; 8:2–4; 13:8–10. In summary, according to the logical flow, this sub-unit can be summarized that since not the work of the law but faith is the only way for salvation, faith excludes human boasting and includes the Gentile as a beneficiary of God’s justification. Yet it still establishes the law as God’s moral norm.50

47

Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 134–35. Rhyne, Faith Establishes the Law, 71–93; Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, 137–44; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 105; Ziesler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 120; Longenecker, Eschatology and the Covenant, 207; Byrne, Romans, 138. 49 Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 126; Thompson, “Paul’s Double Critique of Jewish Boasting,” 142; Fitzmyer, Romans, 366; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 254– 55; Schreiner, Romans, 207–208. 50 M.A. Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification (NSBT; Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 67. 48

rom :–:

237

3) Focality Paul uses several devices to reveal his emphasis on the topicality. One notable feature is the use of rhetorical contrast. In cc3–81–82 (v. 27) and 86 (v. 28), faith and the works of the law are contrasted. Here, the point of contrast is not between faith and the law per se, but between faith and works. In vv. 29–30, Paul also shows the universal scope of God’s salvation through the antithetical juxtaposition of the Jew and Gentile. In addition, the device of contrast is used in v. 31 as well. In this verse, the focus of contrast is not on the nouns of the law and faith, but on the two verbs, καταργοῦμεν vs. ἱστάνομεν. Interestingly, all of these contrasts appear in the questions and answers, so the device of contrast works as an effective tool for highlighting the topical issues. As well as the rhetorical contrast, Paul also uses other devices in order to emphasize his topical intentions. In cc3–88–89, he uses a double affirmation in order to stress the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s salvation. That is, the οὐχί question (c3–88) anticipates a positive response about the status of the Gentiles from the reader, and this response is reaffirmed by the answer with ναί (“yes”: c3–89). Moreover, the positive answer is even stressed by an emphatic (adverbial) use of καί (c3–89 [v. 29]). Lastly, when Paul provides a rationale for the inclusion of the Gentiles in salvation (v. 30), he seems to highlight the oneness of God by putting εἷς (“one”) before God in c3–90. In sum, from the above observations, Paul’s topical focus seems to be on the three kinds of issue: (1) the role of faith in contrast to the works of the law, (2) the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s salvation and its grounds, and (3) the establishment of the law through faith. 4) Grouping a) External evidence This sub-unit shows its connection to the preceding sub-unit by dealing with an antithesis of the law and faith. But a change of delivery style from a series of propositions to a dialogue signifies the difference of Rom 3:27–31 from Rom 3:21–26. Also, an interrogative ποῦ and inferential conjunction οὖν in c3–79 (v. 27) indicate this change.

238

chapter six

b) Internal evidence The internal unity of this sub-unit is largely established by two factors. One factor is the overall dialogical interactions between Paul and his interlocutor. Being composed of terse questions and replies, these interactions knit this sub-unit into a coherent structure. The other factor is semantic chains, such as νόμος, πίστις, δικ-words, and the Jews and Gentiles. These chain links not only provide the contents of each question and reply, but also work as the connecting points among dialogical interactions. Thus, the internal unity of Rom 3:27–31 is demonstrated by a series of dialogical interactions, in which several lexical chains work to link such interactions together. This unity can be expressed as below:

Dialogical interactions I (Interlocutor)

27

ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησις; ἐξεκλείσθη

P (Paul) I

διὰ ποίου νόμου; τῶν ἔργων;

P

οὐχί, ἀλλὰ διὰ νόμου πίστεως 28

λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου

I

29

ἢ Ἰουδαίων ὁ θεὸς μόνον; οὐχὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν; ναὶ καὶ ἐθνῶν

P 30

εἴπερ εἷς ὁ θεὸς ὃς δικαιώσει περιτομὴν ἐκ πίστεως καὶ ἀκροβυστίαν διὰ τῆς πίστεως

I P

31

νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως;

μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ νόμον ἱστάνομεν

The Jews and Gentiles

rom :–:

239

5) Summary Through changing the delivery style into a dialogue, Paul deals with three topical issues in Rom 3:27–31, which are derived from his preceding argument, especially that of in Rom 3:21–22. The first topical issue is the significance of human faith in the process of salvation. In Paul’s gospel, the initiator and performer of salvific process is God, and human efforts with regard to the law cannot be the way for salvation (vv. 21–26). It is only through faith, which is the human response to God’s initiative, that one can meet God’s saving righteousness. Thus, there is no room for humans to boast about their works in the process of salvation. The second issue is the status of the Gentiles in God’s salvation. With regard to this issue, Paul elucidates and applies the principle that the efficacy of God’s salvation is universal (cf. Rom 3:22). Since God is one God, who gives salvation to all, and demands only faith as the way for receiving his righteousness, there is no religiousethnic distinction in experiencing God’s salvation. Thus, if a Gentile, who does not have the law, believes in Jesus, s/he can have a right relationship with God. The third issue is derived from the above two issues, and is relevant to the relationship between the law and faith: Does faith abolish the law? Paul rejects this idea and simply states that faith establishes the law. In all of the above topical issues, the penetrating factor is the role of faith. In this sense, while Rom 3:21–26 pays more attention to the divine side in the process of salvation despite the introduction of human faith, Rom 3:27–31 focuses on the significance of human faith as the alternative way to the works of the law in receiving God’s righteousness.

240

chapter six 2. Rom 4:1–25: Abraham as an exemplar of justification by faith to all humans

A. Rom 4:1–8: Faith and God’s justifying grace to sinners 1) Text analysis of Rom 4:1–8

FPO

rom :–:

241

242

chapter six

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 4:1–8 consists of nine primary, six secondary, and seven embedded clauses.51 The primary clauses deliver a dialogue between Paul and his imaginary interlocutor, and two of these are the citation of Gen 15:6 (cc4–7–8 [v. 3]). The first secondary clause (c4–3) is a protasis of a conditional structure, and the last five clauses are used to introduce the example of David in order to support Paul’s argument. In regards to the topical participants, two sorts of participants need to be considered, just as in the previous dialogical passages. First, as to the participants that make a conversation, Paul and his imaginary interlocutor appear as dialogue counterparts. The imaginary interlocutor is mentioned by the first person plural form in v. 1, and calls Abraham a forefather. Perhaps it implies that the interlocutor shares a Jewish perspective. However, it is not necessary to regard the voice of Paul’s partner as that of a real Jew or a Jewish Christian.52 Instead, as a delivery method, both the question and answer should be understood as the outcome of Paul’s rhetorical strategy. As to the second kind of participants, who appear in the content of the dialogue, four participants appear in this sub-unit, including God, Abraham, David, and general humans. The interactions among these participants show two kinds of interesting patterns. One pattern is that all the interactions occur only in relation to God. Verses 1–3 deal with the interaction between God and Abraham, and vv. 4–6 are about the one between God and general humans. Even in the case of David’s psalm in vv. 6–8, the interactions happen between God and humans. The other pattern is that of the two parties in the above interactions, it seems that Paul pays more attention to the human side. Except in cc4–17 (v. 6: θεός) and 22 (v. 8: κύριος), all the Subjects are related to humans. Even cc4–17 and 22 are not irrelevant to humans, because, as relative clauses, they work to modify the human situation.53 In addition, the voice of the Predicator also reveals Paul’s interest. Whenever Paul mentions human attitude or action toward God, he only uses the

51 (1) Primary clauses: cc4–1 (v. 1), 4, 5 (v. 2), 6, 7, 8 (v. 3), 9, 11 (v. 4), 12 (v. 5); (2) secondary clauses: cc4–3 (v. 2), 16, 17 (v. 6), 18 (v. 7), 21, 22 (v. 8); and (3) embedded clauses: cc4–2 (v. 1), 10 (v. 4), 13, 14, 15 (v. 5), 19, 20 (v. 7). 52 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 259 n. 13. 53 C4–17: ἀνθρώπου ᾧ ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων; and c4–22: ἀνὴρ οὗ οὐ μὴ λογίσηται κύριος ἁμαρτίαν.

rom :–:

243

active voice, which signifies humans as the actor of the process.54 Yet he describes God’s response to the human only through the passive voice55 except in cc4–15, 17 and 22, and it has an effect that the recipient (humans) is more focused than the agent of the process (God). Furthermore, in the interactions between God and humans, all the prime positions of a clause are related only to humans. Therefore, the topical issues in this sub-unit, which are delivered by a dialogical style, are relevant to the interactions between God and humans. Particularly, Paul pays more attention to the human act or attitude in such interactive patterns. b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 93.A (Persons): Abraham (x2); David (2) 40.B (Forgiveness: x2); 12.A (God: x2) (3) 88 (x2): R (Act Lawlessly), L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt) (4) 33.E; 57.M; 31.I; 9.A

Predicators

(1) 30.A (To Think, Thought: λογίζομαι: x5) (2) 33.F (Speak, Talk: x3) (3) 31.I (Trust, Rely: πιστ–words); 34.E; 57.A

Complements

(1) 42.D (Work, Toil: x2); 34.E (x2); 25.K (Happy, Glad, Joyful: x2) (2) 88: L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt: ἁμαρτία); 33.M´; 31.I; 53.A

Adjuncts

(1) 34.E (x2); 42.D (x2) (3) 88. I (Kindness, Harshness); 12.A; 9.A; 57.R; 25.K

Overall lists

(1) 34.E (Establish or Confirm a Relation: δικ-word: x5); 30.A (x5) (2) 42.D (x4) (3) 31.I (x3); 93.A (x3): Abraham (x2), David; 33.F (x3); 88 (x3): L´ (x2), R, I; 25.K (x3) (4) 40.B (x2); 9.A (x2)

54 Εὑρηκέναι (c4–1 [v. 1]), ἔχει (c4–4 [v. 2]), ἐπίστευσεν (c4–7 [v. 3]), ἐργαζομένῳ (c4–13 [v. 5]), and πιστεύοντι (c4–14 [v. 5]). 55 Ἐδικαιώθη (c4–3 [v. 2]), ἐλογίσθη (c4–8 [v. 3]), λογίζεται (c4–12 [v. 5]), ἀφέθησαν (c4–19 [v. 7]), and ἐπεκαλύφθησαν (c4–20 [v. 7]).

244

chapter six

The most frequent semantic domains in this sub-unit are five occurrences of 34.E and 30.A. The second most frequent one is 42.D (x4), and the next semantic domains are three instances of 31.I, 93.A, 25.K, and 33.F. Lastly, 40.B (ἀφέθησαν, ἐπεκαλύφθησαν), 88.L´, and 9.A (Human Beings; ἄνθρωπος [v. 6] and ἀνήρ [v. 8]) appear two times. In regards to the interactions between God and humans, the above frequency of semantic domains leads to some interesting observations. At the outset, the two most frequent semantic domains (30.A and 34.E) and 40.B are used in relation to God’s side, in that they refer to God’s response toward humans or its result. The other three frequent semantic domains, 42.D, 31.I, and 93.A, are relevant to the human side. Together with two occurrences of 9.A, domain 93.A denotes the interactive counterpart of God, such as Abraham and David. The situation of humans is described by 88.L´ (ἁμαρτία: x2), 88.R (ἀνομία), and 53.A (ἀσεβής), which have a negative connotation before God. Lastly, 42.D and 31.I (πιστ-words) are used to show the antithetical response of humans in the process of God’s salvation. Overall, according to the above observations, what this sub-unit deals with is related to a salvific interactive paradigm between God and humans. In this paradigm, God reveals salvific responses to humans (30.A, 34.E, and 40.B), even though they are sinful (88.L´, 88.R, 53.A). This is very different from the old interactive paradigm shown in Rom 1:18–3:20, in which the only response of God to sinful humans is wrathful judgment. According to Paul, an antithesis of human works (domains 42.D) and faith (31.I) is at the center of the difference between the old and new interactive paradigm. This concept can be diagrammed as below. c) Analysis of logical relations This sub-unit begins with an interlocutor’s question about the case of Abraham in v. 1: “What, then, shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, found?”56 Even though οὖν indicates an inferential relationship between this question and the preceding sub56 There are four textual variants in c4–2 (v. 1): (1) εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα (‫ א‬A C 81 etc.); (2) εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν πάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα (D F G Ψ etc.); (3) Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν εὑρηκέναι κατὰ σάρκα (33 majority text); and (4) Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα (B 1739 [πάτορα]

etc. [cf. RSV; NJB]). Among those variants, I opt for the first one as original because it is attested by many superior external supports. For detailed explanation, see Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 509–10; Jewett, Romans, 304.

rom :–:

245

Antithetical means of

Humans

God

Persons

Sinful situation receiving God’s response Salvific

93.A

88.L´

(Abraham,

(ἁμαρτία)

David) 9.A

(42.D

30.A (λογίζομαι)

response 34.E (δικαιόω)

[ἐργάζομαι, ἔργον])

40.B (ἀφέθησαν,

88.R (ἀνομία)

¥ 31.I ([πιστεύω,

ἐπεκαλύφθησαν)

53.A (ἀσεβής)

πίστις])

cf. 88.I (χάρις)

(ἄνθρωπος, Result of 34.E (δικαιοσύνη) ἀνήρ)

salvific

cf. 23.K (Happy,

response Glad, Joyful: God’s salvific responses

μακάριος)

*A new salvific interactive paradigm*

unit (vv. 27–31), this sub-unit does not work to provide a direct explanation of Paul’s statement in c3–95 (Rom 3:31). Instead, Rom 4:1–8 and the following sub-units in Romans 4 show a correspondence to the topical issues of Rom 3:27–30: a contrast between human works and faith (vv. 1–8), an inclusiveness of the Gentiles (vv. 9–12), and an antithesis of the law and faith (vv. 13–22).57 Thus, the question in v. 1 functions to introduce “the objective situation” of Abraham as an exemplary case for Paul’s theological arguments.58 57 Moo calls Rom 4:1–8 “a kind of commentary on 3:27–28” (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 259). 58 Byrne, Romans, 145. There are scholarly debates on the translation of v. 1, and largely four options have been proposed: (1) “What, then, shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, found?” (many scholars opt for this translation, such as Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1: 225; Dunn, Romans, 195; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 257; Schreiner, Romans, 212; Bryan, A Preface to Romans, 145; etc.); (2) “What, then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, found according to the flesh?” (Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 71; Jewett, Romans, 308.); (3) “What, then, shall we say? Have we found Abraham our forefather by human (fleshly) efforts?” (Stowers, A Rereading of Romans, 242); and (4) “What, then shall we say? Have we found Abraham (to be) our forefather according to the flesh?” (R.B. Hays, “‘Have We Found Abraham

246

chapter six

The fundamental premise of Paul’s argument in this sub-unit is that Abraham was justified by God (Gen 15:6). Based upon this premise, Paul re-explains the true means of justification in vv. 2–8. At the outset, through the voice of an interlocutor in cc4–3–4 (v. 2),59 Paul suggests a possibility that if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about. However, he immediately refutes this view (c4–5 [v. 3]), and provides an OT citation as evidence (cc4–6–8 [v. 3]): “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6). The locus of the contrast is between human works (ἐξ ἔργων) and the human act of believing (ἐπίστευσεν).60 Thus, by introducing Abraham’s case, Paul affirms his point in Rom 3:27–28 that since human beings can experience God’s righteousness only through faith, no one has a reason to boast of his/her salvation. Then, Paul adds two more supportive arguments about the relationship among justification, faith, and works in vv. 4–8. First, he states in vv. 4–5 that the gracious nature of God’s salvation is only applicable to those who put their faith in the one who justifies the ungodly. Second, in vv. 6–8, he gives another OT example, a psalm of David (LXX Ps 31:1–2a), which sings the blessing of those whose sins are

to Be Our Forefather according to the Flesh?’A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1,” NovT 27 [1985], 76–98; Keck, Romans, 120). The fourth option stresses that the paternity of Abraham is not determined by the physical lineage but by faith. Even though this view matches well to the topic in vv. 9–12, it fails to link to the immediate arguments in vv. 2–8. Moreover, it is not convincing to regard the infinitive clause, which has no Subject, as a separate primary clause (Dunn, Romans 1–8, 199; Davies, Faith and Obedience in Romans, 148; T.H. Tobin, “What Shall We Say That Abraham Found? The Controversy behind Romans 4,” HTR 88 [1995], 437–57; Schreiner, Romans, 213). On the contrary, it is more natural to think that, as an embedded clause, the infinitive clause (c4–2) is indirect discourse (Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 197, 270–71). The third view is a modification of the fourth view. It focuses on the contrast between human efforts and faith, through which Abraham becomes a forefather of Christians. This view seems to have a strong point, in that it could link v. 1 to the immediately following verses (vv. 2–8), and even to vv. 9–12. However, this view has the same syntactical problems as in the fourth view. Moreover, it is highly doubtable that κατὰ σάρκα can be a rendition of works (ἐξ ἔργων [v. 2]) or works of the law. In Romans, Paul never uses σάρξ as an equivalent of human works, which is an antithesis of faith. The second option regards Abraham as the subject of εὑρηκέναι, and focuses on the means by which Abraham has found. However, as in the third view, there is no ground to think of κατὰ σάρκα as human efforts or works. Thus, I follow the first translation. 59 Stowers, A Rereading of Romans, 234; Bryan, A Preface to Romans, 114; contra Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:227. 60 This contrast shows the weakness of the subjective understanding of πίστις Ἰησοῦ, whose basic argumentative frame is the antithesis of human works and divine faithfulness.

rom :–:

247

forgiven by God. Through these two arguments, Paul demonstrates some important features of God’s salvific process: (1) the situation of the one who does not work is regarded as sinfulness, lawlessness, and ungodliness, which brings God’s wrath (cf. Rom 1:18; 2:12); (2) human works cannot be a means of God’s justification; (3) faith is the only way to experience God’s salvation; (4) God’s justification is related to the forgiveness of sins; and (5) salvation is only from God’s grace (κατὰ χάριν). In summary, according to the above logical relations, the topical interest of Paul in this sub-unit is the antithesis of human work and faith in God’s salvific process. Of the two, he puts faith as the true way for a human being to meet God’s justification, and demonstrates its significance through the exemplary cases of the OT including Abraham and David. Moreover, the content of vv. 4–8 gives several characteristics of God’s salvific process, and it reflects the new salvific interactive paradigm shown in Rom 3:21–26. 3) Focality In relation to the topical issues, Paul uses several devices in order to stress his interests. At the sentence level, two kinds of marked expressions are noticeable. One is the use of the stative aspect in c4–2 (εὑρηκέναι: v. 1). Here, the focus is not on “our” finding, which is “the subjective point of view,” but on “the objective situation” of Abraham’s case.61 The other is the use of an “emphatic marker[s] of comparison,” καθάπερ, in c4–16 (v. 6).62 Interestingly, both expressions appear when Paul introduces the case of the OT into his argument. This implies that the instances of Abraham and David are relevant and important in Paul’s present argumentation. At the level beyond the sentence, the major device for stressing Paul’s interest is a rhetorical contrast and repetition. First, as to the device of contrast, Paul uses two kinds of contrasts in the case of Abraham (vv. 2–3). One is a contrast between one’s boasting before humans (c4–4) and before God (c4–5). The other is an antithesis of human works (c4– 3) and faith (c4–7). These two contrasts work to stress the importance of faith in the process of salvation. Moreover, Paul even emphasizes the antithetical nature of works and faith by arraying the above two

61

Byrne, Romans, 145. Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 1:618. 62

248

chapter six

contrasts in a structure of A (a ground for boasting: “if Abraham was justified by works” [c4–3])—B (boasting before humans: c4–4)—B´ (not boasting before God: c4–5)—A´ (a ground for not boasting: Abraham was justified by faith [cc4–6–8]). In vv. 4–5, the rhetorical contrast is used in two areas: (1) between κατὰ χάριν and κατὰ ὀφείλημα; and (2) between works and faith. These two contrasts also function to highlight the significance of faith. Second, as to the device of repetition, Paul repeats the contrast between works and faith in vv. 2–3 and 4–5. Also, in using David’s psalm (vv. 7–8), he faithfully follows the repetitive expressions about the joy of those whose sins are forgiven without works. This device of repetition also reveals the significance of faith in the process of salvation. Therefore, according to the above observations, Paul’s topical focus in this sub-unit does not seem to be on God’s salvific responses to humans, but on the importance of faith. In this sense, the major concern of Paul here is to demonstrate that the key to experience God’s justification is not human works but human believing (πιστεύω). 4) Grouping a) External evidence Rom 4:1–8 does not seem to be totally separated from Rom 3:27–31, in that this sub-unit has a dialogical nature and shares some semantic domains, such as δικ-words, faith, boasting, and works. Nonetheless, there are some reasons to think of Rom 4:1–8 as another sub-unit. The first evidence is τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν in v. 1. In many cases, this expression is used to introduce a new phase of Paul’s argument, although it is not always a brand new topic (cf. Rom 3:1, 9; 6:1, 15; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14, 30, etc.). More evidently, the introduction of Abraham as a new topical participant helps to see Rom 4:1–8 as a new sub-unit. b) Internal evidence Internally, two major factors work to unify Rom 4:1–8 as one discourse unit. One factor is conjunction. All clauses are connected with each other through conjunctions, except c4–21 (v. 8), which links to c4–18 (v. 7) with asyndeton. Another factor is semantic chains. In the overall salvific interactive paradigm, a combination of δικ-word and λογίζομαι appears as God’s response, and the contrast between faith and works as the human behavioral attitude toward God. In the case of Abraham (vv. 1–3), an antithesis of faith and work is mentioned in cc4–3 and 7, and the combination of δικ-word and λογίζομαι is in

rom :–:

249

c4–8. This interactive pattern links Abraham’s case to vv. 4–5 (c4–12). Lastly, the combination of δικ-word and λογίζομαι in c4–17 (v. 6) connects the citation of David’s psalm and vv. 4–5.

Rom 4:1 τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν . . . Ἀβραὰμ . . . 2 εἰ γὰρ . . . ἔργων combinations ἐδικαιώθη . . . ἀλλ᾽οὐ πρὸς θεόν 3 τί γὰρ . . . ἐπίστευσεν

of δικ-word δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ . . . ἐλογίσθη . . . δικαιοσύνην 4

τῷ δὲ ἐργαζομένῳ ὁ μισθὸς οὐ λογίζεται κατὰ χάριν

ἀλλὰ . . . κατὰ ὀφείλημα 5 τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ

Contrasts

πιστεύοντι δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ

between

λογίζεται ἡ πίστις . . . δικαιοσύνην

and λογίζομαι

works and faith 6 καθάπερ καὶ ∆αυὶδ λέγει . . . ὁ θεὸς λογίζεται δικαιοσύνην χωρὶς ἔργων 7 μακάριοι ὧν ἀφέθησαν . . .

ἁμαρτίαι 8 μακάριος . . . οὐ μὴ λογίσηται . . .

5) Summary Through a diatribal question in v. 1, Paul begins to introduce Abraham’s case as an exemplar of some important factors of his gospel. According to Rom 3:21–31, Paul’s gospel is relevant to the paradigm shift from the interaction between human sinfulness and God’s wrathful judgment (Rom 1:18–3:20) to the interaction between human faith and God’s grace or salvation. In the new salvific paradigm, God’s response to human sins is forgiveness, and faith appears as the only way for a person to experience such a salvific response of God through Jesus. Rom 4:1–8 also deals with this new salvfiic interaction as an overriding framework. Yet, according to topicality and focality, Paul’s topical concern in this sub-unit is on human faith. He delivers this theme through various ways, such as two OT citations (Gen 15:6 [Abraham’s case] and LXX Ps 31:1–2a [a psalm of David]), a rhetorical contrast between works and faith, repetition, and prominence markers. Therefore, through Rom 4:1–8, Paul tries to convince his reader that human faith is a very significant factor in experiencing God’s salvation.

250

chapter six

B. Rom 4:9–12: Superiority of faith to circumcision 1) Text analysis of Rom 4:9–12

rom :–:

251

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 4:9–12 consists of eight primary and nine embedded clauses.63 Five out of nine embedded clauses are clustered in vv. 11–12. Four primary clauses (cc4–23–24 [v. 9] and 27–28 [v. 10]) work to deliver interrogations, and c4–31 is an answer to the questions in cc4–27–28. Although the questions in vv. 9 and 10 indicate a dialogical nature of this sub-unit, it is not clear whose voice it is. Yet it is certain that since the dialogue is Paul’s strategy to deliver his thought, even the voice of the interlocutor is under the control of Paul. For example, the two first person plural references in cc4–25 (λέγομεν [v. 9]) and 39 (ἡμῶν [v. 12]) may reflect Paul’s intention of bringing the reader to participate in his point of view. As to the topical participants that appear in the content of Paul’s argument, at least six participants are shown in this sub-unit: the circumcised (the Jews), the uncircumcised (the Gentiles), Abraham, God, the uncircumcised Gentile Christians, and the circumcised Jewish Christians. The first two occur in cc4–23–24 (v. 9) as the beneficiaries of the blessing mentioned in vv. 7–8. Abraham appears as the one who experienced two kinds of status before God, i.e., the uncircumcised and the circumcised conditions. God is the agent who provides the blessing of righteousness, and circumcision as a sign of it. Lastly, the Jewish and the Gentile Christians, who follow the example of Abraham’s faith, are depicted not only as the descendants of Abraham, but also as the beneficiaries of God’s blessing of righteousness (vv. 11–12). According to this observation, the appearance of various human participants indicates that the topical issues of this sub-unit seem to be relevant to the beneficiaries of God’s salvific response in the interactive paradigm of human faith and God’s salvation.

63 (1) Primary clauses: cc4–23, 24, 25, 26 (v. 9), 27, 28, 31 (v. 10), 34 (v. 11); and (2) embedded clauses: cc4–29, 30, 32, 33 (v. 10), 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 (vv. 11–12).

252

chapter six

b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects Predicators

25.K (Happy, Glad, Joyful), 31.I (Trust, Rely: πιστ-words) (1) 30.A (To Think, Thought: λογίζομαι: x2) (2) 33.F (Speak, Talk); 57.I

Complements 93.A (Persons): Abraham; 33.D˝; 53.F (Dedicate, Consecrate: περιτομή); 6.J; 11.B (Socio-Religious: ἀκροβυστία); 34.E (Establish or Confirm a Relation: δικ-word); 31.I Adjuncts

(1) (2) (3) (4)

53.F (x5); 11.B (x5) 10.B (Father: x3) 34.E (x2); 13.A (x2); 41.D (Imitate Behavior: x2); 31.I (x2) 93.A; 30.A

Overall lists

(1) 53.F (x6); 11.B (x6) (2) 31.I (x4) (3) 34.E (x3); 10.B (x3) (3) 41.D (x2); 93.A (Abraham: x2); 13.A (x2); 30.A (x2)

According to the frequency of the semantic domains, the most frequent domains are 53.F (περιτομή) and 11.B (ἀκροβυστία). Each appears six times in the Complements and Adjuncts. The second most frequent domains are 31.I (πιστ-words: x4), and three instances of 10.B (Father), 30.A (λογίζομαι), and 34.E (δικ-word) follow. This observation indicates that Paul still has in mind the new interactive paradigm between God and humans, in which God, the agent, gives righteousness (34.E + 30.A) as a result or a response to human faith (31.I). However, the most frequent semantic domains indicate that Paul is interested in the situation of the beneficiary of God’s response, especially the relationship between God’s salvation and circumcision. Thus, the analysis of semantic domains demonstrates that the topical issues in this sub-unit are related to the status of the Jewish and Gentile believers in the salvific interactive paradigm. c) Analysis of logical relations In regard to the blessing in the preceding sub-unit (vv. 7–8), Rom 4:9 begins to deal with the beneficiary of such blessing: “Is this blessing, then, on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised?” In response to this question, Paul returns to Abraham’s case (Gen 15:6) in cc4–25–26 (v. 9). While he uses LXX Ps 31:1–2a as expositional material for Gen 15:6

rom :–:

253

in the previous sub-unit, here Gen 15:6 becomes an interpretative tool for the issue of the beneficiary in LXX Ps 31:1–2a.64 Based upon the testimony of Gen 15:6, Paul unfolds his argument on the issue of circumcision and justification from v. 10. The backbone of his explanation is the chronological trace of Abraham’s case according to the narrative story in Genesis. Just as there is a chronological gap between Abraham’s being justified by faith in Gen 15:6 and his circumcision in Genesis 17,65 Paul distinguishes these two events. From Gen 15:6, Paul first states that Abraham was justified by faith before his circumcision in c4–31 (v. 10). Then, using Genesis 17, he says in c4–34 (v. 11) that Abraham’s circumcision was a sign and seal of his righteous status before God. Furthermore, the reason for Abraham to receive circumcision was to be a father of those who follow in the steps of his faith regardless of circumcision. As to the uncircumcised, on the one hand, Abraham is the father of them, because they can experience God’s justification through faith (cc4–35–37 [v. 11]), just as Abraham did before being circumcised. As to the circumcised, on the other hand, Abraham is also the father of them, who are not only circumcised, but also walk in the steps of faith that Abraham had, when he was uncircumcised (cc4–38–39 [v. 12]).66 Through these logical

64

Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 267. According to the rabbis, there is a twenty-nine year gap between Gen 15:6 and Genesis 17 (H.L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. [6 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1922–61], 3:203. Cited from Dunn, Romans 1–8, 208). 66 An article τοῖς in c4–39 (v. 12) is problematic. Some argue that this dative article denotes a different group from the group mentioned by τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον in c4–38 (v. 12). That is, they think that the double τοῖς indicates two kinds of Abraham’s children, such as Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians (J. Swetnam, “The Curious Crux at Romans 4:12,” Bib 61 [1980], 110–15); or physical Jews and the Jewish Christians (Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 116); or the Jews and Gentile Christians (Jewett, Romans, 320), etc. However, it is more natural to think that v. 12 indicates one group, which is characterized by circumcision, because of the structural parallel between cc4–35 (v. 11) and 38. In line with the antithesis of circumcision and uncircumcision in this sub-unit, the parallel purpose clauses seem to deal with uncircumcision (c4–35) first and then circumcision (c4–38) (contra Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 148–49, who sees vv. 11–12 as a chiastic structure of uncircumcision—circumcision—circumcision—uncircumcision). Moreover, it is not likely that ἐκ περιτομῆς in c4–36 refers to spiritual circumcision, because the circumcision and uncircumcision in this sub-unit always signify the ethnic distinction between a Jew and a Gentile (Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:237; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 270; Byrne, Romans, 151; Schreiner, Romans, 226). As to the various explanations of the second view, see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 270 n. 25. 65

254

chapter six

explanations of Abraham’s case, Paul demonstrates two important points with regard to the relationship between God’s justification and circumcision. One is that since Abraham was reckoned as righteous when he was still uncircumcised, the physical marking of circumcision cannot be a decisive factor to be a beneficiary of God’s blessing. This fact opens the gate of God’s salvation to the Gentiles, who do not have circumcision as an identity marker of the covenant people. The other point is that faith is the only factor for a human being, even for the Jews, in experiencing God’s salvation, just as Abraham was justified by faith. This second point provides a basis of the first point, in that, even though the Gentiles do not have circumcision, they can be justified by God through faith. These two points are the recurrence of the topical issues in Rom 3:21–22 and 28–30. Therefore, this sub-unit can be regarded as a re-explanation of the importance of faith and the inclusion of the Gentiles in the new salvific interaction between God and humans.67 3) Focality In relation to topicality, Paul uses several devices in order to highlight his topical interest. First, with regard to the importance of faith in salvation, his consistent use of rhetorical contrast is noticeable. With a contrast between cc4–23 (circumcision) and 24 (uncircumcision) as a start, their antithesis continuously appears in cc4–28, 31 (v. 10), 34, 36–39 (vv. 11–12). Considering that all contrasts occur in relation to Abraham’s faith and God’s justification, this device of contrast works to emphasize that, in Abraham’s case, it is not a physical marker but faith is important in receiving God’s justification. Second, in relation to the above theme, Paul also uses several emphatic expressions in order to focus on the relationship between God’s justification and Gentile believers. In c4–36 (v. 11), he demonstrates with an emphatic expression πάντων that the Gentiles can be Abraham’s children through faith. When Paul speaks of the paternity of Abraham in vv. 11–12, he puts the case of the Gentiles first and that of the Jews later. Since Paul consistently mentions the contrast between circumcision and uncircumcision in an order of περιτομή and ἀκροβυστία in vv. 9–10, the reversal of this order could be viewed

67 In God’s sight, the inclusion of the Gentiles can be expressed as God’s impartiality in salvation.

rom :–:

255

as emphatic. It may work to give an impression that the paternity of Abraham is primarily applied to uncircumcised Gentile believers.68 Moreover, the complex structure of vv. 11–12 signifies the focus of Paul’s argument. When Paul deals with the issue of circumcision and uncircumcision in vv. 9–10, he uses terse clauses. But, in vv. 11–12, he explains the same contrast with a relatively long and complex structure, which consists of five embedded clauses. This may imply that Paul wants to emphasize the fact through vv. 11–12 that believing Gentiles can be the beneficiary of God’s blessing, as well as believing Jews. In sum, Paul’s topical focus is on the beneficiary of God’s justification and its condition. For him, uncircumcised Gentiles can be the recipients of God’s salvation only if they have faith. 4) Grouping a) External evidence The word μακαρισμός and an anaphoric reference, οὗτος, in Rom 4:9 reveal the connection of this sub-unit with Rom 4:1–8. Yet the introduction of περιτομή and ἀκροβυστία in v. 9 works to indicate a topical shift. Actually, in Romans 4, the topic of circumcision and uncircumcision is only mentioned in vv. 9–12. Thus, Rom 4:9–12 can be regarded as discrete sub-unit from Rom 4:1–8. b) Internal evidence As to the internal evidence of grouping, the major factor for the unity of Rom 4:9–12 is repetitive contrasts between περιτομή and ἀκροβυστία. Throughout this sub-unit, this antithesis works as the key to advance Paul’s argument. In relation to this contrast, several other lexical chains also help to see the unity of this sub-unit. Particularly, with regard to the new interactive paradigm, λογίζομαι (cc4–26 [v. 9], 27 [v. 10], 37 [v. 11]) and δικ-word (cc4–26 [v. 9], 34, 37 [v. 11]) still appear as God’s response to humans, and πιστ-words (cc4–26 [v. 9], 34, 36 [v. 11], 39 [v. 12]) as a key reason of God’s salvific response. Interestingly, together with the term Abraham, the combination of these lexical chains opens and closes Paul’s argument in vv. 9 and 12. The internal unity of this sub-unit can be shown as below.

68

Schreiner, Romans, 225.

256

chapter six

Antitheses of

9

circumcision

. . . γάρ ἐλογίσθη τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἡ πίστις εἰς δικαιοσύνην

and

10

uncircumcision

οὐκ ἐν περιτομῇ ἀλλ᾽ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ 11

ὁ μακαρισμὸς . . . περιτομὴν ἢ . . . ἐπὶ τὴν ακροβυστίαν;

πῶς οὖν ἐλογίσθη; ἐν περιτομῇ ὄντι ἢ ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ ;

καὶ σημεῖον ἔλαβεν περιτομῆς σφραγῖδα τῆς

δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ, εἰς τὸ εἶναι . . . πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι᾽ἀκροβυστίας . . . τὸ λογισθῆναι . . . δικαιοσύνην 12

καὶ πατέρα περιτομῆς τοῖς οὐκ ἐκ περιτομῆς μόνον

ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς . . . τῆς ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ

5) Summary Just as in Rom 4:1–8, Paul uses Abraham’s case as the evidence of his argument in Rom 4:9–12, but his topical interest is different. While Paul deals with the importance of faith in the new salvific interactive paradigm in Rom 4:1–8, he shifts his concern to the relationship between God’s justification and circumcision in v. 9. His argument is advanced in accordance with the chronological order of Abraham’s story in Genesis. According to Paul, that Abraham was justified through faith before his circumcision provides two important corollaries. One is that the ethnic distinction marked by the possession of circumcision is totally irrelevant to experiencing God’s salvation. Instead, it is faith that plays a key role in receiving God’s salvation. This thought leads to the second corollary that the Gentiles can enter the boundary of God’s people through faith, and the Jews, who have circumcision as their identity marker, also need faith to meet God’s justification. In order to stress these thoughts, Paul employs several devices, such as the repetitive contrasts between περιτομή and ἀκροβυστία, emphatic expression (πάντων), a complex structure in vv. 11–12, and so on. Overall, what Paul deals with here is that if the Gentiles as well as the Jews follow Abraham’s faith, then they can enter into the new salvific interactive paradigm that God’s saving righteousness is only to those who believe.

δικ-

word

rom :–: C. Rom 4:13–25: Faith and the fulfillment of God’s promise 1) Text analysis of Rom 4:13–25

257

258

chapter six

rom :–:

259

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 4:13–25 consists of ten primary, fourteen secondary, and twenty embedded clauses.69 The primary clauses are used to deliver Paul’s arguments about the relationship between the law and faith in Abraham’s case (vv. 13–16), and about the connection between Abraham’s case and Christians (vv. 23–24). Most secondary and embedded clauses appear in the middle part of this sub-unit, and work to describe the nature of Abraham’s faith in relation to God’s promise (vv. 17–22). As for the topical participants, there are four participants in this sub-unit, but none of them appear as the grammatical subject. The first participant is Abraham, and he emerges as the major interactive partner of God. He received God’s promise (vv. 13 and c4–54 [v. 17]), and responded to it by faith (vv. 17 [c4–51]–21). In vv. 22–23, he is also

69 (1) Primary clauses: cc4–40, 42 (v. 13), 44, 45 (v. 14), 46, 47 (v. 15), 49 (v. 16), 76, 77 (v. 23), and 78 (v. 24); (2) secondary clauses: cc4–43 (v. 14), 50, 52 (v. 16), 53, 54, 55 (v. 17), 60 (v. 18), 64 (v. 19), 68, 69 (vv. 20–21), 75 (v. 22), 79 (v. 24), 83, 84 (v. 25); and (3) embedded clauses: cc4–41 (v. 13), 48 (v. 15), 51 (v. 16), 56–59 (v. 17), 61–63 (v. 18), 65, 66, 67 (v. 19), 70 (v. 20), 71–74 (v. 21), 80–82 (v. 24).

260

chapter six

described as the beneficiary of God’s justification. The second topical participant is God. As the counterpart of Abraham, God is implied as a promise-giver in vv. 13, 17 (c4–54) and 18 (c4–61). In c4–55 (v. 17), God, who gives life to the dead and calls things into being, is mentioned as the object of Abraham’s faith. Similarly, in c4–81, God is also portrayed as a powerful one, who raised Jesus from the dead, and as the object of Christian faith. Moreover, in vv. 22–24, God appears as the one who justifies humans, including Abraham and Christians. The third topical participant is Christians. They are depicted as the followers of Abraham’s faith and as his spiritual descendants (vv. 13, 17 and 18). In addition, Christians are also mentioned as the beneficiary of God’s justification through faith in the God who raised Jesus from the death (vv. 24–25). Lastly, Jesus appears as another participant, whose role is related to the Christians (vv. 24–25). His death and resurrection are relevant to the change of human status before God, e.g., from a sinner to the one who has a right relationship with God. Therefore, according to the above observations, there appear a series of interactions among topical participants. God commences the interaction with Abraham by making a promise, and Abraham gives back a proper response to God by faith. In response to Abraham’s faith, God justifies Abraham, and fulfills his promise both to Abraham and his spiritual descendants, who believe in God. This interactive pattern is also applied to Christians who believe in God. This thought can be diagrammed as below:

God

(1) God’s initiative (promise)

(2) human response (faith)

Abraham

(3) God’s reward (justification)

(3) God’s reward (justification)

(1) God’s initiative (salvific process through Jesus)

(2) human response (faith)

Christians

rom :–:

261

b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 33.Y (Promise: x2); 31.I (πιστ–words: x2); 33.E (x2) (4) 93.A; 10.B; 57.I; 13.A; 9.A; 88.B; 36.C

Predicators

(1) 30.A (To Think, Thought: λογίζομαι: x2); 13.A (εἰμί: x2), 76 (Power, Force: x2); 33.E (x2) (2) 85.B; 31.I; 34.A; 30.G; 74; 67.B; 57.H; 23.G

Complements (1) 23.G (Live, Die: x4) (2) 10.B (Kinship Relations Involving Successive Generations: x3) (3) 92 (x3): B (‘we’: x2), C (‘you’) (4) 93.A (x2) (5) 57.I; 88.X; 8.A; 13.A; 11.B; 30.A; 31.I; 37.D Adjuncts

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

13 (x8): A (εἰμί: x6), B (Change of State), D (Happen) 31.I (x5) 92 (x4): B (x3), C (x1); 88 (x4): B (x2), I, L´ 33.E (Written Language: x3); 33.Y (x3); 12.A (x3); 10.B (x3) 25.D (Hope, Look Forward To: x2); 23.G (x2); 74 (x2) 34.E; 42.D; 87.B; 57.H; 31.F; 11.B; 33.I; 93.A; 71.C; 88

Overall lists

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

13 (Be, Become, Exist, Happen: x12): A (x10), B, D 31.I (x9) 23.G (x7); 33.E (x7: cf. the law: x5) 10.B (x6); 88 (x6): B (δικ-words: x3), X, I, L´ 33.Y (x5); 92.B (x5) (6) 30.A (x3); 74 (x3)

According to the frequency of the semantic domains, except for domain 13 (x12), the most frequent semantic domain is 31.I (πιστ-word: x9). It appears as the opposite to 33.E (the law) in receiving God’s promise and salvation. Yet the pattern of the use πιστ-words in vv. 13–16 is different from that in vv. 17–25. The πιστ-words in vv. 13–16 only appear in a noun form (πίστις) in the Subject (c4–44 [v. 14]) and the Adjuncts (cc4–42 [v. 13], 49, and 50 [v. 16]). All are used in contrast to 33.E (the law). However, in the case of vv. 17–25, the verb form of πιστwords (πιστεύω) occurs three times in the Predicator (cc4–55 [v. 17], 60 [v. 18], and 81 [v. 24]), and the noun form appears three times in the Adjuncts (cc4–65 [v. 19], 68, and 69 [v. 20]). This indicates that, unlike in vv. 13–16, vv. 17–25 pay more attention to the act of believing.

262

chapter six

The next frequent semantic domain is 23.G (x7). This semantic domain clusters together in the case of Abraham (vv. 17–23) and Christians (vv. 24–25). In Abraham’s case, domain 23.G signifies the physical situation of Abraham and his wife, who cannot have a baby because of their old age, and God’s power, who can give life to the dead. In the case of Christians, this domain is used to demonstrate Jesus’ death and resurrection. In both cases, semantic domain 23.G occurs in relation to the power of God, who can make impossible things possible. And this powerful God is mentioned as the object of faith. Thus, this domain 23.G not only works as a link between the case of Abraham’s faith and justification (vv. 17–23) and that of Christians (vv. 24–25), but also functions to demonstrate the omnipotence of God, who is the object of human faith. The next frequent semantic domain is 10.B (x6), and it includes paternity (πατήρ: x3) of Abraham and his spiritual descendants (σπέρμα: x3), the Christians. This domain is also related to 33.Y (Promise: x5), in the sense that 10.B appears as the content of 33.Y. Therefore, the above observations lead to a conclusion that Paul’s argument in this sub-unit is closely related to the contrast between the law and human faith in God, who is able to give life to the dead and to perform his promise. c) Analysis of logical relations Paul begins Rom 4:13–25 with the contrast between the law and faith with regard to God’s promise to Abraham and his descendants. He states that God’s promise and its realization in Abraham’s case are not relevant to the law. If Abraham’s being the heir of the world depends on obedience to the law (ἐκ νόμου; c4–43 [v. 14]),70 there is no room for faith in the interaction between God and Abraham (cc4–44–45 [v. 14]). In addition, if the realization of God’s promise is determined by the human attitude toward the law, human beings cannot experience its fulfillment, because no one is able to obey the law completely (cf. Rom 3:20). In spite of the acknowledgment of the law, the failure of obedience becomes a transgression (παράβασις), and it only results

70

Some argue that this phrase indicates an ethnic or national privilege (Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentile, 141–42; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 213–14). However, as in the previous arguments of Paul, it should be regarded as human endeavor to keep the law.

rom :–:

263

in God’s wrath (v. 15).71 For this reason (διὰ τοῦτο), the realization of God’s promise to Abraham is only relevant to faith (c4–49 [v. 16]), and it produces two other important points. First, Paul regards the nature of God’s promise and its fulfillment as a realm of grace, just as in the case of justification (cf. vv. 4–5). It implies that grace is the fundamental nature of God’s attitude in the new interactive paradigm between God and humans. The second point is that since the realization of God’s promise to Abraham is relevant to faith, the beneficiary of the promise can be expanded to all who believe regardless of their socio-religious distinctions.72 In vv. 17–22, then, Paul explains the characteristics of Abraham’s faith. In connection to the portrayal of Abraham’s fatherhood in c4–52 (v. 16), he begins his argument on Abraham’s faith with the OT citation of God’s promise in cc4–53–54 (v. 17): “as it is written, I have made you a father of many nations (πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε)” (Gen 17:5). Abraham’s response to God’s initiative is the act of believing (ἐπίστευσεν). The core of faith is to trust not in God’s promise itself, but in God himself, who can give life to the dead (c4–56 [v. 17]) and call (καλοῦντος) those things that do not exist as though they are (c4–57 [v. 17]).73 As F.F. Bruce observes, the former portrayal of God (c4–53)

71 Even though various understandings of v. 15 have been proposed, I view it that, in relation to Rom 5:13, this verse has a logical order that human sins ¤ God gave the law ¤ the Jews failed to keep the law ¤ it becomes a transgression ¤ it also brings God’s wrath (cf. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 276). 72 Παντὶ τῷ σπέρματι, οὐ τῷ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ: c4–51 (v. 16). Some view ἐκ τοῦ νόμου here as referring to unbelieving Jews (L. Gaston, “Abraham and the Righteousness of God,” HBT 2 [1980], 39–68; Fitzmyer, Romans, 385; Keck, Romans, 128; Jewett, Romans, 331). However, since the co-text consistently shows that it is not through the law, but through faith that God’s promise is fulfilled, it is hard to think that Paul contradicts his argument here. Thus, it is more apt to understand that ἐκ τοῦ νόμου indicates Jewish believers and ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ is Gentiles believers (Zahn, Der Brief an die Römer, 23–22; Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 96; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:242; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 121; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 278–79; Schreiner, Romans, 231–32). 73 Many commentators insist that καλοῦντος refers to God’s creative work such as creatio ex nihilo (Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 97; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:244; Jewett, Romans, 334; Schliesser, Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4, 376; RSV; NASB; TNIV) or the power of God to justify the sinner (Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 122– 24; Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 74; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 1:274–75; H. Moxnes, Theology in Conflict: Studies in Paul’s Understanding of God in Romans [NovTSup 53; Leiden: Brill, 1980], 241–53). However, although it is not

264

chapter six

is related to the physical situation of Abraham and his wife, and the latter (c4–57) is to the content of God’s promise.74 In vv. 18–21, Paul mentions how Abraham’s faith is relevant to these portrayals of God. First, with regards to the content of the promise, he says in v. 18 that in spite of the hopeless situation of a human (παρ᾽ἐλπίδα), Abraham believed in God with hope (ἐπ᾽ἐλπίδι), in order to be a father of many nations just as God had promised.75 It indicates that Abraham’s faith was based on God’s word and on the hope of God’s fulfillment of it. The citation of God’s promise to Abraham (Gen 15:5) in cc4–62–63 also supports such a nature of Abraham’s faith. Second, concerning the physical situation of Abraham and his wife in vv. 19–20,76 Paul points out that Abraham’s faith was so firm that he was not overwhelmed by the outward physical situation. He delivers this point through an interesting structure. Structurally, he describes Abraham’s strong faith by a construction of participle (μὴ ἀσθενήσας: c4–65 [v. 19])—finite verb (κατενόησεν and οὐ διεκρίθη: cc4–64 [v. 19], 68 [v. 20])—finite verb (ἐνεδυναμώθη: c4–69 [v. 20])—participle (δοὺς and πληροφορηθεὶς: cc4–70, 71 [v. 20]). Semantically, the first totally irrelevant to God’s creative power, I am inclined to the view that καλοῦντος refers to God’s calling or summoning because of the existence of ὡς (“as if ”) (Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 113; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 146–47; F.F. Bruce, Romans (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 113; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 283; Schreiner, Romans, 237; NIV). 74 Bruce, Romans, 118. 75 There are three views on the understanding of εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι in c4–61 (v. 18): (1) the content of Abraham’s faith—“he believed that he would become the father of many nations” (Zahn, Der Brief an die Römer, 236–37; Bultmann, “πιστεύω κτλ.,” TDNT 6 [1968], 206; NRSV); (2) the consequence of Abraham’s faith—“he believed and as a result became the father of many nations” (Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 124; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:246; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 210; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 283 n. 70; NIV; NEB; JB); and (3) the purpose of his faith—“he believed with the purpose that he might become the father of many nations” (Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 114; Turner, Syntax, 143; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 148; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 219; Fitzmyer, Romans, 384; NASB). Among them, I prefer to the third view, because, in connection to v. 17, the focus of vv. 18–21 is on the attitude of Abraham toward God’s initial promise (cf. Byrne, Romans, 160), not on the result of his faith. Actually, the result of Abraham’s faith appears only in v. 22 with διό (“therefore”). Hence, εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι can be regarded as a part of Abraham’s response to God, which functions to state the purpose of Abraham’s faith. 76 There is a semantic link between c4–56 (v. 17) and v. 19, such as the use of νεκροwords (νεκροὺς [v. 17], νενεκρωμένον, and νέκρωσιν [v. 19]).

rom :–:

265

participial (c4–65) and finite clauses (c4–69) show a parallel through a use of contrasting words: μὴ ἀσθενήσας vs. ἐνεδυναμώθη. Logically, the combination of the first participle and finite verb shares a common structure with that of the second finite verb and participle. In both combinations, the depiction of Abraham’s strong faith comes first, and then his response to the outward physical situation follows. The first response of Abraham is that he did not doubt God’s promise despite the oldness of the bodies of him and his wife.77 The second response is to glorify God and to be fully convinced that God was able to fulfill his promise. Here also, the kernel of Abraham’s faith is his reliance on God himself. By this very nature of faith, Abraham was reckoned as righteous (c4–75 [v. 22]). In vv. 23–25, Paul insists that Abraham’s faith and its result can also be applied to Christians. Just as Abraham was reckoned as righteous through his faith, Christians can be recognized as righteous through his/her faith. Moreover, as the core of Abraham’s faith is his trust in God, who gives life to the dead (τοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκροὺς: c4–56 [v. 17]), Christian faith that leads to righteousness also depends on his/ her trust in God (c4–81 [v. 24]), who raised Jesus from the dead (τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν: c4–82 [v. 24]). Even though Paul adds an explanation about Jesus in cc4–83–84 (v. 25), his focus still remains on God, because he states that God, not Jesus, is the object of Christian faith (cc4–81–82 [v. 24]). This is the common theme in both the cases of Abraham and Christians. The additive explanation of Jesus’ death and resurrection stresses the role of God in the salvific process, and it also provides an implication for the following argument on the role of Jesus in Romans 5. In sum, from the logical flow explained above, Paul’s argumentation in this sub-unit can be summarized as follows: (1) it is human faith, not the law, which is the key response to God’s gracious initiative; (2) the essential nature of faith is to trust in God himself, who is the

77 In this sense, the first participial clause (μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει) would not be understood as a later response of Abraham to the physical situation, which is translated as “He did not weaken in faith when he considered . . .” (NRSV; RSV; TEV; JB; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 283). Instead, it should be regarded as the basic premise of Abraham’s response, since δέ in c4–68 (v. 20) indicates the contrast between Abraham’s observation and the firmness of his faith (NASB; NIV; William Baird, “Abraham in the New Testament: Tradition and the New Identity,” Int 42 [1988], 377–78).

266

chapter six

initiator and the completer of his promise and salvation; (3) the core of Abraham’s faith and its result can also be applied to Christian readers; and (4) therefore, the only way for Paul’s readers to experience the fulfillment of God’s gracious promise and salvation is not through the law, but through faith. 3) Focality Various emphatic expressions and devices are used to emphasize the topical issues. First, when Paul deals with the relationship between God’s promise and Abraham’s response to it in vv. 13–16, he uses some devices to emphasize each theme. In regards to the promise of God, he shows its importance by inserting the content of promise with an unusual structure, which breaks the closeness of a noun + genitive (τὸ κληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶναι κόσμου [c4–41]). Concerning the response of Abraham’s to God’s promise, Paul uses two stative aspect verbs to describe the role of the law. Yet this works to highlight the negative side of the law, because these two verbs do not have positive connotations in relation to faith and promise (κεκένωται [to empty] and κατήργηται [to nullify]). Thus, the gathering of the emphatic expressions around the law works to stress the positive role of faith. The positive role of faith is even stressed by the inclusive word παντί in c4–51 (v. 16), which denotes the desirable outcome of faith that the beneficiary of God’s promise is open to all. Second, when Paul describes Abraham’s faith in vv. 17–22, he also uses various prominence markers both within the sentence level and beyond. At the level beyond the sentence, Paul explains Abraham’s faith through interesting structures. As mentioned in the logical analysis, the depictions of God’s power (cc4–56–59) and Abraham’s faith (cc4– 60–73) show a rough inverted parallel structure: God’s power to give life to the dead (A [c4–56: v. 17])—God’s power to fulfill his promise (B [cc4–57–59: v. 17])—Abraham’s response to God’s promise (B´ [cc4–60–63: v. 18])—Abraham’s response to God’s power (A´ [cc4– 64–73: vv. 19–20]). Moreover, when dealing with Abraham’s faith in relation to God’s power, Paul also uses three peculiar structures: (1) a syntactical inverted parallelism: participle—finite verb—finite verb—participle; (2) a semantic parallel: a wordplay with strong (ἐνεδυναμώθη) and weak (ἀσθενήσας) in faith; and (3) a logical parallel: Abraham’s faith comes first and his response to the situation follows.

rom :–:

267

At the sentence level, Paul also uses prominence markers in the above interesting structures. In c4–62 (v. 18), he employs the stative aspect verb, εἰρημένον, in order to stress the basis of Abraham’s faith. When Paul deals with the obstacle of Abraham’s faith in v. 19, he expresses it through a marked word order of ‘ql (qualifier) + head term’ (ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα), the stative aspect of νενεκρωμένον, and two consecutive participial clauses (cc4–66–67). In c4–73 (v. 21), he stresses the firmness of Abraham’s faith in God’s power by the emphatic (adverbial) use of καί. Thus, through the contrast between the outward obstacles and the firmness of Abraham’s faith, Paul stresses the importance of faith, which is based fundamentally on God and his power. This idea is also supported by another emphatic (adverbial) use of καί in c4–75 which mentions the result of Abraham’s strong faith: διὸ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην.78 In sum, according to the above observation, Paul’s intention is to stress not only the importance of Abraham’s faith in contrast to the law, but also the nature of faith, which brings God’s justification both to Abraham and to Christians. 4) Grouping a) External evidence Even though the conjunction γάρ and several words, such as Abraham, faith, and righteousness, in v. 13 suggest a connection to the preceding sub-unit, Rom 4:13–25 can be regarded as a discrete sub-unit due to the indicators of topical shift. First, Paul draws a new topical lexis, ἐπαγγελία, into his argument. Second, in regards to the ἐπαγγελία, he also introduces the antithesis of the law and faith in Abraham’s case as a new topical issue in v. 13. Thus, Rom 4:13–25 can be regarded as another sub-unit within Paul’s ongoing argument on Abraham’s faith, which deals with the role of the law and faith in relation to God’s promise.

78 Even though some MSS omit this καί (B D* G), the existence of καί seems to be original, because it is attested by many reliable MSS such as ‫ א‬A C Db, c K P Y 33 81 1739 the majority text (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 272 n. 4; contra Schreiner, Romans, 240).

268

chapter six

b) Internal evidence The internal unity of this sub-unit is mainly delivered by the semantic links under the overall topical boundary of God’s promise and Abraham’s faith. Verses 13 and 16 show a rough inclusio, in that both mention the same content with the same words, such as the law, promise, Abraham and his descendant, and faith. In between vv. 13 and 16, the law and faith are contrasted in relation to the promise. Verses 16 and 17 are connected by πατήρ (cc4–52 [v. 16] and 54 [v. 17]) and πιστwords (πίστις in c4–51 [v. 16] and πιστεύω in c4–55 [v. 17]). The unity of vv. 17–21 is shown through several semantic chains, such as faith (vv. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21), dead (νεκρός: vv. 17, 19), and πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν (vv. 17, 18). Moreover, the combination of faith and promise in vv. 20–21 is also connected to that in v. 13. Lastly, the OT citation of Gen 15:6 in v. 22 is linked to vv. 17–21 by an inferential conjunction διό. The content of this citation is also used to bridge between the case of Abraham’s faith (vv. 17–22) and that of Paul’s contemporary Christians (vv. 23–25): (1) λογίζομαι: ἐλογίσθη (cc4–75 [v. 22], 77 [v. 23]) and λογίζεσθαι (c4–80 [v. 24]); (2) αὐτῷ (vv. 22, 23); and (3) δικ-words: δικαιοσύνη (v. 22) and δικαίωσιν (c4–84 [v. 25]). Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to say that the internal unity of Rom 4:13–25 mainly depends on the semantic chains regarding to Abraham’s faith and God’s promise. The internal unity can be diagrammed as below: 5) Summary Rom 4:13–25 has a connection with the preceding sub-unit, in that both mention the fatherhood of Abraham (vv. 11 and 13, 17, 18). Yet, in this sub-unit, Paul focuses more on the relationship among the law, Abraham’s faith, and God’ promise. At first, he shows the limitation of the law in regard to God’s promise, and highlights faith as the only way for Abraham to experience the realization of God’s promise. Then, he explains the nature of Abraham’s faith. The kernel of it is to trust in God himself, who provides a promise and has power to perform it. Finally, Paul affirms that through this very nature of faith, Christians can also attain the result of Abraham’s faith, which is to be justified by God. In this sub-unit, Paul’s overall argumentative framework is related to the new interactive paradigm between human faith and God’s justification. In Abraham’s case, God shows his grace by providing a

rom :–:

269

semantic domains 33.E (the law)

13

οὐ γὰρ διὰ νόμου ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἢ τῷ σπέρματι

αὐτοῦ, τὸ κληρονόμον . . . διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως

14

εἰ γὰρ οἱ

33.Y (promise) 31.I (πιστ– words)

ἐκ νόμου κληρονόμοι, κεκένωται ἡ πίστις . . . ἐπαγγελία νόμος ὀργὴν . . . οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος οὐδὲ παράβασις

16

15

ὁ γὰρ

διὰ τοῦτο

ἐκ πίστεως . . . ὴν ἐπαγγελίαν παντὶ τῷ σπέρματι οὐ τῷ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ, ὅς ἐστιν πατὴρ . . .

17

καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε . . .

ἐπίστευσεν θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκροὺς . . .18 ὃς παρ᾽

31.I

ἐλπίδα ἐπ᾽ἐλπίδι ἐπίστευσεν εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτὸν πατέρα

23.G

πολλῶν ἐθνῶν . . . τὸ σπέρμα σου19 . . . τῇ πίστει . . . τὸ ἑαυτοῦ

(Live, Die)

σῶμα [ἤδη] νενεκρωμένον . . . ὑπάρχων, καὶ τὴν νέκρωσιν . . . 20

. . . οὐ διεκρίθη τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ ἀλλ᾽ . . . τῇ πίστει, δοὺς δόξαν τῷ θεῷ 21 . . . ἐπήγγελται . . . 22 διὸ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην 23

31.I 23.G 30.A

οὐκ ἐγράφη δὲ δι᾽αὐτὸν μόνον ὅτι ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ 24 ἀλλὰ καὶ

δι᾽ἡμᾶς, οἷς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν 25 ὃς παρεδόθη

(λογίζομαι) διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν.

270

chapter six

promise of fatherhood, and Abraham gives back a proper response by faith in God. The consequence of this process is God’s justification of Abraham. Likewise, Paul applies the same interactive process to the case of his readers. God shows his initial grace through the death and resurrection of Jesus, and expects human faith as the proper response to it. If one replies by faith, he/she can experience God’s justification. In the interactive paradigm between human faith and God’s justification, Jesus’ death and resurrection are at the center of God’s salvific initiative, but the active role of Jesus is not fully unfolded in this sub-unit. Yet Paul implies in the last two clauses in v. 25 (cc4–83–84) that the role of Jesus will be the topic of his further argument about the new salvific interactive paradigm between God and humans: e.g., Jesus’ death for human trespass (παραπτώματα, v. 25; cf. Rom 5: 15, 16, 17, 20), and Jesus’ resurrection for believers (v. 25; cf. Rom 5:10, 6:1–14).79 3. Conclusion Rom 3:21–4:25 is a new phase of Paul’s argument on his gospel. Based upon the argument that the law cannot be the way for experiencing God’s saving righteousness, he introduces a new interactive paradigm between humans and God. Yet it is not a brand new concept, because he has already mentioned this paradigm in Rom 1:16–17. Just as in Rom 1:16–17, Paul states in Rom 3:21–22 that God’s righteousness is his salvific reaction to humans, and human faith is the key way in experiencing God’s righteousness. Moreover, through this faith, the potential beneficiaries of God’s righteousness become all people regardless of socio-religious distinctions. Yet Paul does not overlook pointing out who is in control throughout the whole salvific process. In Rom 3:24–26, God graciously takes the initiative in the salvific process by providing Jesus’ death as the key both to the forgiveness of human sins and to the satisfaction of his justness. Moreover, it is also God that gives salvation as a positive reaction to those who show faith as a response to God’s initiative. Therefore, the new salvific interactive paradigm has four important elements: (1) God’s gracious initiative, in which the death and resurrection of Jesus are located at the center;

79 In addition, the negative role of the law in v. 15, which brings God’s wrath by disobedience (παράβασις), will be dealt with in the following arguments of Paul (cf. Rom 5:13–14, 20; 7:7–25).

rom :–:

271

(2) the role of human faith, which is the proper way to respond to God’s initiative; (3) salvation, which is God’s gift as a result of human response by faith; and (4) the universal scope of the beneficiaries of God’s salvation. The above four elements become the topical issues, and appear according to the sub-units. Rom 3:21–26 present the four elements of the new salvific interactive paradigm, and then pays attention to the first element, the role of God in the interaction (Rom 3:24–26). Rom 3:27–31 deals with the second element by contrasting between faith and the law (Rom 3:27–28, 31), and Rom 3:29–30 is about the universal inclusiveness of God’s salvation, the fourth element. The exemplary case of Abraham in Romans 4 also shows the above elements. Rom 4:1–8 mention the second element, and, especially, the contrast between human works and faith. The topical issue in Rom 4:9–12 is relevant to the fourth element, and that of Rom 4:9–25 to the second element. In particular, Rom 4:9–25 show not only the inability of the law as the means of experiencing God’s salvation, but also the nature of Abraham’s faith, which is the prototype of Christian faith. Even though the third element, which is the result of human response to God’s initiative, does not appear as the main topical issue in each sub-unit, it is still depicted as an important element of God’s salvific process in several sub-units. When Paul explains God’s role in Rom 3:24–26, for example, he states the handling of human sin, which is the main cause of God’s judgment, as one of the purposes of God’s initial provision in the salvific process. In Rom 4:6–8, Paul also links the righteousness of God to the forgiveness of sins. Moreover, in Rom 4:25, he implies through a parallel structure of διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν . . . διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν that the justification of Christians is related to the disposal of their sins. Thus, the acquittal of sins is described as one aspect of God’s salvation. Finally, according to the above topicality, two things need to be considered. One is that Paul tends to focus more on the first and the second elements among the four, since he mentions these two elements in every sub-unit. In some senses, the whole of Romans 4 can be regarded as an example of the interaction between these two elements, human faith and God’s salvation. Moreover, in several passages, such as Rom 3:22–24, 29–30; 4:9–12, 16, 23–25, Paul also shows that the first two elements affect the other two. That is, the interaction of God’s initiative and human faith makes it possible for all people to be the beneficiaries of God’s righteousness without distinction. The other thing

272

chapter six

to be noted is the role of Jesus in relation to the first element. Even though Jesus is at the center of God’s initiative in the salvific process, he is only described as having a passive role. Whenever Paul mentions Jesus in this section, he puts Jesus in the Complements (Rom 3:25; 4:25) or with passive verbs (Rom 4:25). Even in Rom 4:25, Paul states that the object of Christian faith is not Jesus, but God. In this sense, his description of divine initiative in this section is theocentric. What, then, is the role of Jesus in the new salvific interactive paradigm? What did he do in this process? Paul does not spell out the answers to such questions in this section. However, through Rom 4:25, he leads his readers into his next arguments in Romans 5, where Jesus appears as the active actor in such a salvific process.

CHAPTER SEVEN

ROMANS 5: JESUS AS THE CENTER OF GOD’S SALVIFIC PROCESS AND ITS RESULT In Romans 4, Paul deals with justification by faith through the exemplary case of Abraham, and bridges the case of Abraham’s faith to his readers. In the course of bridging, he restates Jesus’ death and resurrection as the central event in God’s salvation (Rom 4:24–25). Then, in Romans 5, Paul explains the meaning and implication of the centrality of Jesus. The position of Romans 5 in Paul’s argument is a debated problem. In general, there are four options concerning this issue: (1) as a conclusion, Romans 5 is attached to Romans 1–4;1 (2) as a beginning, Romans 5 is connected to Romans 6–8;2 (3) Rom 5:1–11 and 12–21 are linked to Romans 1–4 and Romans 6–8 respectively;3 and (4) Romans 5 is a transition between Romans 1–4 and 6–8.4 Regarding this issue, however, it would be better to delay the determination of the position of Romans 5 for the present until we have finished discussing Romans 5.

1 Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, xlvii–xlix; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 211; M. Wolter, Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil: Unterschungen zu Röm 5:1–11 (BZNW 43; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978), 214–16; Bruce, Romans, 64–65; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 242–44; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 217; Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 14–15 (he views Rom 3:21–5:21 as one discourse unit); Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 492–93; etc. 2 Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 187–89; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:253–54; Beker, Paul, the Apostle, 83–86; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 290–95; Byrne, Romans, 162–64; Schreiner, Romans, 245–49; R.N. Longenecker, “The Focus of Romans,” in S.K. Soderlund and N.T. Wright (eds.), Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the occasion of His 65th Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 57–69; Jewett, Romans, 347; etc. 3 Leenhardt, The Epistle to the Romans, 131, 139–40; M.C. de Boer, The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 (JSNTSup 22; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 148–49; etc. 4 Black, Romans, 81; E.P Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: S.C.M. Press, 1977), 486–87; B.N. Kaye, The Thought Structure of Romans with Special Reference to Chapter 6 (Austin: Scholars Press, 1979), 1–13; P.M. McDonald, “Romans 5:1–11 as a Rhetorical Bridge,” JSNT 40 (1990), 81–96; cf. Porter, who also views Romans 5 as a separate unit, regards Romans 5 as the climax of Paul’s argument (Porter, “A Newer Perspective on Paul,” 382–83).

274

chapter seven

As far as the inner structure is concerned, Romans 5 can be divided into two sub-units, Rom 5:1–11 and 12–21, according to their content and characteristics. Rom 5:1–11 introduces a relational aspect as another facet of salvation by means of first person plural references. It also shows a parallel structure between vv. 1–2 and 9–11 through the co-occurrence of several concepts, such as, justification, peace and reconciliation, boasting, and the mediatorial role of Jesus. Rom 5:12– 21 is distinguished from Rom 5:1–11 by the shift of person reference from the first person plural to the third person singular, and by the use of comparison as the main argumentative method. Yet, in spite of the above divisions, there is enough reason to think of Romans 5 as a unity. The major reason is the topical interest in Jesus. Throughout Romans 5, Jesus appears as a key topical participant, who has a mediatorial role in the process of salvation. Particularly, this role of Jesus is expressed by the repetitive use of διὰ + genitive construction. Ten out of seventeen occurrences are related to Jesus (vv. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 (x2), 17, 18, 19, and 21). Hence, although Romans 5 consists of Rom 5:1–11 and 12–21, the overall unity is established by the topical interest in the role of Jesus. 1. Rom 5:1–11: Jesus and the overall salvific interactive paradigm between God and humans A. Text analysis of Rom 5:1–11

romans 

275

276

chapter seven

B. Topicality 1) Analysis of structure Rom 5:1–11 consists of twelve primary, eleven secondary, and nine embedded clauses.5 In such a structure, there appear four topical participants in this sub-unit: God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and humans. First, God is described as the agent and actor of the processes, such as justification (δικαιωθέντες [vv. 1, 9]), showing his love (ἐκκέχυται [v. 5], συνίστησιν [v. 8]), giving the Holy Spirit (δοθέντος [v. 5]), reconciliation (κατηλλάγημεν, καταλλαγέντες [v. 10]), and the expected future state of salvation (cf. σωθησόμεθα [vv. 9, 10]).6 Yet God 5 (1) Primary clauses: cc5–1 (v. 1), 5 (v. 2), 6, 7 (v. 3), 15 (v. 6), 17, 18 (v. 7), 20 (v. 8), 23 (v. 9), 27 (v. 10), 29, 30 (v. 11); (2) secondary clauses: cc5–3, 4 (v. 2), 9 (v. 3), 10, 11 (v. 4), 12, 13 (v. 5), 21, 22 (v. 8), 25 (v. 10), 32 (v. 11); and (3) embedded clauses: cc5–2 (v. 1), 8 (v. 3), 14 (v. 5), 16 (v. 6), 19 (v. 7), 24 (v. 9), 26, 28 (v. 10), 31 (v. 11). 6 Even though the grammatical tense form per se is not a decisive factor to determine its temporal nature, two deictic indicators help to see the future sense of these verses. One indicator is the use of πολλῷ οὖν μᾶλλον. It gives a comparative situation. What, then, are the points of comparison of σωθησόμεθα? In vv. 9 and 10, δικαιωθέντες and κατηλλάγημεν appear as the points of comparison respectively. Yet it is hard to think that these comparisons are intended to express a hierarchical relationship among these three terms, since Paul has never implied the inferiority of justification in his argument. If Paul’s focus is not to set a hierarchical framework, then what is his interest? The second indicator, νῦν, gives a clue to this question. The use of νῦν in v. 9 has a temporal sense, and works to indicate the present state of justification. It implies that the point of comparison is related to the temporal sense between δικαιωθέντες and σωθησόμεθα. Moreover, since Paul states the futuristic aspect of God’s wrath (ὀργή) in Rom 2:5, it is not impossible to interpret the salvation from God’s wrath as having a future sense. In the case of reconciliation, although the temporal indicator is not mentioned in v. 10, the reconciled condition of believers (κατηλλάγημεν) should

romans 

277

only appears as the implied subject except in c5–20 [v. 8], and even in c5–20, God is mentioned in the last position, which implies a decrease of emphasis.7 Second, the Holy Spirit is expressed in the Adjunct as a mediator of God’s love to believers (c5–13 [v. 5]),8 but his active role is not explained yet. On the contrary, the depiction of Jesus, the third participant, is very different from the above two. For the first time in Romans, Jesus appears as the grammatical subject of the active verb (ἀπέθανεν: cc5–15 [v. 6] and 21 [v. 8]), and it denotes Jesus’ active role in the process of his death. In addition, his role as a means of God’s salvific process is emphasized through the repetition of διὰ + genitive phrase (cc5–1 [v. 1], 3 [v. 2], 23 [v. 9], 25 [v. 10], and 31 [v. 11]) and the prepositional phrases with ἐν (cc5–24 [v. 9] and 27 [v. 10]). The fourth participant is humans, and they are divided into two groups: ‘we’ and ‘someone’ (τὶς: v. 7). The first person plural group (‘we’) denotes believers, who share justification by faith as a common ground (v. 1). The information on this group is mainly delivered by verbal voice and participle clauses. The voice of the verb indicates the status of this ‘we’ group in the interactive paradigm between God and humans. In vv. 1–3, humans are mentioned as the implied subject of the active verbs (ἔχωμεν, ἐσχήκαμεν, ἑστήκαμεν, and καυχώμεθα), and it denotes that the ‘we’ group is an active respondent to the result of God’s salvific process.9 The middle participle καυχώμενοι in v. 11 be viewed as the present situation, because Paul mentions reconciliation with νῦν in c5–32 (v. 11). Hence, σωθησόμεθα can be understood as the expected state of salvation, which has a future sense, in the process of salvation. 7 Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 296. 8 Contra Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” 45. He regards ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ as believers’ love for God. 9 Many modern scholars regards the indicative ἔχομεν as original on account of several pieces of evidence: (1) a hortatory subjunctive does not fit this sub-unit (Dunn, Romans 1–8, 245; Keck, Romans, 135); (2) the existence of ἐσχήκαμεν in c5–2 (v. 2); and (3) the mediatorial role of Jesus in the διά phrase in v. 1 (Fitzmyer, Romans, 396; Schreiner, Romans, 258; Gathercole, Where Is Boasting?, 256; Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 102; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 133; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:257; Wolter, Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil, 89–94; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 1:288–89; Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 454; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 295 n. 17; etc.). However, there are several reasons to think that the subjunctive ἔχωμεν is original (Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 120–21; Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 72; Neil Elliot, The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism [JSNTSup 45; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990], 227–28; Stowers, A Rereading of Romans, 248–49; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 495–96; Porter, “The Argument of Romans 5,” 662–64; Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 464; Tobin, Paul’s

278

chapter seven

also indicates the response of the ‘we’ group. Yet the passive verbs in vv. 9–10, such as δικαιωθέντες (v. 9; cf. v. 1), σωθησόμεθα (vv. 9– 10), κατηλλάγημεν and καταλλαγέντες (v. 10), demonstrate this ‘we’ group as the beneficiary of God’s salvific process. On the other hand, the condition of this ‘we’ group is expressed by several participial clauses, and it can also be divided into two: (1) before being saved: weak (c5–16 [v. 6]), sinful (c5–21 [v. 8]), and hostile to God (c5–25 [v. 10]); and (2) after being saved: being justified by faith (cc5–2 [v. 1], 24 [v. 9]) and reconciled to God (c5–28 [v. 10]). The second human group is only mentioned in v. 7, and it appears as a counter example of Jesus’ voluntary death. In summary, Rom 5:1–11 also shows the salvific interactive paradigm between God and humans. In this paradigm, God appears as the divine agent, who initiates and performs the salvific process, and humans, especially believers, as both the recipients of the goal of such a process and the respondents to it. Unlike the preceding sections, however, the active role of Jesus becomes more apparent in this sub-unit.

Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 158–59; Jewett, Romans, 344; etc.). Externally, the subjunctive ἔχωμεν is attested by more reliable MSS (‫ א‬A B* C D K L 33 etc.) than ἔχομεν (‫א‬1 B2 F Ggr P Ψ 5 6 etc.). Internally, it is not impossible for Paul to use a hortatory subjunctive here because, unlike justification, which has a strong forensic sense, peace and reconciliation are more relevant to the relational sense. Considering the use of diatribes in the preceding and following arguments, where Paul invites his reader to join his thought, it is also possible that he brings his reader into the new relational aspect of God’s salvation through the first person plural subjunctive in Rom 5:1 (cf. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 158 n. 6). Moreover, the indicative ἐσχήκαμεν in c5–2 (v. 2) is not helpful evidence for the indicative ἔχομεν, because ἐσχήκαμεν is in the subordinate secondary clause, so it cannot be a parallel of ἔχωμεν/ἔχομεν (Porter, “The Argument of Romans 5,” 663–64). Rather, the parallel of ἔχωμεν/ἔχομεν should be καυχώμεθα in cc5–5 (v. 2) and 7 (v. 3). Even though καυχώμεθα can be interpreted as either indicative or subjunctive, it is more plausible to think of it as subjunctive, since if it is indicative, “it places both Paul and the Romans in the position of continuing to act contrary to his previous critique of boasting (2:17, 23; 3:27; 4:2)” (Jewett, Romans, 351). On the contrary, if it is a hortatory subjunctive, it has an effect that Paul suggests a different sort of boasting to his reader without a difficulty of contradiction. If this is correct, it is plausible to think that as the parallel of καυχώμεθα, ἔχω takes the same subjunctive mood. Moreover, it is questionable that the participle form καυχώμενοι in v. 11 can be a criterion to determine the mood of καυχώμεθα, because basically the participle belongs to non-indicative mood in the sense that it does not of itself “make an assertion about reality” (Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 53; contra Schreiner, Romans, 258). Finally, the διὰ + genitive phrase in v. 1 is not decisive to choose the indicative as original, for its appearance in the Adjunct can also work as a ground for the hortatory encouragement. Thus, it is too much for UBS4 to increase the grading from C in UBS3 to A without any additional external evidence.

romans 

279

2) Analysis of semantic domains Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 25 (Attitudes and Emotion: x3): O (Patience), D (Hope), C (Love) (2) 12.A (God: x2); 93.A (Jesus: x2) (3) 22.A (Trouble, Hardship, Distress): 27.D (Try To Learn)

Predicators

(1) 57 (x3): A (Have: x2), I (Receive); 23.G (Live, Die: x3) (3) 33.Mʹ (Boast: x2); 21.F (Save in a Religious Sense: x2); 25 (x2): R (Shame, Disgrace, Humiliation), N (Courage, Boldness) (4) 85.B; 90.N; 40.A (Reconciliation)

Complements (1) 25 (x3): D, O, C (2) 23.G; 12.A (God); 40.A; 27.D; 22.G; 33.F (Speak, Talk) Adjuncts

(1) Human beings: 92.B (Speaker and Those Associated with the Speaker: x8) (2) Divine part icipants: i) Jesus (x4): 12.A (x2), 93.A (x2); ii) God (12.A: x3); iii) The Holy Spirit (12.A) (3) 88 (x6): O, B, A, I, L´, X (4) 13.A (State: x3) (5) 34.E (δικ-words: x2); 23.G (x2) (6) 31.I; 25.D; 79.E; 22.A; 28.A; 26; 57.H; 53.A; 33.M′; 10.B; 40.A; 8.B

Overall lists

(1) Divine participants: God (x6), Jesus (x6), the Holy Spirit (x1) (2) Human beings: 92.B (‘we’: x8) (3) 25 (x9) (4) 23.G (x6), cf. 8.B (αἷμα: x1); 88 (x6) (5) 57 (Possess, Transfer, Exchange: x4): A (x2), H (Give), I (6) 40.A (x3); 33.Mʹ (x3); 34.E (δικ-word: x2); 31.I (faith: x2)

In the Subjects, the main semantic domain is related to God (x2) and Jesus (x2). Semantic domain 25 appears three times in the Subject, and one of them (25.D [Love]) is used to refer to God’s love. In the Predicators, the most frequent semantic domains are 57, 23.G, and 33.Mʹ, and each domain occurs three times. In the case of Complements, three occurrences of domain 25 are the most frequent. Lastly, the major semantic domain in the Adjuncts is eight appearances of 92.B (‘we’). The next one is 88 (Moral and Ethical Qualities and Related Behavior: x6); and four uses of Jesus and three of God follow.

280

chapter seven

From the above observations, several things need to be considered. First, the amount of reference to Jesus is very different from that in the preceding sections. As mentioned above, Jesus appears for the first time as the grammatical subject of an active verb. In two cases (vv. 1 and 11), he is mentioned in a long phrase of διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Moreover, four out of six occurrences of 23.G are related to Jesus’ death, and 8.B (Parts of the Body: blood) also denotes his death. All these occurrences reflect Paul’s interest in the role of Jesus’ death in God’s salvation. Second, the eight uses of 92.B are also peculiar in comparison with the other parts of Romans. Together with nine first person plural verbs, Rom 5:1–11 has the densest cluster of the first person plural references in Romans.10 As a rhetorical invitation to Paul’s argument, the use of the first person plural may reflect Paul’s strong desire to share the content of this sub-unit with his reader.11 The third consideration is the use of new terminology concerning the result of God’s salvific process. The cognates of καταλλάσσω introduce a brand new term in Paul’s argument, and depict a new relational aspect of God’s salvation.12 The appearance of σῴζω is also noteworthy, because it is the first use of a term in correspondence with σωτηρία in Rom 1:16. Since Paul mentions ‘salvation’ as the content of his gospel in Rom 1:16, the use of σῴζω may imply that the content of vv. 9–10 is closely related to the core of his gospel. Lastly, the above pattern of semantic domains gives insight to understanding the structure of Rom 5:1–11. The beginning (vv. 1–3) and ending parts (vv. 9–11) of this sub-unit share common semantic domains or concepts: (1) 34.E (δικ-word) in vv. 1 and 9; (2) 33.Mʹ 10

Rom 5:1–11 has 17 occurrences of the first person plural out of 184 words. The second densest one is Rom 8:31–39, and it has 12 references out of 148 words, and the third one is Rom 6:1–14, which has 15 occurrences out of 209 words. 11 McDonald regards Rom 5:1–11 as a “rhetorical bridge between the apostle and the Romans Christians” (McDonald, “Romans 5:1–11 as a Rhetorical Bridge,” 81). 12 For detailed study on reconciliation, see I.H. Marshall, “The Meaning of Reconciliation,” in R.A. Guelich (ed.), Unity and Diversity in NT Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 117–32; R.P. Martin, Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989); idem, “Reconciliation: Romans 5:1–11,” in S.K. Soderlund and N.T. Wright (eds.), Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the occasion of His 65th Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 36–48; Stanley E. Porter, καταλλασσω in Ancient Greek Literature, with Reference to the Pauline Writings (EFN 5; Córdoba: Ediciones El Almendro, 1994); idem, “ΚΑΤΑΛΛΑΣΣΩ in Ancient Greek Literature and Romans 5: A Study of Pauline Usage,” in Studies in the Greek New Testament (New York: Peter Lang, 1996), 195–212.

romans 

281

in vv. 2–3 and 11; and (3) peace in v. 1 (22.G) and reconciliation (40.A) in vv. 10–11.13 Moreover, in both parts, these three (or four) semantic domains are mentioned in the same order of justification— reconciliation—boasting. In addition, the same phrase of διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in vv. 1 and 11 also contributes to the parallelism between vv. 1–3 and 9–11. Thus, the beginning and ending parts correspond to each other.14 Within this parallel, two interesting semantic patterns also appear. One pattern is that semantic domain 23.G is clustered in vv. 6–10, and, especially, four of them appear in the ending positions of a clause in vv. 6–8: ἀποθνῄσκω in cc5–15 (v. 6), 17, 18 (v. 7), 22 (v. 8). Here, since 23.G appears in relation to Jesus’ death, this part seems to be about the significance of Jesus’ sacrificial death. The other semantic pattern is that semantic domain 25 mainly appears in vv. 3–5. Except for 25.C (Love) in v. 8, seven out of eight occurrences of this domain are mentioned in this part, and they work to describe the attitude of believers. Thus, according to these observations, the structure of Rom 5:1–11 can be discussed as the following:15

13 Although the semantic categories of 22.G and 40.A are different, conceptually they overlap. So, the UBS semantic domain dictionary puts εἰρηνοποιέω (“to make peace”: Col 1:20) in the domain of 40.A (Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 1:502). Porter (Porter, “ΚΑΤΑΛΛΑΣΣΩ in Ancient Greek Literature and Romans 5,” 206–207) says that “the securing of peace (εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν) is contextually synonymous with what is meant by reconciliation (καταλλαγέντες).” 14 As well as the semantic domains, syntactical parallelism is also noticeable. First, in both vv. 1 and 9–10, the participial clause comes before the main verb. Second, each verb related to justification and reconciliation is modified by the Adjunct of means: (1) justification (ἐκ πίστεως [v. 1] and ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ [v. 9]); and (2) reconciliation (διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [v. 1] and διὰ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ [v. 10]). Lastly, both parts contain a comparative expression of οὐ μόνον δέ ἀλλὰ καὶ in relation to human boasting (καυχάομαι). However, there are two sorts of dissimilarities between them. One is the introduction of the expected state of salvation in vv. 9–10, which has a future sense. The other is that Paul’s descriptive angle with regard to the logical role of believers is different. While believers are described as the logical actor in vv. 1–2, in vv. 9–10, they become a logical recipient of God’s salvific process. This change of logical role is also reflected in the omission of human faith in vv. 9–10. Whereas Paul mentions faith as a human way to receive God’s salvation in vv. 1–2 (ἐκ πίστεως and τῇ πίστει), in vv. 9–10, he only focuses on the divine role and its result in the process of salvation. 15 Here, 25.C in v. 8 works to connect between vv. 3–5 and 6–10; and 23.G also links vv. 6–8 to 9–11.

282

chapter seven

A

semantic domains 34.E (justification), 22.G (peace), and 33.Mʹ (boasting): cc5–1–7 (vv. 1–3)

B

semantic domain 25 (Attitudes and Emotion): the attitudes of believers (cc5–8–14 [vv. 3–5])

C

semantic domain 23.G (Live, Die): the significance of Jesus’ death (cc5–15–27 [vv. 6–10])

Aʹ

semantic domains 34.E, 40.A [reconciliation], and 33.M´: cc5–23–31 (vv. 9–11)

3) Analysis of logical relations Rom 5:1–11 begins with a logical link to the preceding section through an inferential conjunction οὖν and a participial clause working as a summary of Paul’s previous argument (δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως: c5–2 [v. 1]). Based upon justification by faith, Paul encourages two sorts of human response in the new interactive paradigm of salvation.16 The first one is a peaceful relationship with God (v. 1). Before Rom 5:1, the forensic aspect is seen as Paul’s major approach to the interactive framework between God and humans, because he describes God’s salvific process with the acquittal of sins and human faith as the way to obtain it. Yet, here, Paul introduces a relational aspect as another feature of the interactive paradigm, and puts peace as the core of such relational aspect. However, these two aspects are not isolated from each other, because the forensic aspect of ‘human sinfulness— God’s judgment’ in the old interactive paradigm can be described relationally as ‘human rejection of God—God’s wrath.’ Likewise, in the new interactive paradigm, the forensic aspect of ‘human faith— God’s justification’ can also mean a new peaceful relationship between God and humans, in the sense that God’s process of justification could be regarded as God’s endeavor for a peaceful relationship with sinful humans (cf. v. 10; 2 Cor 5:18–19).17 Hence, since justification by faith brings believers into a new relational aspect of salvation (c5–3 [v. 2]), Paul encourages believers to have a new interactive response to God: εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν (“let us have peace with God”).

16 Schreiner insists on three results of justification: peace, access to grace (προσαγωγή), and hope (Schreiner, Romans, 253; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 263). But, this comes from ignorance of the fact that c5–3 (v. 2) is a secondary relative clause. 17 In this sense, human faith could be understood as the key to receive God’s forensic and relational initiative.

romans 

283

In explaining the human response in the relational dimension of salvation, Paul does not overlook the centrality of Jesus. The participial clause δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως already implies the significance of Jesus, because it is a corollary of the preceding argument that Jesus’ death and resurrection are for the removal of believers’ sins (Rom 4:25). The additional relative clause (c5–2 [v. 2]) also supports the mediatorial role of Jesus, through whom believers stand in the realm of God’s grace. Moreover, Paul even says that the response of believers to God in the new dimension of salvation is related to Jesus (c5–1 [v. 1]). Thus, in vv. 1–2, Paul begins to show the significant role of Jesus in both forensic and relational aspects of salvation. The second encouragement in the new salvific interactive paradigm is boasting (καυχώμεθα). In the previous sections, Paul mentions the cognates of καυχάομαι pejoratively, because they are based upon the possession of the law or human works (Rom 2:17, 23; 3:27; 4:2). Here in cc5–5 (v. 2) and 7 (v. 3), however, he encourages ‘us’ (believers) to boast as a positive reaction to the result of God’s salvific process. In v. 11, he puts forward the works of Jesus as a true ground for a believer’s boasting. The content of this new boasting has two temporal dimensions. On the one hand, the boasting in c5–5 is related to the future hope of God’s glory, which refers to the reversal of the state of sinful humans in Rom 3:23 (cf. 1:23). On the other hand, the new boasting is also relevant to the present unfavorable conditions (c5–7).18 The boasting regarding the present situation is based on the knowledge of a chain progression among affliction, perseverance, proved character (δοκιμή), and hope (cc5–8–11), and on the confidence of God’s love through the Holy Spirit (cc5–12–14 [v. 5]). In vv. 6–8, Paul re-describes God’s love in light of Jesus’ death. Yet, he seems to put more focus on Jesus than the love of God itself, because he expresses Jesus as the actor of ἀπέθανεν, and compares Jesus’ sacrificial death with other hypothetical cases (v. 7). The nature of Jesus’ death is articulated through ὑπέρ, as well as through the contrast between negative and positive depictions of the human situation. That is, unlike hypothetical deaths, which happen only for the noble person (δικαίου

18 Even though some commentators insist that this affliction connotes future tribulations (Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 103–104; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 134; Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 79; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 250), it is more probable that Paul is now mentioning the present situation, whatever the exact nature is.

284

chapter seven

and ἀγαθοῦ), the death of Jesus is for the one who is worthless (ἀσθενῶν, ἀσεβῶν, and ἁμαρτωλῶν) to receive a sacrificial death. Here, Paul puts this nature of Jesus’ death not only as the solution of human problems, such as ἀσεβής (Rom 1:18)19 and ἁμαρτωλός (cf. 2:12; 3:9, 23), which causes God’s judgment, but also as a revelation of God’s love, which is the basis of present new boasting and future hope.20 Based upon the significance of Jesus’ sacrificial death (οὖν), Paul extends in vv. 9–10 the horizon of the consequence of God’s salvific process from present to future by means of comparison (πολλῷ μᾶλλον: “much more”). At the outset, he expands the believer’s present condition of justification (a forensic acquittal of sins) to the future state of salvation (an exemption from God’s eschatological wrath) in v. 9.21 Since wrath is God’s fundamental response to human sinfulness in the previous sections (cf. Rom 1:18; 3:5), this process denotes not only the reversal of the future stage of God’s response to the sinner (cf. Rom 2:5, 8–9), but also the complete settlement of the interaction between God and sinful humans.22 Then, in relation to God’s wrath, Paul discusses another aspect of salvation with a new terminology, reconciliation, in v. 10.23 19 Perhaps, it indicates a moral weakness of humans (Schreiner, Romans, 260; contra Dunn, Romans 1–8, 254). 20 Schreiner (Schreiner, Romans, 262) seems to regard the function of vv. 6–8 only in relation to hope on the ground that: (1) the experience of God’s love increases hope (v. 5); (2) the death of Christ for sinners proves that this hope has an objective ground (vv. 6–8); and (3) therefore, believers can be sure that their hope will be realized, and they will preserved from God’s wrath (vv. 9–10). However, he overlooks that God’s love in v. 5 is a part of the content of εἰδότες in v. 3, which works to support the believer’s present new boasting. Thus, it is better to think that the role of God’s love through Jesus is related to the believer’s present new boasting as well. 21 However, it is not proper to make a clear-cut distinction between justification and salvation (e.g., Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 129; K.P. Donfried, “Justification and Last Judgment in Paul,” ZNW 67 [1976], 100–102), nor to think that the term ‘salvation’ only indicates a future event. Rather, both justification and salvation should be understood in the framework of ‘already-not yet’ (Dunn, Romans 1–8, 257). For the framework of ‘already-not yet’ and related bibliographies, see Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 461–72. 22 In this sense, I would regard that, as ‘from lesser to greater,’ πολλῷ μᾶλλον attaches to the finite verb σωθησόμεθα rather than to the participles δικαιωθέντες/ καταλλαγέντες (Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 107; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 138; Fitzmyer, Romans, 401; Jewett, Romans, 363; contra Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 169–71; Wolter, Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil, 178–80; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 310; Schreiner, Romans, 262; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 163–64). 23 Fee points out that together with justification, redemption, a means of atonement (ἱλαστήριος) in Rom 3:21–26, reconciliation is the fourth metaphor describing God’s

romans 

285

Reconciliation has a relational dimension, and it contains a hostile situation between God and sinful humans (ἐχθροὶ ὄντες) as the fundamental premise, which results from human disdain for God’s glory (cf. Rom 1:21–23, 25, 28).24 In c5–25 (v. 10), Paul describes that remedy of the past hostile situation as the present peaceful condition of believers. It is a result of God’s salvific process, and the death of Jesus is at the center of this process. Moreover, as in the case of justification, Paul also expects in c5–27 (v. 10) that this present reconciled condition will be extended to the future state of salvation. Here, there is no additional explanation of σωθησόμεθα. But, in light of the parallel between cc5–23 (v. 9) and 27 (v. 10),25 σωθησόμεθα seems to be related to the final judgment of God. In addition, considering that God’s wrathful judgment and his hostility toward sinful humans are two sides of the same coin, it is possible to think that the present peaceful relationship between God and humans will affect the future judgment of God. If so, the salvation from God’s final judgment will also be the complete settlement of the relational problem between God and sinful humans. In this extension of the present state to the future, Jesus’ life (ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ) appears as the locus and means of the process.26 After that, in

salvation through Jesus (G.D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical Study [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007], 245 n. 21) 24 Some scholars insist on one-way hostility, e.g., God’s enmity toward humans (Wolter, Rechtfertigung und Zukünftiges Heil, 86; N.S.L. Fryer, “Reconciliation in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” Neot 15 [1981], 52–53) or human hostility toward God (Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 1:330). However, it is more probable that the enmity and peaceful relation have two-way traffic because of the expression of κατηλλάγημεν τῷ θεῷ in v. 10. Here, the passive voice indicates believers as recipients of God’s reconciling act, and the dative signifies that God’s reconciling action is also toward God himself (Porter, “ΚΑΤΑΛΛΑΣΣΩ in Ancient Greek Literature and Romans 5,” 212; Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 226; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:267; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 258; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 312). 25 Structurally, in both clauses, πολλῷ μᾶλλον comes first indicating a comparative situation. The participles (δικαιωθέντες [v. 9] and καταλλαγέντες [v. 10]), which refer to the present condition of believers, are mentioned before the main verb (σωθησόμεθα). And each clause ends with an Adjunct (δι᾽αὐτοῦ [v. 9] and ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ [v. 10]). In this structure, believers are expressed as the beneficiaries of God’s salvific process through passive voice verbs, and Jesus appears as the means of the present and future condition of believers: (1) with regard to the present condition: ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ (v. 9) and διὰ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (v. 10); and (2) with regard to the future expected state: δι᾽αὐτοῦ (v. 9) and ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ (v. 10). 26 Moo interprets ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ as follows: “[p]robably, then, the phrase indicates that the new life won by Christ and in which believers share is the means by which they will be saved in the judgment” (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 312).

286

chapter seven

v. 11, Paul restates boasting as a new response of believers who receive the present reconciliation.27 He also makes clear that the new boasting is closely related to Jesus. In summary, from the conclusion of the preceding arguments on justification, Paul begins Rom 5:1–11 by introducing a relational aspect of God’s salvation by way of two sorts of encouragement for believers (‘we’): (1) to have a new peaceful relationship with God (v. 1): and (2) to boast of future hope and present suffering as a new response to God in the realm of relational salvation (cc5–5–14 [vv. 2–5]). After mentioning the love of God through the Holy Spirit as the ground of the new boasting (v. 5), he explains Jesus’ sacrificial death as an embodiment of God’s love for sinners (vv. 6–8). Then, in vv. 9–11, Paul describes a full picture of God’s salvation with two aspects and two temporal dimensions, and boasting as a new human response. In this explanation, the future hope appears as an important factor in God’s salvation and human response to it. However, the more important impetus of Paul’s argument is Jesus, because Jesus appears as the key for believers not only to receive God’s forensic and relational aspects of salvation both in the present and future times, but also to give a proper response to God, the new boasting.28

27

There is debate on the point of comparison of καυχώμενοι. Some argue that it links to σωθησόμεθα (Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:268; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 313; Jewett, Romans, 367; etc.), and others view it as connected to καταλλαγέντες (H.A.W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Romans [New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884], 1:239; Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 129; Porter, “The Argument of Romans 5,” 663). In my view, the participle form of καυχώμενοι is parallel to the above two participles, δικαιωθέντες and καταλλαγέντες, and indicates a present condition of believers. The first reason is that salvation and boasting belong to different categories because, while σωθησόμεθα is God’s future act, boasting is a present human attitude or act. So, it is hard to think that καυχώμενοι is compared with σωθησόμεθα. The second reason is the parallel of boasting in between vv. 1–3 and 9–11. Just as the boasting in vv. 2–3 comes after mentioning of believers’ new peaceful relationship with God, the boasting in v. 11 occurs in relation to the reconciled relation through Jesus (δι᾽οὗ νῦν τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν). It may indicate that the boasting is connected to reconciliation, not future salvation. Thus, whether the content of boasting is future or not, καυχώμενοι links to the preceding participles and denotes the present condition of believers. 28 Contra Schreiner, Romans, 254; Gathercole, Where Is Boasting?, 257–58. They insist on hope as the major motif of this sub-unit.

romans 

287

C. Focality In order to stress the topical issues, several prominence markers are used in this sub-unit. First, semantically, the two terminologies are noteworthy. One is the cognates of καταλλάσσω in vv. 10–11. The cluster of these terms works to appeal to the reader to pay attention to the relational aspect of God’s salvation through Jesus. The other terminology is salvation. As mentioned above, since it is used to designate the content of Paul’s gospel in Rom 1:16, the reoccurrence of this term may evoke from the reader that this sub-unit is closely related to the core of Paul’s gospel. The second prominence marker is the use of stative aspect verbs. In v. 2, two occurrences of the stative verb (ἐσχήκαμεν and ἑστήκαμεν) stress the believer’s state in the realm of God’s grace. Another stative aspect verb (ἐκκέχυται) in c5–13 (v. 5) emphasizes the outpouring of God’s love for believers. In relation to God’s love, Paul stresses the source of it by the emphatic use of ἑαυτοῦ in v. 8. The third way that Paul delivers his topical interest is by using rhetorical devices, such as repetition, comparison, and contrast. As to repetition, the seven occurrences of διὰ + genitive construction are noticeable. Except for the case in v. 5, all of them are about Jesus’ mediatorial role. Another repetition is semantic domain 23.G (Live, Die). Four out of six occurrences (cc5–15, 21, 25, 27) are directly related to Jesus, and the remaining two (cc5–16, 17 [v. 7]) are also relevant to Jesus in the sense that, as a hypothetical case of sacrificial death, they work to reveal the superiority of Jesus’ death. Concerning the device of comparison, besides the case in vv. 6–8, Paul uses this device with πολλῷ μᾶλλον when he explains present and future salvation in vv. 9–10. Lastly, in order to stress the superiority of Jesus’ death, Paul also uses a contrast regarding the condition of the beneficiaries of sacrificial death in vv. 6–8: the weak, ungodliness, and sinner vs. the righteous and the good.29 In summary, according to the above observation, Paul’s emphasis seems to be on (1) the result of God’s salvific process, especially reconciliation and salvation, (2) the believer’s present condition, which is

29 The condition of the beneficiaries of Jesus’ death is even emphasized by the repetition of ἔτι (cc5–16 [v. 6] and 22 [v. 8]). Especially, the forward position of ἔτι in c5–22 stresses the worthless condition of believers.

288

chapter seven

contrasted to the previous sinful and weak condition, (3) God’s love, and (4) the sacrificial death of Jesus. Among them, the fourth is the most important, because the centrality of Jesus affects the other three emphasized areas. D. Grouping 1) External evidence This sub-unit shows its relation to the preceding section by semantic connections of a δικ-word and πίστις in c5–2 (v. 1). Yet a conjunction οὖν and the introduced relational aspect of God’s salvation differentiate Rom 5:1–11 from the preceding sections. The parallel between vv. 1–3 and vv. 9–11 also works to reveal Rom 5:1–11 as one discourse unit.30 2) Internal evidence Internal unity of this sub-unit is mainly conveyed through semantic and conceptual connections. Both vv. 1–3 and 9–11 are linked by justification, peace and reconciliation, boasting, and the same phrase of διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Cc5–8–14 (vv. 3–5) are connected to c5–7 (v. 3) as subordinating clauses. The love of God connects cc5–8–14 to vv. 6–8, and vv. 6–8 are also associated with vv. 9–10 through Jesus and his death. These relations can be summarized as below:

30 Contra Stowers, A Rereading of Romans, 247–49; H. Boers, “The Structure of Rom 5:1–11,” in S. Maser and E. Schlarb (eds), Text und Geschichte (MTS 50; Marbug: Elwert, 1999), 1–18. They think that Rom 4:23–5:11 is one discourse unit.

romans 

289

(justification) 5:1: δικαιωθέντες . . . εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 2

(mediatorial role

. . . καὶ καυχώμεθα ἐπ᾽ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ

3

of Jesus)

οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμεθα . . . εἰδότες ὅτι ἡ θλῖψις ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται

4

. . . ἐλπίδα . . . 5 ἐλπὶς . . . ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ . . .

6

. . . Χριστὸς . . . ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν . . .

7

. . . ὑπὲρ δικαίου . . . ἀποθανεῖται

(death)

ὑπὲρ . . . τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ . . . ἀποθανεῖν 8

. . . ἀγάπην εἰς ἡμᾶς ὁ θεός . . . Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν

9

. . . δικαιωθέντες . . . αἵματι αὐτοῦ . . . δι᾽αὐτοῦ . . .

10

. . . κατηλλάγημεν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ . . . καταλλαγέντες . . . ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ

(reconciliation) 11

οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δι᾽οὗ . . . καταλλαγὴν . . .

E. Summary Rom 5:1–11 and the previous sections share the interaction between God and humans as a common argumentative framework. As in Rom 1:18–3:20, Rom 5:1–11 shows a negative description of the human condition before being saved (e.g., weak, sinful, and hostile to God), and wrath (ὀργή) as God’s response to it. Also, in line with Rom 3:21– 4:25, this sub-unit deals with the new salvific interaction originated by divine initiative (e.g., God’s love), and puts Jesus’ death as the center of the divine process. In this new paradigm, Rom 5:1–11 shows that faith is the means for humans to experience God’s salvation. In spite of the above commonality, however, Rom 5:1–11 also contains several differences from the preceding arguments. The first one is that the relational aspect of salvation is brought into Paul’s

290

chapter seven

argument. The arguments in the previous sections are mainly about human problems (Rom 1:18–3:20) and justification as one aspect of God’s salvation (Rom 3:21–4:25). Although it is true that being justified (δικαιωθέντες) is not totally irrelevant to the relationship between God and humans, Paul has explained it mainly in relation to the acquittal of sins. However, in this sub-unit, Paul introduces reconciliation as another aspect of God’s salvation, which stresses the peaceful relation between God and believers. It is not wise to stick to a dichotomous view that justification and reconciliation are either the same metaphors or totally isolated concepts. Nevertheless, the occurrence of reconciliation points out a progression in Paul’s argument, since it functions to complete the picture of salvation by complementing the forensic aspect of justification.31 The second difference is the statement regarding the future state of God’s salvation. Although Rom 3:21–4:25 deals with the result of God’s saving process, it is mainly related to the present change of the interactive paradigm from ‘human sinfulness—God’s judgment’ to ‘human faith—God’s grace or salvation.’ However, Paul expands the temporal horizon of God’s salvation to the future in Rom 5:1–11, and it indicates the overcoming of the future destiny of sinful humans (e.g., Rom 2:5, 8–9). Thus, together with the introduction of reconciliation, it functions to show the full picture of God’s salvation as well. The third difference is the emphasis on Jesus’ role. Although Paul mentions Jesus’ mediatorial role in Rom 3:21–4:25, he pays much attention to the active role of God. He always puts God as the actor or agent of the salvific process. Even in the event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, God is described as a logical actor. However, in Rom 5:1–11, Paul speaks of Jesus as the active actor of his death, and as the central key in the new interactive paradigm of salvation. Only through him can believers receive God’s present and future salvation, and give a proper response to God. Moreover, as is shown in focality, most prominence markers in this sub-unit appear in relation to Jesus. In conclusion, Rom 5:1–11 is connected to the preceding sections in that it deals with the salvific interactive paradigm between God and humans. However, this sub-unit is also peculiar in Paul’s argument,

31 Porter says that “. . . καταλλάσσω is used to denote the same event which is described by Paul on the one hand as an initiatory juridical event, justification, treated at some length in chs. 3 and 4, and on the other hand as the appropriation of attendant peaceful status with God, developed further in subsequent chapters in the letter” (Porter, “ΚΑΤΑΛΛΑΣΣΩ in Ancient Greek Literature and Romans 5,” 207).

romans 

291

because it not only shows the complete picture of God’s salvation with the two aspects and two temporal frames, but also spotlights the role of Jesus in this picture. 2. Rom 5:12–21: Jesus as the center of transferring salvation from the realm of sin to that of grace A. Text analysis of Rom 5:12–21

292

chapter seven

romans 

293

B. Topicality 1) Analysis of structure Rom 5:12–21 is composed of ten primary, sixteen secondary, and six embedded clauses.32 The primary clauses work to express Paul’s rhetorical questions (cc5–45 [v. 15], 48, 50–51 [v. 16]) and answers (cc5–47 [v. 15], 53 [v. 17]) in vv. 15–17,33 and the apodosis of ὡς/ ὥσπερ (cc5–56, 58) in vv. 18–19. Also, two primary clauses in vv. 20– 21 are used to deliver the correlation among the law, sin, and grace. The secondary clauses appear as the protasis parts of ὡς/ὥσπερ in vv. 12 (cc5–33–36) and 18–19 (cc5–55, 57), and as its explanation (cc5– 37–42 [vv. 13–14]). In vv. 15 and 17, the secondary clauses are shown as the protasis of conditional structure (cc5–46 and 52), and in vv. 20– 21, they are used as ἵνα purpose clauses (cc5–60 [v. 20] and 63–64 [v. 21]). According to the patterns of the primary and secondary clauses, this sub-unit can be divided as below.34 kind of clause secondary clauses

verse v. 12 v. 13–14

function protases of ὥσπερ an explanation of v. 12

32 (1) Primary clauses: cc5–45, 47 (v. 15), 48, 50, 51 (v. 16), 53 (v. 17), 56 (v. 18), 58 (v. 19), 59, 61 (v. 20); (2) secondary clauses: cc5–33–36 (v. 12), 37, 38 (v. 13), 40, 42 (v. 14), 44, 46 (v. 15), 52 (v. 17), 55 (v. 18), 57 (v. 19), 60 (v. 20), 63, 64 (v. 21); and (3) embedded clauses: cc5–39 (v. 13), 41, 43 (v. 14), 49 (v. 16), 54 (v. 17), 62 (v. 20). 33 C.C. Caragounis, “Romans 5:15–16 in the Context of 5:12–21: Contrast or Comparison?,” NTS 31 (1985), 142–45; Porter, “The Argument of Romans 5,” 673–75; Jewett, Romans, 371. B. Englezakis argues that c5–38 (v. 13) is the objection of Paul’s hypothetical interlocutor and v. 14 is Paul’s answer to the objection (B. Englezakis, “Rom 5:12–15 and the Pauline Teaching on the Lord’s Death: Some Observations,” Bib 58 [1977], 233). However, Caragounis’s suggestion is more convincing, because, as Porter points out (Porter, “The Argument of Romans 5,” 673–74), ἀλλὰ οὐχ is “a common feature of diatribe,” cc5–45, 48, 50, and 51 can be regarded as diatribal questions. 34 Thomson (I.H. Thomson, Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters [JSNTSup 111; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995], 189–204) and Harvey (Harvey, Listening to the Text, 149–50) propose a chiastic structure and put v. 16 at the center of its structure: (1) Thomson’s view: A (v. 12)—B (v. 13)—C (v. 14)—D (v. 15)—F (v. 16)—E´ (v. 17)—D′ (v. 18)—C′ (v. 19)—B′ (v. 20)—A′ (v. 21); and (2) Harvey’s view: A (vv. 12–14)—B (v. 15)—C (v. 16 )—B′ (v. 17)—A′ (vv. 18–21). However, their suggestions are not convincing, because they do not consider the structural parallel between vv. 15 and 16–17.

294

chapter seven

(cont.) kind of clause

verse

primary (P) v. 15 and secondary clauses (S): (1)

c5–45 (P) c5–46 (S)

primary v. 18 and secondary clauses: (2)

c5–55 (S) c5–56 (P)

v. 19

c5–57 (S)

function

rhetorical question rhetorical answer (a protasis of εἰ structure) c5–47 (P) rhetorical answer (an apodosis of εἰ structure) vv. 16–17 cc5–48–51 (P) rhetorical question c5–52 (S) rhetorical answer (a protasis of εἰ structure) c5–53 (P) rhetorical answer (an apodosis of εἰ structure)

c5–58 (P) primary v. 20 and secondary clauses: (3) v. 21

c5–59 (P) c5–60 (S) c5–61 (P) cc5–63–64 (S)

protasis of ὡς/ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως structure apodosis of ὡς ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως structure protasis of ὡς/ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως structure apodosis of ὡς ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως structure about the law and sin ἵνα purpose clause about grace and sin ἵνα purpose clauses

Within this division, there appear at least five participants in this subunit: Adam, Moses, all humans, God, and Jesus. Among them, Adam and Jesus come out as the major figures; however, they do not appear as the Subjects, but only as the Adjuncts with διά or dative structures. It implies that even though they are compared throughout this subunit, the focal point of comparison is not related to the two men per se, but to their role as an original cause, which affects the condition of all humanity. Second, all humans appear as the beneficiaries of the result of Adam and Christ’s deed. They are divided into two according to their relationship with Adam and Christ. One group is those who are under the consequence of Adam’s act. Their fundamental condition is described by the cognates of ἁμαρτάνω (cc5–36 [v. 12], 41 [v. 14], 49 [v. 16], and 57 [ἁμαρτωλοί: v. 19]), and their destiny is accompanied by judgment, condemnation (cc5–50 [v. 16], 55 [v. 18]), and death (cc5–35 [v. 12], 40 [v. 14], 46 [v. 15], 52 [v. 17]). The other group of humanity is believers. They are the beneficiaries of the consequence of

romans 

295

Jesus’ act, such as grace, the free-gift of righteousness, life, and so on. These two groups of humanity are also compared in this sub-unit. Third, God and Moses also appear in this sub-unit, but they are less significant than Adam and Jesus. Moses is only mentioned as a recipient of the law in v. 14. God is depicted as the one who gives grace (c5–47 [v. 15]) and makes humans righteous (c5–58 [v. 19]).35 Lastly, one peculiar thing related to the participants is the personified references to non-human beings. Out of twenty four grammatical subjects, only six are human beings (cc5–36, 42, 46, 53, 57, and 58), and the last eighteen occurrences are related to either the law or the cause and result of Adam and Christ’s action. In several cases, the non-human things are expressed as an active actor of a process, such as to enter into a realm (εἰσῆλθεν [v. 12], παρεισῆλθεν [v. 20]), and to rule over (βασιλεύω [vv. 14, 17, and 21]). All in all, three groups of human beings emerge as major participants in Paul’s argument: Adam, Jesus, and all human beings. The first two are the sources that determine the condition of the third. Moreover, the personified non-human things are related to the content of the cause and result of Adam and Jesus’ action. Therefore, the topic of this sub-unit seems to be closely related to the interaction among these four participants. 2) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) cognates of χάρις: x7, cf. 57.H (δωρεά/δώρημα: x3) (2) 88.L′ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt: x4) (3) 59 (Quantity: x5): C (All, Any, Each, Every: x2), F (Abundance, Excess, Sparing: x1), A (Many, Few: x2) (4) 23.G (Live, Die: x3) (5) 33.E (law: x2); 34.E (δικ-word); 56.E; 9.B; 93.A; 60.B; 12.A (God)

Predicators

(1) (2) (3) (4)

35

37.A (Control, Restrain: βασιλεύω: x5) 13.A (State) x4 59 (x3): F (x2), G 88.L´; 23.G; 15.H; 34.B; 57.T

The agent of the passive verb κατεστάθησαν should be viewed as God.

296

chapter seven

(cont.) Semantic domains Complements 58.J (Archetype, Corresponding Type (Antitype); 88.L´ 34.E; 67.B Adjuncts

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

60.B (One, Two, Three, Etc.: x11) 88.L´(x9) 59 (x6): C (x5), G (x1) 9 (People: x5): A (Human Beings: x3), B (Male: x2) 23.G (x4); 93.A (Persons: x4) 34.E (x3); 36.C (Obey, Disobey: x3) 1.A (Universe, Creation: x2); 33.E (x2); 56.E (x2)

Overall lists

(1) the sin of Adam and humans: 88.L´ (x17), 36.C (Disobey: x2) (2) Jesus’ action: 34.E (x1), 36.C (Obey: x1) (3) ‘one man’ of Adam and Jesus: 60.B (One: x12), 93.A (Adam: x2; Jesus: x3), 9.B (Male: x3) (4) human beings: 59.C (All: x7), 59.A (many: x3), 9.A (5) the results of Adam and Jesus’ act: (a) Adam: 88.L´ (x8), 23.G (Death: x5), 56.E (Judge, Condemn, Acquit: x3) (b) Jesus: the cognates of χάρις (x7), 57.H (x3), 34.E (x4), 23.G (Live: x3) (c) 37.A (x5) with sin (x1), death (x2), grace (x1), and believers (x1)

The semantic domains in Rom 5:12–21 can be arranged by several categories. The first category is the sin of Adam and humans, and two semantic domains belong to this category: (1) 88.L´ (x7): the cognates of ἁμαρτία (x2) and παράπτωμα (x5); and (2) 36.C (x2): παράβασις and παρακοή. The second category is Jesus’ action, and two semantic domains are included in this category: 34.E (δικαίωμα: x1) and 36.C (ὑπακοή: x1). The next one is ‘one man,’ and it indicates Adam and Jesus as the original sources, who result in different destinies of all humans. This category includes twelve occurrences of 60.B (ἑνός), five of 93.A (Adam: x2; Jesus: x3), and three of 9.B (Male: ἄνθρωπος). The fourth category is human beings, who are affected by the consequence of Adam’s and Jesus’ deeds. Three semantic domains 59.C (πᾶς: x7), 59.A (πολύς: x3), and 9.A (Human Beings: ἄνθρωπος) belong to this category. The fifth and sixth categories are the result of Adam and Jesus’ actions respectively. In order to describe the consequence of Adam’s act, semantic domains 88.L´ (the cognates of ἁμαρτία [x7]

romans 

297

and παράπτωμα [x1]),36 23.G (Die: x5) and 56.E (x3) are used. On the other hand, the result of Jesus’ action is depicted by the cognates of χάρις (x7), 57.H (δωρεά/δώρημα: x3), 34.E (δικ-word), and 23.G (Live: x3). Semantic domain 37.A (βασιλεύω) often appears with the contents of the fifth and sixth categories, such as sin (88.L´), death (x2), grace (x1), and believers (x1) who receive grace and free-gift. From the above arranged semantic domains, two considerations can be drawn. One is that the above categories help us to see the overall argumentative picture of this sub-unit. Paul compares the first category with the second as the fundamental causes that determine the condition of the fourth category. He deals with the fifth and sixth categories as antithetical counterparts, which are also connected to the fourth category. Lastly, the third category is attached to the first, second, fifth, and sixth, and it is also compared to the fourth category. These relationships can be diagrammed in the following manner: Cause Actor

Consequence Act (Process)

Beneficiary

Content (Goal)

Adam * 88.L´ * 60.B (ἑνός), (ἁμαρτία, * 93.A (Adam) παράπτωμα) * 9.B (ἄνθρωπος) * 36.C (παράβασις, (the third category) παρακοή) Humans (the first category) * 59.C (πᾶς) * 9.A (ἄνθρωπος) (the fourth category)

Sinners 1) Sin * 59.C (πᾶς) * 88.L´ * 59.A (πολύς) (ἁμαρτία, * 9.A (ἄνθρωπος) παράπτωμα) (the fourth category) 2) Death * 23.G (Die) * 56.E (κρίμα, κατάκριμα) (the fifth category) (cf. 37.A [βασιλεύω])

Jesus * 60.B (ἑνός), * 93.A (Jesus) * 9.B (ἄνθρωπος) (the third category)

Believers * 59.C (πᾶς) * 59.A (πολύς) * 9.A (ἄνθρωπος) (the fourth category)

36

* 34.E: δικαίωμα * 36.C: (ὑπακοή) (the second category)

* the cognates of χάρις

* 57.H (δώρημα) * 34.E (δικ-word) * 23.G (ζωή) (the sixth category) (cf. 37.A [βασιλεύω])

Here, distinguishing the sin as a personal act from that of a ruling power, I regard the noun form of ἁμαρτία and ἁμαρτωλός as one of the results of Adam’s act.

298

chapter seven

The other consideration is that the above categories help to make a topical division of this sub-unit. However, since it is also related to the logical flow, I will deal with it in the analysis of logical relations. 3) Analysis of logical relations Paul opens Rom 5:12–21 with διὰ τοῦτο (“on account of this”), which implies that the content of this sub-unit has an inferential relation to the preceding arguments, especially that of Rom 5:1–11.37 Then, he begins to reveal the overarching framework of his argument through a comparative conjunction ὥσπερ,38 and uses the first Adjunct (δι᾽ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου) and two Subjects (ἁμαρτία and θάνατος) in cc5–33 and 34 as the sources of comparison. The basic premise of his argument is two-fold: (1) through one man, Adam, sin entered into the world and death also came into being through sin (cc5–33–34); and (2) once sin and death came into the world, they became a ruling power and no one can escape from their dominion (cc5–34–35).39 According to 37 With regard to this phrase, two issues have been raised. One is the nature of διὰ τοῦτο: Does it point to the previous arguments (most commentators including Moo,

The Epistle to the Romans, 317; Jewett, Romans, 373) or the following one (Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 207)? The other debated issue is the exact reference of διὰ τοῦτο: Does it refer to Rom 5:11 (Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Romans, 1:240; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 228), Rom 5:1–11 (Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 131; S.L. Johnson, “Romans 5:12—An Exercise in Exegesis and Theology,” in R.N. Longenecker and M.C. Tenney [eds.], New Dimension in New Testament Study [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974], 300–301; Porter, “The Argument of Romans 5,” 671; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 317), Rom 1:18–5:11 (Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 1:307; Beker, Paul, the Apostle, 85; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 272), or is it a meaningless transition (R. Bultmann, “Adam und Christus nach Röm 5,” in R. Bultmann, Exegetica. Aufsätze zur Erforchung des Neuen Testaments [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967], 153)? As to the former issue, it is better to think that διὰ τοῦτο refers to the previous argument, because the content of Rom 5:12–21 overlaps with many topics in the preceding arguments. And as to the latter, it is more plausible to understand that the exact reference of διὰ τοῦτο is Rom 5:1–11 because of two reasons. One reason is that both Rom 5:1–11 and 12–21 much focus on the role of Jesus in salvation. It implies that Rom 5:12–21 is closer to Rom 5:1–11 than the whole of Rom 1:18–5:11. The second reason is that due to the structure of Rom 5:1–11, which shows a parallelism between vv. 1–3 and vv. 9–11, it is preferable to see that the διὰ τοῦτο refers to the whole of Rom 5:1–11, not just to the previous one verse (v. 11). 38 Except for v. 12, there are five more occurrences of the combination of ὥσπερ/ ὡς . . . οὕτως (vv. 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21). 39 Some scholars insist that καὶ οὕτως in c5–35 (v. 12) is a correspondence of ὥσπερ in c5–33 (Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 109–10; J.T. Kirby, “The Syntax of Romans 5:12: A Rhetoric Approach,” NTS 33 [1987], 283–86; R.J. Erickson, “The Damned and the Justified in Romans 5:12–21: An Analysis of Semantic Structure,” in Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed [eds.], Discourse Analysis and the

romans 

299

Paul’s argument in vv. 13–14, even the emergence of the law could not shake such a premise, because the law appeared later in history where sin had already exercised its power (c5–37 [v. 13]). Although sin was not reckoned (ἐλλογεῖται) as sin before the law worked to give knowledge of sin (c5–38 [v. 13]: cf. Rom 3:20), the dominion of sin over all humanity cannot be denied. This is because death, which is the result of sin, still existed before the law and performed its power on those who did not commit the same type of transgression as Adam did (cc5–40–41 [v. 14]). The only solution was the coming of a new Adam (c5–42 [v. 14]). Thus, in vv. 12–14, Paul describes sin and death, which were derived from one man’s deed, as the fundamental situation of all human beings. From v. 15, Paul explains the reversal of the fundamental situation of humans. At the outset, he begins with a comparison between Adam’s sinful act (παράπτωμα) and the free-gift (χάρισμα) in cc5–44– 45 (v. 15). At first glance, it seems that Paul makes a comparison in vv. 15–17 between the deeds of Adam and Christ,40 or between the sins of subsequent generations and the result of Christ’s act.41 However, unlike the comparisons in vv. 18–19, there is no direct utterance of Christ’s act in vv. 15–17. It is certain that παράπτωμα in c5–44 (v. 15) refers to Adam’s sinful act, but it is not likely that χάρισμα in c5–45 (v. 15) means Christ’s act, because δώρημα appears as a counterpart of χάρισμα in the parallel clause (c5–48 [v. 16]). In addition, since κρίμα in v. 16, which appears as the opposite of χάρισμα in a μὲν . . . δέ structure, refers to the resultant of Adam’s sin, χάρισμα should be understood as a resultant dimension of Christ’s act. Thus, it is not convincing that the actual point of comparison in vv. 15–17 is about

New Testament: Approaches and Results [JSNTSup 170; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], 290; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 177–78). However, as Moo points out, καὶ οὕτως has never been used as a completion of a comparison (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 318 n. 19). Moreover, the co-text and following argument of Paul do not warrant the comparison between the sin and death of Adam and those of the rest of humanity. 40 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 279–80; Otfried Hofius, “Die Adam—Christus Antithese und Das Gesetz,” in J.D.G. Dunn (ed.), Paul and the Mosaic Law (WUNT 89; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 187–88; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 335. 41 Jewett, Romans, 379. He understands v. 15 as that “just as the transgressions of subsequent generations derived from Adam’s act, so also the ‘grace-gift’ comes through Christ’s redemptive work with the power to overcome the Adamic legacy.”

300

chapter seven

the deeds of Adam and Christ per se. Instead, Paul focuses on the different consequences caused by acts of Adam and Christ.42 Anticipating a positive response through the οὐχ question in cc5– 44–45 (v. 15), Paul re-affirms the incomparable result of Christ’s act through the following conditional structure in cc5–46–47 (v. 15). Here, that the beneficiaries of the consequences are all humans (οἱ πολλοί) is the same; however, the content is different. While the consequence of Adam’s act is death, that of Christ’s acts is the grace of God and the free-gift. Then, in what sense are the two different consequences different? In the following vv. 16–17, Paul answers this question by explaining the different situation of the beneficiary. As in cc5–44–45 (v. 15), Paul evokes a positive response through οὐχ in regard to the comparison between two consequences. Yet, unlike in v. 15, he adds the μὲν . . . δέ structure, and depicts how different the two consequences are: while the judgment, a consequence of Adam’s act, brings condemnation, the free-gift (χάρισμα) from many transgressions leads to justification. It implies that the result of Christ’s act is more powerful, so that it can change the doom of all sinners into the state of justification. The following conditional structure in v. 17 reflects this concept, and demonstrates the reversal of the human situation from being subjugated to death (cf. v. 14) to possessing a kingly reign in life. Therefore, Paul’s intention in vv. 15–17 is to show that the consequence of Christ’s deed (grace, justification, and life) is incomparable to that of Adam’s act (death, judgment, and condemnation). In v. 18, Paul concludes (ἄρα οὖν) the preceding explanation by reiterating the points of previous comparison: the combination of ‘one man’ (ἑνός) and the result of one’s act (κατάκριμα vs. δικαίωσιν ζωῆς). Yet, from this verse, his concern seems to move to different points of comparison, such as (1) the nature of Adam and Jesus’ deed; and (2) another consequence of their acts. As to the former, Paul introduces another one man’s deed (δικαιώματος) as a direct contrast to Adam’s act (παράπτωματος) in a οὕτως καὶ clause (c5–56 [v. 18]). He also demonstrates this interest through the contrast between Adam’s disobedience (παρακοῆς) and Jesus’ obedience (ὑπακοῆς) in v. 19. As to

42 Some scholars insist a comparison between the acts of Adam and God because of the expression ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ (R. Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology [Oxford: Blackwell, 1966], 81; Swee-Hwa Quek, “Adam and Christ according to Paul,” in D.A. Hagner and M.J. Harris [eds.], Pauline Studies [Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1980], 92; Thomson, Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters, 197). However, it does not fit to the co-text, where Paul concentrates on the role of Jesus.

romans 

301

the latter, on the other hand, v. 19 also contains a comparison between the result of Adam and Christ’s deeds. However, this comparison is not related to death, but to sin: ἁμαρτωλοί vs. δίκαιοι.43 The sin as another consequence of one man’s deed becomes the topic of vv. 20 and 21. As Paul brings the law into his argument about sin’s dominion in v. 13, he mentions again the law in relation to sin in v. 20. However, there are two differences between these two verses. One difference is the temporal reference, in that while v. 13 focuses on the time before the law emerged in history, v. 20 is about the time after the law came into being. The other difference is the role of the law. Whereas in v. 13, the role of the law is to give knowledge of sin, in v. 20, the law functions to increase sins. In spite of these differences, Paul’s intention is the same: the law cannot be a way for humanity to escape the dominion of sin. Verse 21 shows the resolution to sin’s dominion over all humans through another ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως καὶ structure. Here, grace replaces sin as a new kingly power in the realm to which the believers belong (cf. Rom 5:2), and exercises its dominion through the gift of righteousness (cf. vv. 16, 17, 18), resulting in eternal life. Furthermore, Paul does not miss spelling out Jesus as the center of this process (διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν). The above logical flow demonstrates that Paul’s argument is advanced by two logical ways. One way is using a temporal sequence. The argument in this sub-unit has several temporal deictic indicators, such as ἄχρι νόμου (“until the law”: v. 13), ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ μέχρι Μωϋσέως (“from Adam to Moses”: v. 14), τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος (“a type of the one who was to come”: v. 14).44 With these deictic markers, the temporal sequence of this sub-unit is the following: Adam—sin— death—Moses (the law)—Jesus—expected state of believers’ kingly rule in Jesus (βασιλεύσουσιν: v. 17). The other way that Paul uses to

43 In this sense, v. 19 fills in the gap between the ὥσπερ clause in v. 12 and οὕτως καὶ clause in v. 18. The balanced structure between the protasis of ὡς and apodosis of οὕτως καὶ in v. 18 is often regarded as a re-link of the protasis of ὥσπερ in v. 12.

It is true that the comparison in v. 18 has some elements mentioned in v. 12, such as one man’s deed, all human beings, and death or judgment. However, v. 18 does not deal with the element of sin, which is another consequence of one man’s act in v. 12. Only from v. 19 does Paul state this element by contrasting two sorts of condition of all humanity: one is that by one man’s disobedience all humans are under the power of sin (ἁμαρτωλοί: “sinners”); and the other is that by another one man’s obedience all humans are free from the dominion of the sin and become righteous (δίκαιοι). Therefore, it can be said that the correspondence of the ὥσπερ clause in v. 12 begins in v. 18 and finishes in v. 19. 44 The semantic domain of all ἄχρι, ἀπό, μέχρι, and μέλλοντος is 67 (Time).

302

chapter seven

lead his argument is comparison, and it is performed by three kinds of syntactic structure: (1) ὡς/ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως καὶ structures (vv. 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21); (2) a μὲν . . . δέ construction (v. 16); and (3) two conditional structures with πολλῷ μᾶλλον (vv. 15, 17). Of the two logical ways, Paul uses logical comparison as the main device to lead his argument,45 and the semantic comparison is the key factor to determine Paul’s argumentation in this sub-unit. For example, vv. 12– 14 show all semantic elements related to the consequences of Adam’s act, and deals with the them in the order of sin—death—death—sin (v. 12)—sin with the law (v. 13)—death (v. 14). The comparison in vv. 15–18 is mainly about the result of Adam’s act (death and judgment), and that of vv. 18–21 is related to the nature of one man’s act and to the dominion of sin.46 Therefore, the point that Paul wants to deliver through the device of comparison is that, as the second Adam, Jesus is the only way to resolve the cause and effect of the human problem derived from the first man, Adam.

verse

Main topical issues

vv. 12–14

one man (Adam) sins (vv. 12, 13) death (v. 14) the law (v. 13)

vv. 15–18

vv. 18–21

45

Adam

Jesus

one man all humans death judgment condemnation one man’s act (transgression: v. 18)

one man all humans (believers) life justification grace/free-gift one man’s act (righteous deed)

Adam

Jesus

one man’s act (disobedience) sin all humans (sinners) the law

one man’s act (obedience) grace all humans (believers)

Watson, “Is There a Story in These Texts?,” 235–38. Having two aspects of one man’s act and its result, v. 18 seems to work as a transition from the focus on the result of one man’s act to that of on one man’s act. 46

romans 

303

C. Focality With regard to the ways for emphasizing the topical issues, the use of rhetorical devices, such as comparison, is noteworthy. As mentioned above, the comparisons are accompanied by various lexical and syntactical repetitions, and are performed in relation to four areas: (1) the mediatorial role of one man, either Adam or Jesus; (2) the differences of their acts; (3) the result of their acts (sin and death vs. grace and the free-gift of righteous in life); and (4) the beneficiary of one man’s act. When comparing these things, Paul even uses several means to stress the degree of comparison. For example, the use of the rhetorical questions in vv. 15 and 17 functions to evoke a positive agreement from the reader regarding such comparison. When he depicts the result of Adam’s sin (death and judgment) in c5–50 (v. 16), he articulates the hopeless destiny of humans through a word play of κρίμα (judgment) and κατάκριμα (condemnation). Similarly, in c5–61 (v. 20), he emphasizes the superiority of the consequence of Jesus’ act by use of ὑπερπερισσεύω (“to abound all more”). In addition, when he mentions the beneficiary of one man’s act, he stresses its universal scope through πᾶς and πολύς. However, it is not necessary to extract a concept of universal salvation from these words. It is because this concept is not compatible to what Paul has explained about God’s judgment over sinners in the previous sections, especially in Rom 1:18–3:20. Moreover, in v. 17, Paul clearly states that only believers, who receive the grace and the gift of righteousness, will reign in life. Thus, “although Paul is teaching universal justification, corresponding to universal condemnation,” as R.J. Erickson comments, “he is not teaching universalism.”47 Instead, it is reasonable to think that the result of Jesus’ act is open to all, but only believers can enter. In sum, the focality of this sub-unit suggests that Paul keeps his concentration on the comparison between Adam and Jesus. Particularly, the repetitive content of the comparison demonstrates that his real interest is in the reversal of the human situation from

47 Erickson, “The Damned and the Justified in Romans 5,” 305; contra M.C. Boring, “The Language of Universal Salvation in Paul,” JBL 105 (1986), 269–92; A.J. Hultgren, Christ and His Benefits: Christology and Redemption in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 54–55; R.H. Bell “Rom 5:18–19 and Universal Salvation,” NTS 48 (2002), 417–32.

304

chapter seven

the legacy of Adam’s sinful disobedience (sin and death) to that of Jesus’ obedience (grace and justification in life). After all, the focality of this sub-unit tells us that Paul highlights the significance of Jesus in God’s salvation. D. Grouping 1) External evidence Rom 5:12–21 shows its connection to the preceding sub-unit through διὰ τοῦτο and the repetitive διὰ + genitive structures with Jesus. However, this sub-unit is also distinguished from Rom 5:1–11 by the shift of person reference from the first person plural to the third person singular. In addition, bringing a comparison with ὥσπερ and using sin and death as the grammatical subjects in v. 12 may imply that different topical issues are conveyed in a different way. Moreover, the appearance of ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως καὶ and sin as the grammatical subject in v. 21 denotes a connection between v. 12 and v. 21, and it also helps to view vv. 12–21 as another sub-unit. 2) Internal evidence The unity of Rom 5:12–21 is established mainly by the repetitive syntactical patterns and semantic links. Syntactically, the repetition of the ὡς/ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως καὶ structure from v. 12 to v. 21 contributes to the unity of this sub-unit. Semantic elements are also important, because they provide both cohesive ties and coherent understanding of this sub-unit. The semantic chains in relation to the first Adam (one man [ἑνός], sin [and transgression], death [and judgment], and all humans) and the second Adam (Jesus, grace, justification, eternal life, and all humans) work to provide cohesive ties in Rom 5:12–21. In addition, as mentioned in the logical analysis, such semantic links also help to see the coherent logical flow of Paul’s argument. Hence, semantic links and syntactic repetitions reveal the internal cohesive and coherent unity of this sub-unit. The semantic chains in relation to the first and second Adam can be shown below.

romans 

305

i) Semantic chains with regard to the first Adam48 12

διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ δι᾽ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία . . . καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ

θάνατος, καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ᾽ᾧ πάντες

ἥμαρτον

13

ἄχρι γὰρ νόμου ἁμαρτία . . . ἁμαρτία . . . νόμοῦ

14

. . . ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ

θάνατος . . . Ἀδὰμ . . . ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας . . . τῆς παραβάσεως Ἀδὰμ . . . 15

ἀλλ᾽οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα . . . τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον . . .

16

καὶ οὐχ ὡς δι᾽ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος τὸ δώρημα· τὸ μὲν γὰρ κρίμα ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς

κατάκριμα . . . παραπτωμάτων εἰς δικαίωμα

17

. . . τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι ὁ

θάνατος ἐβασίλευσεν διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς . . . 18

ἄρα οὖν ὡς δι᾽ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα . . .

19

ὥσπερ γὰρ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν

οἱ πολλοί . . . 20 νόμος . . . τὸ παράπτωμα . . . ἡ ἁμαρτία, ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις 21

ἵνα ὥσπερ ἐβασίλευσεν ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ . . . διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ

κυρίου ἡμῶν

48 Here, in the case of the first Adam, bold marking indicates ‘one man,’ and the italics are human sins. The underlines and the boxes denote the result of human sin and its beneficiary, respectively. Similarly, in the case of the second Adam, the bold marking means Jesus as the second Adam, and the italics are Jesus’ obedience. The underlines refer to the result of Jesus’ act and God’s grace. The boxes signify the beneficiary of Jesus’ act.

306

chapter seven

ii) Semantic chains with regard to the second Adam (Jesus) 12

διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ . . . καὶ οὕτως . . .

15

ἀλλ᾽οὐχ . . . οὕτως καὶ τὸ χάρισμα . . . πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ

δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐπερίσσευσεν

16

καὶ . . . τὸ δώρημα . . . τὸ δὲ χάρισμα ἐκ πολλῶν

παραπτωμάτων εἰς δικαίωμα

17

. . . πολλῷ μᾶλλον οἱ τὴν περισσείαν τῆς

χάριτος καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης λαμβάνοντες ἐν ζωῇ βασιλεύσουσιν διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 18

ἄρα οὖν ὡς . . . οὕτως καὶ δι᾽ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς

δικαίωσιν ζωῆς

19

ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι . . .

οἱ πολλοί 20

νόμος . . . περεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις

21

ἵνα ὥσπερ ἐβασίλευσεν . . . οὕτως καὶ

ἡ χάρις βασιλεύσῃ διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν

E. Summary In connection with Rom 5:1–11, Rom 5:12–21 still considers the role of Jesus in God’s salvation. However, in this sub-unit, Paul focuses on how Jesus’ deed works on the human problems before God. In order to achieve this goal, he uses a comparison as the main argumentative device. He begins in v. 12 with bringing four points of comparison into his argument: one man, sin, death, and all humans as the beneficiary. After mentioning the dominant power of sin and death in vv. 13–14, he demonstrates the resolution to the fatal human situation from v. 15. At first, Paul concentrates on the consequence of sin, especially death, in vv. 15–18, and then, on the sin in vv. 18–21. Concerning these issues, he puts believers’ righteousness in life as the counterpart of death and judgment in vv. 15–18, and grace as the antithetical power of sin in vv. 18–21.

romans 

307

The description of God’s salvation in Rom 5:12–21 is particular, in the sense that it shows the process of salvation as a confrontation between two realms. In the previous arguments, he explains God’s salvation through the change of the interactive paradigm between God and humans, such as a change from ‘human sins—God’s wrath or judgment’ to ‘human faith—God’s salvation.’ Yet, here, he depicts God’s salvation not only as emancipating all humans from one realm, where sin and death exercise their kingly power over humanity, but also as relocating them into a new realm, where God’s grace is the dominant power in life.49 In the process of transition, Jesus’ obedience on the cross plays a crucial role, because only through him can humans have the ground for entering into a new realm. Therefore, it can be said that Rom 5:12–21 is another sub-unit that highlights the role of Jesus in the universal plan of God’s salvation. 3. Conclusion In many ways, Romans 5 appears to take a special position in Paul’s argument on salvation. First, Romans 5 seems to be a convergence of the previous topical issues. Concerning human problems, on the one hand, Romans 5 shows sin, ungodliness (ἀσεβῶν), weakness, and the hostility to God as fundamental attitudes toward God. Also, it mentions wrath, judgment, condemnation, and death as the responses of God to sinful humans. With regard to the resolution to the human problem, on the other hand, Romans 5 speaks of justification, and the free-gift (cf. Rom 3:24) as God’s salvation. In addition, it also contains topical issues of true boasting (καυχάομαι), the law (vv. 13, 20), and faith (vv. 1–2). Moreover, in Romans 5, Paul even articulates the concept of divine initiative and inclusiveness of all humans in the process of salvation. Second, Paul provides a more complete picture of God’s salvific process and its consequence by complementing several facets of salvation. One of them is a relational dimension. Even though justification language is not totally irrelevant to the relational dimension, Paul’s preceding arguments seem to concentrate on the forensic dimension

49

Actually, before this sub-unit, Paul alludes to this concept of salvation through the expressions of redemption (ἀπολυτρώσεως) in Rom 3:24 and ‘this grace in which we stand (χάριν ταύτην ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκαμεν)’ in Rom 5:2. Yet, only in Rom 5:12–21, does it become a main conceptual framework for salvation.

308

chapter seven

of salvation, e.g., acquittal of sins. However, in Romans 5, he also deals with the relational dimension, and complements the concept of salvation. Another added aspect is the future state of salvation. Before this section, Paul deals with the present phase of salvation in spite of God’s response to human sins having two temporal dimensions of present and future. In this section, however, mentioning the future state of salvation (vv. 2, 9–11), he extends God’s salvific process and its result to the future. The third facet is the introduction of two-realm framework in describing salvation. In Rom 5:12–21, Paul explains God’s salvific process and its consequence with the concept of two realms. In this concept, salvation means the emancipation of all humans from the dominion of sin and death, and transfer to a new realm of God’s grace. Together with the specific utterances of salvation (σωθησόμεθα) in vv. 9–10, all these three new aspects may help the reader to understand God’s salvation more fully. Third, in relation to the overall picture of salvation, Romans 5 emphasizes the role of Jesus. Although Romans 5 still shows God’s initiative in the process of salvation, the active role of God is less stressed in comparison with the preceding arguments. Instead, Paul takes much effort to stress the mediatorial role of Jesus. When Paul depicts the overall picture of salvation, he highlights the importance of Jesus’ role through the repetitive expression of Jesus’ death. Moreover, Paul even emphasizes Jesus’ role by putting him as the actor of his sacrificial death (Rom 5:6, 8). Likewise, in Rom 5:12–21, Paul mentions Jesus as the key to the transition of sinful humans from the realm of sin to that of grace. Here, God’s role does not come to the front; instead, Paul only concentrates on the role of Jesus through the comparison with Adam. This is a very different depiction in that salvation in the preceding sections is mainly described with a God-centered point of view. Thus, the picture of salvation in Romans 5 can be regarded as a Christ-centered description of salvation. In conclusion, Romans 5 is very important in Paul’s ongoing argument, because it not only shows a full reversal of the old interaction between human sinfulness and God’s response by complementing relational and futuristic aspects of salvation (Rom 5:1–11), but also provides a new descriptive framework of salvation (Rom 5:12–21). In addition, it explicates the importance of Jesus in God’s salvation. Therefore, in Paul’s argument up to this moment, the Christ-centered description of salvation in Romans 5 may work for the reader to give the overall picture of God’s salvation, which Paul wants to show in Rom 1:16–17.

CHAPTER EIGHT

ROM 6:17:25: THE NEW INTERACTIONAL PARADIGM IN THE NEW SALVIFIC REALM Rom 6:1–7:25 reveals its connection to Rom 5:12–21 at least in three ways. At the outset, the beginning issue regarding a relationship between sin and grace in 6:1 is drawn directly from the statement in Rom 5:20–21. The second connecting evidence is that both Rom 5:12– 21 and 6:1–7:25 use a comparison of the old and new realms as the fundamental argumentative framework.1 Paul describes the contrastive two realms in light of Adam and Jesus in Rom 5:12–21. Similarly, in Rom 6:1–7:25, he deals with believers’ life in two realms with regard to the relationship among grace, sin, and the law: e.g., a relationship between grace and sin (Rom 6:1–14), among sin, the law, and grace (Rom 6:15–7:6), and between sin and the law (Rom 7:7–25). Particularly, when he mentions the old realm in Rom 6:1–7:25, he maintains a paradigm of Rom 5:12–21 that sin brings death to humans. The third connecting evidence is the semantic connections. Both Rom 5:12–21 and Rom 6:1–7:25 share certain words as the important topical factors, such as sin, the law, grace, death and life, etc. Most of all, both parts mention Jesus as the key to make the transition in status from the old realm to the new. In spite of the connection, however, Rom 6:1–7:25 can be regarded as a new section because of its conspicuous diatribal style. Even though, as S.E. Porter argues, Romans 5 has diatribal features,2 Rom 6:1–7:25 is distinguished from Roman 5 by its more vivid picture of diatribal interactions. In addition, the use of the first and second person references in Rom 6:1–7:25 is very different from the case of Rom 5:12–21, where only the third person references are used. The internal unity of Rom 6:1–7:25 is expressed through coherent and cohesive elements. In regard to the coherent aspect, on the one

1

J.-N. Aletti, “The Rhetoric of Romans 5–8,” in S.E. Porter and T.H. Olbricht (eds.), The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference (JSNTSup 146; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 294–308. 2 Porter, “The Argument of Romans 5,” 655–77.

310

chapter eight

hand, a series of diatribal objections or false conclusions works as a linking device. For example, a false conclusion of an interlocutor in Rom 6:1 connects Rom 5:20–21 to Rom 6:1–14. Likewise, the interlocutor’s ridiculous objections in Rom 6:15, 7:7 and 7:13 also function to bridge between the preceding and present sub-units. Moreover, considering that Paul’s argument in each sub-unit is advanced as a response to such objections, the interlocutor’s absurd conclusions seem to play a role not only to link two discourse units, but also to introduce a topical issue of each sub-unit.3 As to the cohesive aspect, on the other hand, the whole of Rom 6:1–7:25 demonstrates its unity with several chain links of topical semantic domains, such as sin (domain 88.L´ [x32]), the law (33.E [x29] and 33.G´ [x4]), death and life (23.G [x47]), the first and second person references (92 A [‘I’: x24], B [‘we’: x6], and C [‘you’: x11]), and the slavery image (37 [Control, Rule: x21], 35.B, cf. 57.O), etc. Within the unity of Rom 6:1–7:25, I divide this section into four in accordance with the formal feature of diatribal interaction: Rom 6:1–14, 6:15–7:6, 7:7–12, and 7:13–25. The first two sub-units could be grouped as a unit because their introductory questions are directly related to Rom 5:20–21, and because they use a contrast between the life in the old and new realms as an argumentative framework. The last two could also be grouped as a unit on account of the fact that they are only about the situation of the ‘I’ under the law and sin. 1. Rom 6:1–7:6: A new interactive paradigm between God and humans in the new salvific realm A. Rom 6:1–14: Believers’ union with Jesus’ death and resurrection and their new life 1) Text analysis of Rom 6:1–14

3

Logically, Rom 8:1–17 is a reversal of the situation of the ‘I’ in Rom 7:7–25. But I will deal Romans 8 as another section in spite of its close relationship to Rom 7:7–25, since there is a big shift of the topical boundary in relation to the Holy Spirit in Rom 8:1.

rom :–:

311

312

chapter eight

rom :–:

313

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 6:1–14 consists of fifteen primary, fifteen secondary, and thirteen embedded clauses.4 The primary clauses are used to deliver the diatribal objections and rejections in vv. 1–4 and the conclusive exhortations and its reason in vv. 12–14. The secondary clauses support the primary clauses by offering the meaning of purpose (cc6–3 [v. 1], 11– 12 [v. 4]), content (c6–8 [v. 3]) or reason (cc6–13–32 [vv. 5–11]) to them. In the part containing the reason (vv. 5–11), there is a structural parallel between vv. 5–7 and 8–11: a conditional construction (cc6–13 and 21) comes first, and participle clauses about “know” (γινώσκοντες [v. 6] and εἰδότες [v. 9]) follow.5 Regarding the topical participants, there are five participants in this sub-unit: Paul, his hypothetical interlocutors, God, Jesus, and nonhuman powers such as sin and death. Paul and his hypothetical interlocutors appear as those who are in conversation. The interlocutors, mentioned by the second person plural references, are the recipient of Paul’s commandment or exhortation (vv. 11–14, cf. c6–7 [v. 3]). They seem to be believers, because Paul not only identifies himself with them through the first person plural references, but also implies that they share some knowledge with him, such as baptism (v. 3), and Jesus’ death and resurrection (vv. 6, 9).6 God and Jesus are mentioned as those who affect the condition of Paul and his interlocutors. As the one who died on the cross and was 4

(1) Primary clauses: cc6–1, 2 (v. 1), 4, 5 (v. 2), 7 (v. 3), 10 (v. 4), 22 (v. 8), 32 (v. 11), 35 (v. 12), 37, 38, 40 (v. 13), 41, 42, 43 (v. 14); (2) Secondary clauses: cc6–3 (v. 1), 8 (v. 3), 11, 12 (v. 4), 13, 14 (v. 5), 16, 17 (v. 6), 19 (v. 7), 21, 23 (v. 8), 25, 27 (v. 9), 28, 30 (v. 10); and (3) embedded clauses: cc6–6 (v. 2), 9 (v. 3), 15 (v. 6), 18 (v. 6), 20 (v. 7), 24, 26 (v. 9), 29, 31 (v. 10), 33, 34 (v. 11), 36 (v. 12), 39 (v. 13). 5 Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 200–201; G. Bornkamm, “Baptism and New life in Paul: Romans 6,” in Early Christian Experience (London: S.C.M. Press, 1969), 75; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 306; Byrne, Romans, 191–93; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 194–95; Jewett, Romans, 393–94; contra Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 344–45; Schreiner, Romans, 299. However, the position and role of v. 11 are debatable. 6 There have been scholarly conjectures about the exact identity of this interlocutor, e.g., the opponents (Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 155) or Jewish Christians (Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 2:10; A.F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990], 144–45). However, it is unnecessary to define the identity of the voice. This is because that it is possible for Paul to create a hypothetical counterpart in order to deliver his thought (Bornkamm, “Baptism and New life in Paul,” 72–73; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:297; Kaye, The Thought Structure of Romans, 14–20; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 356; Jewett, Romans, 394).

314

chapter eight

resurrected, Jesus is described as the ground of believers’ transfer into the new salvific realm and their life in it. God appears as the agent who raised Jesus from dead (vv. 4, 5, 9) and as the relational counterpart of the one who received a new life including Jesus and believers (vv. 9, 10, 13). Moreover, as in Rom 5:12–21, Rom 6:1–14 mentions sin and death as the power that can exercise kingly rule or mastery over humans (cc6–18 [δουλεύειν; v. 6], 26 [κυριεύει: v. 9], 35 [βασιλευέτω: v. 12], 41 [v. 14]).7 Yet the description of them is different in that the references of sin and death in Rom 6:1–14 appear only with the negative particles (μή and οὐ) and adverbs (μηκέτι and οὐκέτι). The negative indicative clause with regard to sin and death implies that, basically, their kingly dominion over believers is ended, because believers are now under the new realm of grace. Yet the negative imperative clause may suggest that it is still possible for believers to interact with sin, even though the kingship of sin has ended.8 For this reason, Paul commands believers not to make sin the interactive counterpart in the new realm of life. The above interactions among the participants can be diagrammed as below: The old realm: a realm of sin/death/law

The new realm: a realm of grace God interactions

interactions

Sin’s kingly dominion Jesus

(Possibility of interaction)

Believer

(death/ ressurection)

Paul

dialogical interaction

7

In this sub-unit, sin does not appear in the Predicators. It may indicate that the reference of sin in Rom 6:1–14 is not related to human behavior, but to the power in the old realm (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 350; contra Kaye, The Thought Structure of Romans, 34–57). 8 Moo explains this situation of believers that “Sin’s power is broken for the believer, and this must be evident in practice. Yet, the nature of Christian existence is such that the believer can, at times, live in a way that is inconsistent with the reality of what God has made him in Christ. . . . Therefore, while ‘living in sin’ is incompatible with Christian existence and impossible for the Christian as a constant condition, it remains a real threat . . .” (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 358).

rom :–:

315

b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt: x4) (2) 23.G (Live, Die: x3); 92 (x3): B (‘we’: x2), C (‘you’) (3) 9.A (Human Beings: x2); 93.A (Jesus: x3)

Predicators

(1) 23.G (x8) (2) 13 (x5): A (State: x3), D (Happen), C (Exist) (3) 37 (x4): A (Control, Restrain: x3), J (Release) (4) 28.A (Know: x2); 57.H (Give: x2); 31 (x2): F (Believe To Be True), A (Have an Opinion, Hold a View) (5) 33.F; 85.C (Remain, Stay); 59.G; 53.E; 41.A; 20.D (Kill)

Complements (1) 23.G (x6) (2) 92 (x5): C (x3), D (x2) (3) 12.A (God: x4) (4) 88.L´ (x3) (5) 8.B (Parts of the Body: x2); 88.B (Just, Righteous: x2); 6.A (Artifacts: x2) (6) 89.T (Association); 13.A; 64 (Comparison); 93.A Adjuncts

(1) 23.G (x9) (2) 88.L´ (x3) (3) 28.A (x2); 92 (x2): B, C (4) 53.E; 79.E (Glorious); 12.A; 37.A (Control, Restrain); 93.A; 60.E (Once, Twice, Three Times, Etc); 9.A; 36.C (Obey, Disobey); 33.E; 67.E; 25.B (Desire Strongly)

Overall lists

(1) 23.G (x26) (2) 88.L´ (x10): none in the Predicators (3) 92 (Discourse Referentials: x10): B (‘we’: x3), C (‘you’: x5), D (“oneself ”: x2) (4) 12.A (God: x5); 13 (Be, Become, Exist, Happen: x6): A (εἰμί: x4), D, C (5) 28.A (x4), 93.A (Jesus: x4), 37.A (x4) (6) 9.A (Jesus: x3); 53.E (x3)

The major semantic domain in this sub-unit is 23.G (Live, Die), and it occurs twenty six times. Its appearances have two kinds of pattern. The first one is that 23G is mainly mentioned with regard to Jesus (93. A) and believers (domain 92).9 The next pattern is that the ‘die’ aspect

9 Believers: cc6–5, 6 (v. 2), 10, 12 (v. 4), 14 (v. 5), 19 (v. 7), 21, 23 (v. 8), 33, 34 (v. 11), 35 (v. 12), 39 (v. 13); and Jesus: cc6–8, 9 (v. 3), 11 (v. 4), 13 (v. 5), 25, 27 (v. 9), 28, 29, 30, 31 (v. 10).

316

chapter eight

of 23.G appears six times in connection to sin (88.L´),10 and the ‘live’ aspect of 23.G is mentioned with God (12.A).11 These patterns give some considerations in relation to the topical issues in this sub-unit. First, as the number of occurrences of 23.G implies, ‘die’ and ‘live’ are the key issues in Paul’s argument. Second, the twelve occurrences of 23.G in relation to believers denote that Paul’s main concern is the status or the situation of believers with regard to ‘die’ and ‘live.’ In addition, ten occurrences of 23.G regarding Jesus also appear to have a relation to believers. The connection between Jesus and believers is expressed through markers of an association (σύν and συ), conditional structures (vv. 5, 8) and comparative indicators, such as ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως καὶ (v. 4) or οὕτως (v. 11). This connection may indicate that the death and resurrection of Jesus function as the paradigm of those of believers. If this is true, what is the implication of 23.G for believers? This question leads to the third consideration that the connection of 23.G with sin and God describes the life pattern of believers. In other words, the dying and living of believers imply one’s death to sin and life to God, respectively. Therefore, according to the above observation, Paul’s topical interest in this sub-unit appears to be the status or the situation of believers with regard to sin and God. He depicts it with the metaphor of dying and living, and puts Jesus’ death and resurrection as its fundamental paradigm. c) Analysis of logical relations Paul begins Rom 6:1–14 with a hypothetical interlocutor’s objection in v. 1: “Should we remain in sin in order that grace may abound?” It comes from the previous statement in Rom 5:20 (c5–61) that “where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more.” This objection indicates the relational position of this sub-unit with respect to Rom 5:12–21. Rom 6:1–14 does not deal with a brand new topic in Paul’s argument, but it functions to elaborate topical issues in Rom 5:12–21. In this sense, Rom 6:1–14 can be viewed as in functional subordination to Rom 5:12–21. In response to the objection, Paul refutes with μὴ γένοιτο, and gives a counterquestion to the interlocutor in v. 2: “How can we who died

10 11

Cc6–5, 6 (v. 2), 19 (v. 7), 28 (v. 10), 33 (v. 11), 35 (v. 12). Cc6–30 (v. 10), 34 (v. 11), 38 (v. 13).

rom :–:

317

with respect to sin still live in it?” This question connotes two aspects of believer’s life. One aspect is related to ‘die’ and the other is to ‘live.’ As to the former, Paul uses the idea of believers’ death to sin as a common assumption, although it is a new one in his argument in Romans. It is probably related to the shared knowledge of baptism in vv. 3–4. According to him, one implication of believers’ baptism is their union with Jesus’ death (συνετάφημεν: c6–10 [v. 4]).12 Yet the shared knowledge of baptism also sheds light on the second aspect, the ‘live’ aspect of believers. In cc6–11–12 (v. 4), Paul states that just as Jesus was raised from the dead by God, the purpose (ἵνα) of believers’ co-burial with Jesus is related to the new form of behavior (περιπατήσωμεν) in new life. Thus, the shared knowledge of baptism in cc6–8–12 (vv. 3–4) works to elaborate Paul’s rejection in v. 2.13 Here, Paul’s contention is that since believers have died with Jesus and now walk in new life, they cannot live in sin. Yet, even though Paul uses the concept of baptism to support the impossibility of believers living in sin, there are some unexplained facets about believers’ dying and rising. Concerning believers’ dying, on the one hand, he does not explain “how believers have indeed ‘died’ to sin”14 regardless of depicting believers’ dying as their death to sin in v. 2. Even when Paul mentions believers’ union with Jesus in vv. 3–4, he does not give any clarification of that. As to the new life of believers, on the other hand, two steps are missing in joining Jesus’ resurrection to believers’ living in cc6–11–12 (v. 4): (1) In what sense is Jesus’ resurrection related to believers’ new life?; and (2) Why should believers walk in new life? In the following two supportive arguments in vv. 5–7 and 8–11, Paul fills such gaps one by one. In the first supporting argument (vv. 5–7), Paul deals with the dimension of believers’ dying. At the outset, he suggests through a conditional structure that believers’ union (σύμφυτος) with Jesus15 is

12 Paul’s argument in cc6–8–10 (vv. 3–4) shows a kind of syllogism that: (1) we are baptized into Jesus Christ; (2) baptism into Jesus means a baptism into his death; and (3) therefore, we are buried with Jesus through baptism. 13 In this sense, it is not likely that the ultimate focus of Paul is to expound the doctrine of baptism itself (Dunn, Romans 1–8, 308). 14 Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 193. 15 Although there is no mention of σύμφυτος in the apodosis (c6–14 [v. 5]), it should be viewed as an ellipsis. Thus, the apodosis can be read as σύμφυτοι ἐσόμεθα τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ.

318

chapter eight

the ground of their resurrection, because God raises and puts them in the newness of life (cf. ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς [v. 4]) through this union.16 Afterwards, Paul expounds the implication of believers’ dying in vv. 6–7. For him, the co-crucifixion of believers with Jesus is related to the removal of sin, and it results in the manumission of believers from the mastery of sin. With this statement, Paul gives a conceptual bridge to link between believers’ dying with Jesus (v. 4) and their death to sin (v. 2). Therefore, Paul’s rejection in v. 2 means that it is nonsense for those who died with Jesus to live in sin, because the meaning of dying with Jesus is one’s death with respect to sin, as well as liberation from the kingly rule of sin. In the second supportive part (vv. 8–11), Paul fills in another missing link, particularly the relationship between Jesus’ resurrection and believers’ new lives in the new realm. As in vv. 5–7, he begins with a conviction through a conditional structure that the union with Jesus’ death is a warranty of believers’ living. However, in the following participial structure (vv. 9–10), he deals with a different topic in comparison to vv. 6–7. The focus of vv. 6–7 is on believers, who have died with Jesus; however, the focus of vv. 9–10 is on Jesus himself. According to Paul, Jesus’ death and resurrection signify his (Jesus) transfer from one realm of sin and death to another realm of God (v. 10), so that Jesus is no longer under the power of death (v. 9). Accordingly, believers should think of their present condition in light of Jesus’ example, because they are united with him with respect to his death and resurrection. In this way, Paul not only links between Jesus’ resurrection and believers’ life style in the new realm (cf. v. 2), but also provides the ground for his command in v. 11 that believers should regard themselves as being dead to sin and live with respect to God in Jesus. Based upon (οὖν) the preceding explanation, Paul puts forward the direct refutations of the interlocutor’s objection through imperative verbs (vv. 12–13) and the reason clauses for his commands (v. 14). His first command is that believers should not allow sin to exercise its kingly rule in their mortal body, which results in their obedience 16 There is a debate on the understanding of the future tense of ἐσόμεθα (v. 5) and συζήσομεν (v. 8). In spite of the argument that it indicates a future resurrection (Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 223; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 371; Jewett, Romans, 406), it would be better to think of the future tense as timeless, because Paul’s argument here is not about future resurrection, but about the present condition of believers, who are in the new realm of grace (Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, 422–23).

rom :–:

319

to sin’s lust (v. 12). This command is derived from the first supportive part (vv. 5–7), where Paul mentions the concept of sin’s ruling power, and the freedom of believers from it. The second command is not to present the members of believers to sin as the instruments of unrighteousness, but to present to God as the instruments of righteousness (v. 13). This command reflects Paul’s argument in the second supportive part (vv. 8–11) because there is a syntactical similarity between them.17 Finally, the added reason clauses in v. 14 also work to refute the interlocutor’s objection, in the sense that it not only gives the rationale for Paul’s commands, but also reaffirms his basic concept about the present status of believers: they are in the realm of grace, not under the power of sin and the law. In sum, from the above observations, three considerations can be drawn. First, Paul’s overall topical interest in this sub-unit is related to the status and life of believers in the new salvific realm. This is because the issue in the hypothetical objection and Paul’s refutation are not about the entrance of believers into the new realm, but about the relationship between sin, which is the kingly power in the old realm, and believers, who are in the new realm of grace. The second consideration is that Paul’s argumentation is unfolded around living and dying aspects of semantic domain 23.G. In relation to the second one, the third consideration is that believers’ union with Jesus is the key to understanding their present life. Each aspect of dying and living in believers’ lives is connected to Jesus’ death and resurrection, respectively. Paul uses this paradigm as the ground not only for his argumentation against the interlocutor’s question, but also for his commands to the believers. Therefore, in regard to the relationship between sin and believers, Paul’s overall stance is that since believers have been freed from the power of sin and transferred into the new realm of grace through union with Jesus’ death and resurrection, they should not allow themselves to be a slave of sin in spite of the possibility of their interaction with the old power. The logical flow of this sub-unit can be diagrammed as below.

17 Only vv. 10–11 and 13 have a contrast between the dative form of sin (τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ) and that of God (τῷ θεῷ), which are related to human response to them.

320

chapter eight

Interlocutor’s objection: Shall we remain in sin in order to increase grace? (6:1) ‘live’ aspect

Paul’s negation: NO!!! (c6–4 [v. 2]) Paul’s counterquestion (1) How can those who died to sin still live in it? (c6–5 [v. 2]) Paul’s counterquestion (2) Do you not know? a. believers are dead with Jesus through baptism (cc6–8–10 [vv. 3–4]) b. believers are now in the newness of life through union with Jesus’ resurrection (cc6–11–12 [v. 4]) Explanation of Paul’s second counterquestion a´. ‘die’ aspect of believers’ life i. believers’ living resulted from union with Jesus’ death (cc6–13–14 [v. 5]) ii. the meaning of Jesus’ death and its application to believers (cc6–15–20 [vv. 5–7]) b´. ‘live’ aspect of believers’ life i. believers’ living resulted from union with Jesus’ death (cc6–21–23 [v. 8]) ii. the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection (cc6–24–30 [vv. 9–10]) iii. an application of Jesus’ resurrection to the life of believers (cc6–32–34 [v. 11]) Exhortation to believers a. do not allow sin to exercise its kingly power (cc6–35–36 [v. 12]) b. present the members of believers not to sin but to God (cc6–37–40 [v. 13]) c. the reason for exhortation: believers are not under sin and the law, but under grace (v. 14)

‘die’ aspect

rom :–:

321

3) Focality In Rom 6:1–14, Paul uses several devices to express his interest in relation to the topical issues. Within the sentence level, on the one hand, two occurrences of stative aspect are noticeable. One (γεγόναμεν) is found in v. 5, and it emphasizes the state of believers’ being united with Jesus’ death. The other stative verb (δεδικαίωται) appears in v. 7. Stressing the state of being liberated from the power of sin, it works to support the meaning and the implication of Jesus’ death mentioned in vv. 5–6. A second prominence marker is the use of pronouns for emphasis. When Paul compares Jesus’ resurrection with believers’ new form of behavior in v. 4, he stresses the act of believers by putting ἡμεῖς in the forward position in the apodosis. It is a different word order from ἠγέρθη (P) Χριστὸς (S) in the protasis. Similarly, he emphasizes his command about the situation of believers by locating ὑμεῖς in the forward position and using a reflexive pronoun ἑαυτούς in v. 11. The third device is an emphatic (adverbial) use of καί. In addition to the use of a pronoun, v. 11 uses καί for emphasis. There are two other occurrences of such devices in cc6–14 (v. 5) and 23 (v. 8). They appear in the apodosis of conditional constructions, and work to stress the ‘live’ aspect of believers’ lives. The fourth prominence marker is a cataphoric reference of τοῦτο in v. 6. It functions for the reader to pay attention to the content of the ὅτι clause, the implication of believers’ dying. The fifth one is a marked word of qualifier (ql) + head term in cc6– 16 (v. 6) and 35 (v. 12). The former case, ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος, refers to the old self that was co-crucified with Jesus, and the latter, ὑμῶν σώματι, to the body of believers, which is prone to interact with the power of sin. Lastly, some rhetorical devices, such as a chiastic structure, comparison, and contrast, are used to express the author’s intentions. A chiastic structure is found in v. 3, and it helps to illuminate the connotation of believers’ baptism: ἐβαπτίσθημεν (A)—εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν (B)—εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ (B´)—ἐβαπτίσθημεν (A).18 Being expressed by ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως (v. 4) or οὕτως (v. 11), the device of comparison is used for the situation of Jesus and believers. The contrast also appears as a useful tool to demonstrate the heart of Paul’s argumentation. For

18

Harvey, Listening to the Text, 194.

322

chapter eight

example, in explaining the situation of believers, Paul uses two contrastive aspects of dying and living. Being related to sin, the dying aspect reflects the previous situation of believers under sin and their liberation from it. The living aspect refers to their present situation in grace, and it is relevant to a life with respect to God. Through these two contrastive aspects, Paul expounds the link between Jesus and believers (vv. 3–11) and commands believers to have a new form of life in vv. 11–14. At the level beyond the sentence, on the other hand, a parallel structure of vv. 5–7 and 8–11, which is located in the middle of this sub-unit, is noteworthy. As mentioned above, the two repetitive conditional constructions express the same idea that the resurrection of believers results from union with Jesus’ death. But, the following participial clauses in each part have a different content, and they serve not only to fill in the logical gaps in vv. 2–4, but also to give the grounds for Paul’s commands in vv. 12–14. Thus, this structural parallelism seems to be a pivotal part of Paul’s argument in this sub-unit. The second prominent expression is a cluster of four imperative verbs in vv. 11–13. This is the first time that Paul uses imperative voice with respect to humans in the argument of Romans. All four are relevant to the present status and life of believers in the new realm. In sum, the above evidence indicates that Paul’ focus in this subunit is centered on two topical issues: the status and life of believers in the new realm and the union of them with Jesus. Through these two topical issues, Paul demonstrates how the life of believers should be in the new salvific realm. 4) Grouping a) External evidence This sub-unit shows its connection to Rom 5:1–21 through the content of a diatribal objection in Rom 6:1. However, the use of the diatribal objection itself also works as a boundary marker because it “occur[s] at a turn in the discourse or at the beginning of a new section of the argumentation.”19 The other evidence is the change of person reference from the third person singular in Rom 5:12–21 to the first and second person plural. Some commentators insist that the use of the

19

Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 140.

rom :–:

323

imperative in v. 12 is evidence of a division between Rom 6:1–11 and 12–23.20 However, Rom 6:12–14 should be attached to vv. 1–11 for three reasons. The first reason is that since v. 11 has an imperative verb,21 the imperatives in vv. 12–13 cannot be a strong indicator for a division. The second one is the thematic and syntactic relationship between vv. 5–11 and 12–13. As mentioned above, vv. 6–7 are linked to Paul’s command in v. 12, because they deal with the kingly power of sin. Verses 10–11 are connected to v. 13 in that they have the same syntactical contrast between τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ and τῷ θεῷ. The third reason is the appearance of another diatribal objection in v. 15. Since it could mean that v. 15 is the beginning of a discrete sub-unit, it would be better to regard Rom 6:1–14 as one discourse unit.22 b) Internal evidence As to the internal evidence for grouping, there are two major factors for the unity of this sub-unit. The first one is the logical relations that flow in this sub-unit. Rom 6:1–14 consists of one diatribal objection (v. 1) and a long refutation (vv. 2–14). Paul’s refutation is advanced by the alternation of the ‘die’ and the ‘live’ aspects of believers’ lives. Even the commands of Paul in vv. 11–14 are delivered on the basis of these two aspects. The second major factor is the semantic link. In the above logical framework, Rom 6:1–14 shows its unity through the chain links with regard to the semantic domain 23.G (Live, Die). Moreover, this semantic domain also appears in connection with other topical components, such as Jesus, believers, sin, and God. Therefore, the internal unity of this sub-unit is mainly established by the inner logical flow and a semantic chain. In Particular, the semantic domain 23.G is the key factor to form the internal unity of Rom 6:1–14. The semantic chain link of 23.G is as below.23

20

Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 226; Black, Romans, 90; Kaye, The Thought Structure of Romans, 24–28; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 171–72; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 305–306; Fitzmyer, Romans, 429. 21 However, Jewett, who views Rom 6:1–14 as one discourse unit, argues to read λογίζεσθε as indicative (Jewett, Romans, 408.) 22 Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 167; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:321; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 351; Byrne, Romans, 188; Schreiner, Romans, 302; H. Boers, “The Structure and Meaning of Romans 6:1–14,” CBQ 63 (2001), 664–82; Jewett, Romans, 390. 23 Here, the bold marking refers to the ‘Die’ aspect, and the bold in a box is the ‘Live’ aspect, respectively.

324

chapter eight

Rom 6:1 τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἵνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσῃ; 2

μὴ γένοιτο. οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, πῶς ἔτι ζήσομεν ἐν αὐτῇ;

3

ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε ὅτι . . . εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν; 4 συνετάφημεν οὖν

αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος . . . θάνατον, ἵνα ὥσπερ ἠγέρθη Χριστὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν διὰ . . . ζωῆς περιπατήσωμεν ἐσόμεθα

6

5

εἰ γὰρ . . . τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ . . . τῆς ἀναστάσεως

. . . συνεσταυρώθη, ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶμα . . . τῆς ἁμαρτίας

ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται . . . ἁμαρτίας συζήσομεν αὐτῷ

9

8

7

ὁ γὰρ

εἰ δὲ ἀπεθάνομεν σὺν Χριστῷ . . . καὶ

εἰδότες ὅτι Χριστὸς ἐγερθεὶς ἐκ νεκρῶν οὐκέτι ἀποθνῄσκει,

θάνατος αὐτοῦ οὐκέτι κυριεύει

ἐφάπαξ· ὃ δὲ ζῇ, ζῇ τῷ θεῷ

11

10

ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν, τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν

οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ

ἁμαρτίᾳ ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ 12

μὴ οὖν . . . ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμῶν . . . 13 μηδὲ . . . ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας καὶ . . . 14 ἁμαρτία

. . . ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χάριν

5) Summary In comparison to Rom 5:12–21, Rom 6:1–14 shows two noticeable differences. The first one is the shift of Paul’s argumentative focus. While Rom 5:12–21 focuses on Jesus and his role in the process of salvation, this sub-unit tends to concentrate on the status and life of believers in the new salvific realm. In addition, Rom 5:12–21 is mainly about the contrast between the old realm of sin and death and the new realm of grace, but Rom 6:1–14 deals with the issue of believers’ interaction with respect to sin and to God. The second difference is the use of Jesus’ resurrection as an explanatory source for the present condition of believers. Before this sub-unit, salvation is mainly explained in relation to Jesus’ sacrificial death. Even in the case of Rom 4:25 and 5:10, Paul does not give any detailed exposition on the implication of the co-relation between Jesus’ resurrection and the life of believer. However, this sub-unit depicts Jesus’ resurrection as a pivotal event, which determines the present status and life of believers. Lastly, the

rom :–:

325

more detailed explanation about the union of believers with Jesus is also different from Rom 5:12–21. In spite of these differences, however, Rom 6:1–14 is still closely related to Rom 5:12–21, because the interlocutor’s objection is derived from Rom 5:20. In addition, this sub-unit shares the same concept with Rom 5:12–21 that salvation means a transfer from the old realm of sin and death to the new realm of grace. Moreover, both put the event of Jesus at the center of one’s shift from one realm to another. Therefore, in relation to Rom 5:12–21, the function of this sub-unit seems to elaborate the concept of salvation, especially the implication of the status and life of believers in the new salvific realm.

326

chapter eight

rom :–:

327

328

chapter eight

rom :–:

329

B. Rom 6:15–7:6: Sin, the law, and a new life in the new salvific realm 1) Text analysis of Rom 6:15–7:6 2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 6:15–7:6 consists of seventeen primary, twenty-four secondary, and fifteen embedded clauses.24 The primary clauses function to move forward the dialogue between Paul and his hypothetical interlocutor. According to the dialogical pattern, Rom 6:15–7:6 can be divided into four: (1) interlocutor’s objection (Rom 6:15); (2) Paul’s negation, μὴ γένοιτο (c6–48 [v. 15]); (3) Paul’s first refutation with οὐκ οἴδατε (c6–49 [v. 16]); and (4) Paul’s second refutation with ἤ ἀγνοεῖτε (c7–1 [Rom 7:1]). The primary clauses are also used to express Paul’s argumentation about the contrastive condition of believers’ pre and post conversion. The secondary clauses deliver the content of the interlocutor’s objection (cc6–46–47 [v. 15]) and Paul’s refutations. In regards to Paul’s rejection, the principles about slavery (Rom 6:16) and marriage (Rom 7:1–3) are mentioned in the secondary clauses. Moreover, in several cases, the pre-converted condition of believers is also depicted by the secondary clauses (cc6–54 [Rom 6:17], 60 [v. 19], 62 [v. 20]). As far as the topical participants are concerned, Paul and his hypothetical interlocutor appear as the main dialogical partners. Paul’s counterpart is expressed by the first (Rom 7:5–6) and second person plural references and nominative of direct address (ἀδελφοί μου: Rom 7:1, 4). They are regarded as believers, because Paul develops his argument on the assumption that they have been transferred to the realm of grace. However, the exact identity of Paul’s counterpart is debatable. There is little dissension about the view that Paul’s interlocutor in Rom 6:15–23 is related to Gentile Christians, since his/her condition before

24 (1) Primary clauses: cc6–44, 45, 48 (v. 15), 49 (v. 16), 53 (v. 17), 61 (v. 19), 63 (v. 20), 64, 66 (v. 21), 67, 70 (v. 22), 71, 72 (v. 23), 7–1 (7:1), 17 (v. 4), 22 (v. 5), 24 (v. 6); (2) secondary clauses: cc6–46, 47 (v. 15), 50, 51 (v. 16), 54, 55 (v. 17), 57 (v. 18), 59, 60 (v. 19), 62 (v. 20), 65 (v. 21), 7–2, 4 (7:1), 6, 8, 9 (v. 2), 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 (v. 3), 20 (v. 4), 21 (v. 5), 27 (v. 6); and (3) embedded clauses: cc6–52 (v. 16), 56, (v. 17), 58 (v. 18), 68, 69 (v. 22), 7–3, 5 (7:1), 7 (v. 2), 15, 16 (v. 3), 18, 19 (v. 4), 23 (v. 5), 25, 26 (v. 6).

330

chapter eight

conversion is described by ἀνομία, whose cognate word, ἀνόμως, is used to designate the Gentiles in Rom 2:12.25 Then, does Paul only have Gentile Christians in mind? It is probably too much to say that Rom 6:15–23 is only about Gentile believers for two reasons. One is that the original source of the interlocutor’s objection does not have a clear-cut distinction between Jew and Gentile. The hypothetical objection in v. 15 is derived from the preceding statement in v. 14, where Paul says that believers are not under the law but under the grace. However, its ultimate origin is the argumentation in Rom 5:20–21. Accordingly, since Paul’s argument in Rom 5:20–21 is related to the universal humankind and there is no implication of the change of its scope, it is hard to believe that Rom 6:15–23 focuses only on Gentile Christians. The other reason is that Paul uses ἀνομία in describing the sinfulness of Jews by citing David’s Psalm (Ps 32:1) in Rom 4:7. Thus, it would be more reasonable to think that Paul has both Jewish and Gentile Christians in mind. Similarly, Paul’s dialogical partner in 7:1–6 seems to include both Jew and Gentile. Some insist that Paul switches his addressees to the Jews in Rom 7:1–6 because of the expression, “those who know (the) law” (7:1), and the use of Jewish law as a principle of marriage.26 However, their argument is not much convincing, in the sense that Gentile believers at that time had a possibility to contact with the teaching of Jewish law.27 Accordingly, it would be appropriate to think that Paul has Roman Christians in mind as a whole, including Jews and Gentiles. As well as Paul and his interlocutor, three other groups appear as the participants of Rom 6:15–7:6. One group consists of divine participants, God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. God is shown as the initiator of Christian life (c6–72 [v. 23]) and the ultimate interactional partner

25

Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 137; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 265; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 346–48; Stuhlmacher, Paul’s letter to the Romans, 96; Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 220–21; Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 169; etc. 26 Paul Minear, The Obedience of Faith: The Purpose of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (London: SCM Press, 1971), 62; Boers, The Justification of Gentiles, 87; T.L. Carter, Paul and the Power of Sin (SNTSMS 115; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 182; Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 220–21. 27 Dunn, Romans 1–8, 359; Elliot, The Rhetoric of Romans, 245 n. 3; Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 103; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 412; Schreiner, Romans, 347: Gary W. Burnett, Paul & the Salvation of the Individual (BibIntSer 57; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 189.

rom :–:

331

of believers (c6–69 [v. 22], 7–20 [v. 4]). Jesus appears as the means of God’s salvific process (διὰ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ χριστοῦ), and the object of believers’ new relationship (εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ: Rom 7:4). The Holy Spirit is mentioned as the new binding authority in Rom 7:6. However, it seems that Paul’s topical interest is not in the nature or the role of these three divine participants, because they appear as a grammatical subject neither in the Subject nor in the Complement in the primary or secondary clauses. The second group is husband and wife, which are mentioned in the analogy of marital relationship in Rom 7:1–3. This group is relevant to believers, in the sense that their relationship is used to describe the new relationship of believers in the new realm. Lastly, the third group is personalized non-human powers, such as sin and the law. Possessing a ruling power, they are depicted as a master of humans. From the above observation, the topicality of this sub-unit seems to be related to the status and condition of believers. Particularly, it is explained in light of the interactional relationship with other groups, such as the divine participants in the process of salvation (God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit) and the personalized powers. b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

Predicators

(1) 89.H (Result: x3), 33.E (νόμος: x3) (2) 10.D (Kinship Relations Based upon Marriage: x2) (3) 88.I (Kindness, Harshness); 12.A; 57.H (Give); 34.J (Marriage, Divorce); 9.C; 25.B; 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt); 92.B (‘we’); 92.C (‘you’) (1) 13 (x8): A (State: x6), C (Exist), D (2) 57.H (x3) (3) 33 (x3): F (Speak, Talk: x2), I (Give a Name to); 23.G (Live, Die: x2) (cf. 20.D [Kill] x1); 57.A (Possess: x2); 37 (Control, Rule: x2): A (Control, Restrain), D (Rule, Govern); 34.J (x2) (4) 88.L´; 36.C; 28.A; 25.R; 23.L; 28.A; 18.B; 92.B

332

chapter eight

(cont.) Semantic domains Complements (1) 37.A (Slave, Free: x7) (2) 23.G (x6) (3) 88.B (Just, Righteous: x4) (4) 88.L´ (x3); 92.C (Receptor, Receptors: x3) (5) 36.C (Obey, Disobey: x2); 8.B (Parts of the Body: x2); 42.D (Do, Perform: x2); 67.A (A Point of Time without Reference to Other Points of Time: x2); 12.A (x2); 37.J (Release, Set Free: x2); 33.E (νόμος: x2) (6) 92.D; 58.I; 33.Q; 88.H´; 88.R; 10.D; 28.A; 9.A; 88.J´ Adjuncts

Additive Overall lists

(1) 37 (Control, Rule: x6):A (x2), J (x4) (2) 23.G (x6); 33.E (x6) (3) 92 (x4): B (x2), C (x2) (4) 67.B (A Point of Time with Reference to Other Points of Time: x5), cf. 67.E (Time: x3) (5) 10.D (x3); 58.F (Different Kind or Class: x3) (6) 53.F (Dedicate, Consecrate: x2); 88.L´ (x2); 9.A (Human beings: x2); 8 (x2): A, B; 93.A (x2); 12.A (x2); 34.J (x2); 26 (x2) (7) 33.E; 88.I; 36.C; 74; 88.R; 9.B; 13.A; 88.J´; 23.L; 57.H (1) 11.B (Socio-Religious: x2: ἀδελφοί) (2) 92.A (Speaker) (1) 37 (x17): A (x10), J (x6), D (2) 23.G (x14), (cf. 20.D [Kill] x1) (3) 92 (x11): A, B (x3), C (x6), D (4) 67 (x10): A (x2), B (νῦν: x5), E (x3) (5) 13 (x9): A (x7), C, D (6) 88.L´ (x7) (7) 10.D (x6); 33.E (x6) (8) 57.H (x5); 12.A (x5); 34.J (x5) (9) 36.C (x4) * peculiar semantic domains in Rom 6:15–23: (1) 37.A (x8) (2) 88.L´ (x6) (3) 37.J (x5) (4) 36.C (x4) (5) 89.H (x3), 57.H (x3) * peculiar semantic domains Rom 7:1–6: (1) 23.G (x9), 20.D (2) 33.E (x9) (3) 10.D (x6) (4) 34.J (x5) (5) 58.F (x3)

rom :–:

333

Semantically, two parts of Rom 6:15–7:6 (6:15–23 and 7:1–6)28 show their own peculiarities. In the case of Rom 6:15–23, on the one hand, six occurrences of 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt) are noteworthy, because there is only one appearance in Rom 7:1–6. Eight occurrences of 37.A (Slave, Free) and five appearances of 37.J (Release, Set Free) indicate the characteristic semantic domains in Rom 6:15–23. These domains are especially shown in connection with the slavery image, such as the cognates of δουλόω and ἐλευθερόω. The four appearances of 36.C (Obey, Disobey) are related to the slavery image as well. Finally, three occurrences of 57.H (Give: παρεδόθητε and παρεστήσατε) and 89.H (Result: τέλος and ὀψώνια) are used to describe the cause and the result of the life in two realms. According to these semantic domains, the topicality of Rom 6:15–23 is about the issue of slavery (37) in relation to sin (88.L´). Furthermore, domains 36.C and 57.H appear to be the important factors in determining a different kind of result (89.H). In the case of Rom 7:1–6, on the other hand, the nine appearances of 33.E (Written language: νόμος) are distinct from Rom 6:15–23, which has only one occurrence. Rom 7:1–6 shows its peculiarity by the use of several semantic domains related to the marital image: 10.D (Kinship Relations Based upon Marriage: husband and wife: x6), 34.J (Marriage, Divorce: x5), and 58.F (Different Kind or Class: [another husband]: x3). Regarding the marital image, nine appearances of 23.G (Live, Die) also help to make Rom 7:1–6 different from Rom 6:15–23, since this semantic domain appears as the key factor in determining one’s marital status. Thus, the topical issue in Rom 7:1–6 is relevant to the law (33.E), and this issue is explained through the semantic domains related to the marital image (10.D, 34.J, 58.F and 23.G). In spite of their peculiarities, Rom 6:15–23 and 7:1–6 are not totally irrelevant to each other because of two reasons. One reason is that they

28

Many commentators think that Rom 7:1–6 should be view as a new and separated sub-unit. However, there are two reasons to regard Rom 7:1–6 as a part of Rom 6:15–7:6. The first reason is the use of ἤ ἀγνοεῖτε in Rom 7:1. It is not likely that this expression introduces a new sub-unit, since Paul has used this expression as a way to develop his argument. For example, it is used to provide another supporting idea in Rom 6:3. The second reason is that, as will be shown in the analysis of semantic domains and logical relations, Rom 7:1–6 can be regarded as the second part of Paul’s response to the rationale of interlocutor’s objection in Rom 6:15. Thus, Rom 7:1–6 should be a “second phase” of Paul’s overall argument in Rom 6:15–7:6 (Don B. Garlington, Faith, Obedience and Perseverance [WUNT 79; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994], 116; Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 299; idem, “A Newer Perspective on Paul,” 384–85; Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 167–78).

334

chapter eight

share common semantic domains, such as 23.G (x14), 37 (x17), 92 (Discourse Referentials: x11), 13 (Be, Become, Exist, Happen: x9), and 67 (Time: x10). Six occurrences of 92.C (‘you’) indicate Paul’s dialogical partner, and three repetitions of 92.B (‘we’) reveal the identification of Paul with his dialogical counterpart. The frequent use of domain 92.C may imply that Paul’s interest in this sub-unit is in the situation of believers, not in the role of God or Jesus. Semantic domain 67 is used to show a temporal contrast in describing the condition of believers before and after conversion. In relation to this contrast, semantic domains 23.G, 37, and 13 also work to demonstrate the change of the status of believers. Domains 37 and 13 are used to show the old and new powers in two realms, as well as the human situation under them. Domain 23.G functions to show the shift of believers from the realm of sin and death to that of grace, and the contrast of two ultimate results of the life in each realm. The other reason for the connection between Rom 6:15–23 and 7:1–6 is that, semantically, the topical issues of both parts correspond to the interlocutor’s objection and its rationale respectively. That is, in response to the interlocutor’s objection about sin, “Shall we sin?” (c6–45 [v. 15]), Paul refutes this idea through the image of slavery in Rom 6:16–23. Likewise, against the rationale of the objection, “because we are not under the law, but under grace” (cc6–46–47 [v. 15]), he explains the concept of liberation from the law with the marital image in Rom 7:1–6. In summary, the patterns of semantic domains help to see the argumentative structure of Rom 6:15–7:6. Replying to the interlocutor’s objection about sin and law in Rom 6:15, Paul unfolds his argument about sin in Rom 6:16–23 and the law in Rom 7:1–6. Within this structure, Paul reveals through semantic domains 23.G, 37, 92, 67, and 13 that his overall interest is in the status and life of believers in the new realm. In particular, the frequent usage of domain 67 indicates that believers’ transfer from one realm to another can be described by a temporal shift before and after conversion. c) Analysis of logical relations Paul opens a new sub-unit in Rom 6:15 with an interlocutor’s absurd objection, which is derived from Rom 6:14, and his negation, μὴ γένοιτο. From Rom 6:16, he presents his argument in response to the two parts of the interlocutor’s objection, an objection (c6–45) and its rationale (cc6–46–47).

rom :–:

335

Initially, Paul refutes the interlocutor’s objection, which is about the sinful act of believers (ἁμαρτήσωμεν) in the new salvific realm in Rom 6:16–23. As in Rom 6:3, Paul begins his argument by appealing to the shared knowledge between him and his readers in Rom 6:16. Here he resorts to the general concept of slavery that when one presents (παρίστημι) oneself as a slave for obedience, he/she becomes a slave to whom he/she obeys and experiences the result of one’s enslavement. Paul applies the logical sequence of this concept, such as obedience (act)—enslavement (status)—result, to the area of sin and righteousness in c6–51 (v. 16). These two areas represent the situation of his reader (‘you’) in the old and the new realms, respectively.29 Among the above logical sequences, Paul deals first with the correlation between obedience and enslavement in vv. 17–18. According to him, the fundamental status of believers can be described as the change from the slavery of sin to that of righteousness. In light of the logical connection between obedience and enslavement, these two kinds of enslaved status have an assumption that believers were obedient to sin in the past, but are obedient to righteousness in the present. Then, how does the transition of believers’ status occur? According to cc6– 55–56 (v. 17), such transition results from the obedience of believers

29 Some regard δικαιοσύνη in c6–51 (v. 16) as final forensic justification (Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:322; Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 494), eschatological righteousness including transformation (Schreiner, Romans, 322), or moral righteousness (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 400). However, there are several reasons to regard it as the state in the new salvific realm. First, as B. Byrne points out (Byrne, Romans, 205), the two phrases in v. 16, ἁμαρτίας εἰς θάνατον (“sin leads to death”) and ὑπακοῆς εἰς δικαιοσύνην (“obedience leads to righteousness”), show an “imperfect balance,” in the sense that the counterpart of death is not righteousness but eternal life (Rom 6:21–23), and ὑπακοή is never used as a correspondence of ἁμαρτία in the following verses. In addition, while righteousness always appears as the opposite of sin in Rom 6:17–23, there is no implication to think that righteousness refers to the future condition of believers. Thus, it is not likely that righteousness in v. 16 indicates a final or eschatological condition of believers. Moreover, since Paul describes sin and righteousness as the opposite mastering powers in vv. 17–18 and 20, it is not convincing to interpret the righteousness in v. 16 as moral righteousness. On the contrary, the obedience to the gospel and enslavement to righteousness in v. 17 could be viewed as a reflection of ὑπακοῆς εἰς δικαιοσύνην in v. 16, because v. 17 is the only case that the combination of obedience and righteousness appears as the opposite of believers’ pre-conversion situation. Therefore, it is possible to think that the phrase ὑπακοῆς εἰς δικαιοσύνην is the transition of believers from the slavery status in the old realm to the new kind of enslavement in the new realm (cf. Byrne, Romans, 205. He viewed it as “righteousness of God”).

336

chapter eight

to the form of teaching, i.e., the gospel.30 Consequently, Paul’s argument about the obedience (act) and enslavement (status) can be summarized that believers (‘you’) obeyed sin and became slaves of sin in the past, but now they are the slaves of righteousness because their obedience to the gospel made them free from the slavery of sin. Afterward, Paul treats the third element of the above logical sequence in Rom 6:19–23, which is the result of enslavement. Based upon the framework of a temporal contrast between past and present, he exhorts believers in Rom 6:19 that just as believers (‘you’) have presented (παρεστήσατε) their members as slaves to impurity and lawlessness, which resulted in lawlessness (ἀνομία), so now they should present (παραστήσατε) their members as slaves to righteousness, which results in holiness (ἁγιασμός). Here, although lawlessness and holiness denote the last stage of the logical sequence of one’s obedience, they are not the final condition.31 According to the description in Rom 6:20–23, death is the final condition of those who are under the slavery of sin. Yet eternal life is the ultimate condition of those who are now free from sin and enslaved to God. Thus, Paul’s command not to obey sin but to follow righteousness is closely connected to the difference in the final result of one’s obedience. According to the above observation, Paul’s argumentation has two kinds of characteristics. One is that he spreads out his refutation in accordance to the content of shared knowledge, which is about the principle of slavery having three stages of logical sequences. Paul retorts through the connection of act (obedience) and status (enslavement) that to sin is contradictory to the present status of believers, because they have been liberated from the slavery of sin, and become slaves of God and his righteousness (Rom 6:17–18). In Rom 6:19–23, on the basis of the logical sequence of act and result, Paul orders believers not to obey sin but to obey God, since the former leads to death, while the latter results in eternal life. The other characteristic is the use of a temporal framework. Paul explains the above logical sequence through the temporal contrast between believers’ past and present experiences.

30 Some argue that cc6–55–56 (v. 17) are a later interpolation (R. Bultmann, “Glossen im Römerbrief,” TLZ 72 [1947], 197–202; Bornkamm, “Baptism and New Life in Paul,” 86; V.P. Furnish, Theology and Ethics [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968], 197–98; Jewett, Romans, 417–19). However, this is not very convincing, because Paul has already stated the relationship between obedience (ὑπακοή) and righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) in c6–51 (v. 16). 31 Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 174; Byrne, Romans, 204.

rom :–:

337

Thus, the consideration of the logical sequence also connotes two kinds of temporal dimension. One is related to one’s shift from the old realm from the past to the new realm in the present. The other is about the logico-temporal sequence among act, status, and result in each realm. This concept could be diagrammed as below:32 Temporal shift past

present

Obedience to

Slavery to

Old realm

Sin

Sin

Transition

the form of teaching (gospel)

New realm Righteousness Righteousness (God)

Present Effects

End Result

Uncleanness (Eternal) Lawlessness Death

Holiness

Eternal Life

Logico-temporal sequence among act, status, and result

In Rom 7:1–6, Paul refutes the rationale of the interlocutor’s objection mentioned in cc6–46–47 (Rom 6:15).33 He begins his argument by relying on the shared knowledge with his reader, as he did in Rom 6:16. Calling attention to the issue of the law by the noun of address (ἀδελφοί) and an insertion (γινώσκουσιν νόμον λαλῶ: “I speak to those who know the law”), he states an analogy about the function of the law in the marital relationship between husband and wife (cc7–4–9 [Rom 7:1–2]).34 While a husband is alive, a wife is bound to her husband by the law, which controls (κυριεύει) marital relationship; however, if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband (ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός). The inference of this principle is that, when a husband is alive, a wife cannot remarry another man. 32

This diagram is a modification of B. Byrne’s scheme (Byrne, Romans, 204). Contra Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 187. He denies any relation of this verse to Romans 6. 34 Here, probably the law does not refer to the general law (Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 172), nor Roman law (Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 187). Instead, it could be the Jewish law because Roman law of Paul’s day did not regulate the absolute binding of a wife to her husband (Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:346; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 2:66, Dunn, Romans 1–8, 359–60; Fitzmyer, Romans, 455–56). 33

338

chapter eight

It is prohibited by the law and she will be called an adulteress. Yet, if a husband dies, she becomes free from the law and is allowed to remarry another man without the accusation of adultery (Rom 7:3). Based upon this analogy, Paul now describes the situation of believers (‘you’) in Rom 7:4. In spite of sharing some common features, such as the death of a marital partner, the law, and remarriage to another man, there seems to be a problem in linking Rom 7:1–3 with Rom 7:4.35 For example, while it is the husband that dies in the analogy (Rom 7:1–3), the wife appears as the dead one in Rom 7:4.36 Besides, it is not clear as to who ‘the ex-husband of the wife’ was in Rom 7:4. However, I would argue that there is a close relationship between Paul’s marital analogy and the description of believers’ situation. The identity of the ex-husband of believers plays a key role in understanding the connection between them. Those who minimize the importance of the analogy tend to overlook the existence of the ex-husband in the description of Rom 7:4. If ever, they mistake the law,37 the old self,38 or even Christ’s death39 for the ex-husband. In this regard, however, I would propose sin as the ex-husband of believers. The first reason is that the law does not appear as the husband in the analogy, and the emancipation from the controlling power of the law results from the death of a partner. Thus, if the analogy in Rom 7:1–3 is related to Paul’s description in Rom 7:4, the believers’ death with regard to the law should be thought of as a secondary or a consequent event following the death of a partner. The second reason is that in

35 Those who hesitate to use the analogy as an interpretative framework include Dodd (Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 119–20), Räisänen (Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 61–62), Johnson (L.T. Johnson, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary [New York: Crossroad, 1997], 106), Tobin (Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 220–21), Jewett (Jewett, Romans, 428), etc. For the historical review on the interpretation of this passage, see Pamela Thimmes, “ ‘She Will be Called an Adulteress…’: Marriage and Adultery Analogies in Romans 7:1–4,” in Sheila E. McGinn (ed.), Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 192–96. 36 Contra Carter, Paul and the Power of Sin, 182. He insists that “In 7:4, Paul invites believers to identify with the husband who has died.” However, if believers are identified with the husband, believers’ remarriage to Jesus becomes very awkward because Jesus is a man. Thus, it should be understood that believers (‘you’) are identified with the wife, who remarries another man. 37 Bruce, Romans, 137; I.H. Marshall, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 318. 38 Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 172. 39 J.D. Earnshaw, “Reconsidering Paul’s Marriage Analogy in Romans 7:1–4,” NTS 40 (1994), 70–72.

rom :–:

339

the previous argumentation, Paul kept emphasizing the dimension of believers’ death with respect to sin. This is especially explained in light of Christ’s death in Rom 6:3–11. Thus, cc7–17–19 (Rom 7:4) could be understood that, just as the wife is liberated from the law’s binding power and gains the privilege to remarry another man due to the death of her husband, believers (‘you’) are freed from the power of the law by Jesus’ sacrificial death and can now remarry another man, Jesus.40 This statement is another rendering of believers’ transfer from one relational realm of sin to another of Jesus. Moreover, it works as a rewording of believers’ status mentioned in cc6–46–47 (Rom 6:15), who are not under the law but under grace. Therefore, Rom 7:4 could be viewed as Paul’s answer to the rationale of the interlocutor. In Rom 7:5–6, Paul gives an explanation about the concept in Rom 7:4 through the contrast of the believers’ situation before and after conversion. Before conversion, believers in the flesh (ἐν τῇ σαρκί) were under the mastering power of sin, and sin brought death to them. In this situation, the law is depicted as a binding power that links between humans and sin, and it also works as a means of producing sin itself. However, the situation of believers in the new salvific realm is different. They are now released from the controlling power of the law as a result of dying to sin, the refraining power (ἀποθανόντες ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα).41 Moreover, since believers’ being in the new realm

40 Here, the fact that the dead partners are different between Rom 7:1–3 (the husband) and 4 (the wife) cannot block the connection between the analogy and its application. It is because Paul has already mentioned in c7–4 (7:1) that the ruling power of the law is in effect only if a person (ἄνθρωπος) is alive regardless of the distinction between a husband and a wife. 41 Most commentators regard that as a masculine, ᾧ, in c7–26 (v. 6) refers to the law. However, there are some reasons to think of it as sin. First, grammatically, ᾧ can be viewed as a neuter (cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 459). So, ᾧ can be related to the neuter noun τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (“the sinful passions”) in c7–22 (v. 5), although it is a singular pronoun. Second, a comparison with Rom 7:2 demonstrates the awkwardness of regarding ᾧ as the law. As an analogy and its application, Rom 7:2 and 6 mentions the similar idea with the same words (κατήργηται/ κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου and ἀποθάνῃ/ἀποθανόντες) and logical order (the death of a marital partner results in one’s release from the law). Consequently, the primary object to which believers have died in Rom 7:6 is not the law. This is because Paul articulates in v. 2 that it is not the law but the husband who died. Even in Rom 7:4, believers’ death with respect to the law appears as a secondary or consequential event originated from their death to sin. The third reason is that Paul’s following argument shows that sin, not the law, is mentioned as the restraining or tyrant power oppressing humankind. Typically, Paul reveals this concept by putting sin as the grammatical and logical subject in the following argument (Rom 7:7–25). Even in Rom 7:5, it is not the law but the sinful passion that is the actor who makes the disastrous result (Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 224–25).

340

chapter eight

means their having a new marital relationship with Jesus (Rom 7:4), it is necessary for them to be under a new binding power, which controls the relationship between believers and Jesus. Paul designates the Holy Spirit as the new controlling power (c7–27 [v. 6]). These contrasting points seem to show that the contrast between Rom 7:5 and 6 is incomplete, since there is no ‘result’ aspect in the present situation of believers. Instead, Paul only speaks of believers’ new status and the new controlling power. However, the use of δουλεύειν in c7–27 (v. 6) probably reflects Paul’s anticipation of the ‘result’ in the life of believers, since he has already explained the link between slavery and its result in Rom 6:16–23. In conclusion, the logical flow of Paul’s argument in Rom 6:15–7:6 advances by three pivotal factors. The first one is the content of the interlocutor’s objection in Rom 6:15. It consists of two parts: one is the absurd question about the sinful act of believers, and the other is its rationale, which is about the status of believers with regard to the law. According to Paul’s response to them, the overall argument is divided into two: (1) Rom 6:16–23, which deals with the interlocutor’s objection itself; and (2) Rom 7:1–6, which corrects the interlocutor’s rationale. The second factor is the shared knowledge between Paul and his readers, introduced by οὐκ οἴδατε (Rom 6: 16) and ἤ ἀγνοεῖτε (Rom 7:1). On the one hand, with respect to the sinful act of believers (Rom 6:16–23), Paul relies on the concept of slavery, which has a logical sequence of obedience (act)—enslavement (status)—result. Paul deals with the first two elements in Rom 6:17–18, and the third element in Rom 6:19–23. As to the relation between the status of believers and the law (Rom 7:1–6), on the other hand, Paul uses an analogy of the marital relationship under the law as the explanatory framework. Just as the analogy shows that a wife is released from the binding power of the law through the death of her husband, believers become free from the old binding power of the law through union with Jesus’ death to sin, and enter into the new marital relationship with Jesus. In consequence, believers are now under the new binding power, the Holy Spirit. The third pivotal factor is the use of contrast. Throughout Rom 6:15– 7:6 Paul utilizes the temporal contrast of believers’ before and after conversion situation as the major impetus to articulate his thought. By way of this device, he delivers the significance of the present situation of believers. All in all, Paul’s overall argument in Rom 6:15–7:6 is

rom :–:

341

summarized as this: it is absurd for believers to insist on sinning based upon the idea that they are not under the law. It is because believers are those who must follow the right track of obedience—enslavement— result. Moreover, believers’ freedom from the law means that their status is released from the bondage of sin and the old law, and is now under a new binding power (the Holy Spirit) in the new relationship with Jesus. 3) Focality In order to deliver his topical emphasis, Paul uses several prominence markers in this sub-unit. Regarding the issue of believers’ sinful act in Rom 6:16–23, the use of contrast is noticeable. As mentioned above, it functions to focus on the present status and condition of believers. Within the use of this rhetorical contrast, some devices for highlighting are also found. In c6–51 (Rom 6:16), Paul uses a rare correlative conjunction, ἤτοι . . . ἤ, which appears only in this verse in the NT. As a marked expression, it may give attention to the comparison between the old and the new realms with regards to the logical sequences of act—status—result. When Paul mentions believers’ obedience to the gospel in cc6–55–56 (v. 17), he stresses the form of teaching by locating a relative clause (εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε) before its reference (τύπον διδαχῆς). In c6–62 (Rom 6:20), he emphasizes believers’ past situation through breaking the closeness of a head term and a qualifier (genitive). This is achieved by putting a verb in the middle: δοῦλοι (a head term) ἦτε (a verb) τῆς ἁμαρτίας (a qualifier). In comparison with ἦτε δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας in c6–54 (Rom 6:17), Paul puts more stress on the expression in Rom 6:20 than on that of Rom 6:17. Lastly, a relatively strong adversative indicator νυνὶ δέ and two contrasting embedded clauses (cc6–68–69) in Rom 6:22 demonstrate the importance of the present situation of believers. As to the relationship between the law and the believers’ status in Rom 7:1–6, the use of contrast is also an important way to describe the present situation of believers. Yet there are other prominence features in relation to the contrast. At the level beyond the sentence, the two conditional constructions in Rom 7:3 are noticeable. Syntactically, these two conditional constructions present a chiastic order of apodosis (cc7–10–11)—protasis (c7–12)—protasis (c7–13)—apodosis (c7–14). However, semantically, they show a contrasting parallelism in that both conditional structures have the same order of (1) living and dying of the husband (cc7–10, 13), (2) a matter of being called

342

chapter eight

an adulteress (cc7–11, 15), and (3) remarrying another man (cc7–12, 16). At the sentence level, on the other hand, a contrast of the stative aspects in Rom 7:2 stresses two kinds of situation regarding the law: bound situation to the law (δέδεται νόμῳ) versus released situation from the law (κατήργηται ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου). In the above structure of Rom 7:3, a phenomenon of secondarization is shown. Here, the apodosis (cc7–10–11) comes before the protasis (c7–12). When Paul applies the principles of the analogy to his readers in Rom 7:4, he stresses their present situation through three kinds of emphasizing expression: ἀδελφοί μου, an emphatic (adverbial) use of καί, and the grammatical subject ὑμεῖς before the predicator. In sum, most of the prominent features in Rom 6:15–7:6 tends to appear in relation to the contrast between the past and present situation of believers. The focality in Rom 6:16–23 is relevant to the logical sequence of act, status, and result in believer’s past and present situation. In the case of Rom 7:1–6, Paul pays attention to the function of the law in the analogy, and to its application to the present condition of believers. 4) Grouping a) External evidence Rom 6:15–7:6 is discrete from Rom 6:1–14 by a diatribal objection, τί οὖν, although the content of the interlocutor’s objection is connected to the preceding argument of Paul. The introduction of the slavery image with the cognates of δουλόω and ἐλευθερόω also works to distinguish Rom 6:15–7:6 from Rom 6:1–14. Moreover, the unique analogy of the marital relationship with respect to the law in Rom 7:1–6 contributes to regarding Rom 6:15–7:6 as a distinct sub-unit from Rom 6:1–14. b) Internal evidence The internal unity of Rom 6:15–7:6 is largely established by semantic and logical elements. Semantically, the two words, ἁμαρτήσωμεν and νόμον, in Rom 6:15 provide a topical boundary of this sub-unit. The former upholds the semantic cohesion of Rom 6:16–23 with the words denoting the slavery image, and the latter provides a semantic unity of Rom 7:1–6. Logically, as mentioned in the analysis of logical relations, Rom 6:15–7:6 presents its coherent unity through three pivotal logical elements: (1) the interrelation between the objection and the rationale of the interlocutor and Paul’s responses to them; (2) the content of the shared knowledge between Paul and his readers; and (3) a

rom :–:

343

contrast between the situation of believers’ pre and post conversion. Some coherent and cohesive elements for internal unity of this subunit can be described as below:42 5) Summary As in the case of Rom 6:1–14, the overall argumentative framework in Rom 6:15–7:6 is derived from the description of salvation in Romans 5. At the outset, the fundamental contrast between believers’ past and present situation in this sub-unit reflects the two contrastive realms in the process of salvation (cf. Rom 5:12–21). According to Rom 6:15– 7:6, salvation means the emancipation from the lordship of sin and its binding power, the law, and transfer into the realm of righteousness, where the Holy Spirit is a new binding power. This transfer occurs through Jesus’ sacrificial death (Rom 7:4) and human obedience of faith to the gospel (Rom 6:17; cf. Rom 1:5; 16:26). In addition, this sub-unit shares the logical sequence of sin and death in the old realm: sin results in death (Rom 6:16–23; 7:5; cf. Rom 5:12). However, the angle of description is different between Romans 5 and 6:15–23. Romans 5 is mainly described with a divine point of view, in the sense that God and Jesus appear to be the actor or the agent of a process. However, in Rom 6:15–23, it is believers who are responsible for the logical process of obedience (act)—enslavement (status)—result. This human-centered descriptive angle is relatively weak in Rom 7:1–6, because its topic is about the binding power of the law in two realms. Nevertheless, Paul still hints of his interest in human action with καρποφορήσωμεν (Rom 7:4; cf. Rom 6:21, 22) and with the depiction of believers’ situation as slavery to the Holy Spirit (δουλεύειν: Rom 7:6). Both imply that believers are in the track of the above logical sequence, so that they are anticipated to follow the right way. For Paul, there are two kinds of tracks of logical process: one track consists of obedience to sin, enslavement to sin, and death as the final result; the other one is composed of obedience to righteousness as enslavement to God, holiness, and eternal life as the final result. Of the two, Paul continuously exhorts his reader in this sub-unit to follow the latter track (cf. Rom 6:19).

42

Here, the underlined markings denote the slavery image, the bold markings are sin, and bold markings in a box means the law. However, I do not mark in this diagram several important semantic domains, such as 23.G (Live, Die), 12.A (God), 10.D (Kinship Relations Based upon Marriage: husband and wife), 34.J (Marriage, Divorce) x5, etc.

344 Interlocutor’s objection Paul’s negation

chapter eight Rom 6:15: τί οὖν; . . . ἁμαρτήσωμεν . . . οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑπὸ νόμον ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χάριν μὴ γένοιτο 16

οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι . . . δούλους εἰς ὑπακοήν, δοῦλοί ἐστε ᾧ

ὑπακούετε ἤτοι ἁμαρτίας . . . ἢ ὑπακοῆς . . . 17 . . . δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑπηκούσατε . . . 18 ἐλευθερωθέντες . . . ἁμαρτίας

ἐδουλώθητε . . . 19 . . . μέλη ὑμῶν δοῦλα τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ τῇ Paul’s refutation (1)

ἀνομίᾳ εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν . . . νῦν παραστήσατε . . . δοῦλα τῇ

δικαιοσύνῃ εἰς ἁγιασμόν

20

. . . δοῦλοι ἦτε τῆς ἁμαρτίας,

ἐλεύθεροι . . . 21 τίνα . . . 22 νυνὶ δὲ ἐλευθερωθέντες . . . ἁμαρτίας δουλωθέντες . . . αἰώνιον

23

τὰ . . . ἁμαρτίας

θάνατος . . . χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰώνιος . . . Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν

Romans 7:1 ἤ ἀγνοεῖτε, ἀδελφοί . . . νόμον λαλῶ, ὅτι ὁ νόμος κυριεύει . . . 2 ἡ γὰρ . . . νόμῳ . . . κατήργηται ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός 3 . . . ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου . . . 4 ὥστε . . . ἐθανατώθητε Paul’s refutation (2)

τῷ νόμῳ διὰ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστου . . . θεῷ 5 τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τὰ διὰ τοῦ νόμου . . . τῷ θανάτῳ νυνὶ δὲ . . . νόμου ἀποθανόντες . . . δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος καὶ οὐ παλαιότητι γράμματος

6

rom :–:

345

346

chapter eight

2. Rom 7:7–25: Sin as the core reason of the human problem, and the relationship among the law, sin, and the unregenerate person A. Rom 7:7–12: Interrelationship among the law, sin, and the ‘I’ 1) Text analysis of Rom 7:7–12 2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 7:7–12 is composed of fifteen primary, four secondary, and two embedded clauses.43 The primary clauses are used to advance the dialogue between Paul and his partner. The secondary clauses work as a protasis of a conditional structure and the content of the commandment in v. 7. In v. 9, the genitive construction is used to indicate the coming of a commandment (ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς ἐντολῆς).44 Lastly, in relation to the interactions between the law and sin, the 43 (1) Primary clauses: cc7–28–31, 33 (v. 7), 36, 38 (v. 8), 39, 41 (v. 9), 42, 43 (v. 10), 44, 46 (v. 11), 47, 48 (v. 12); (2) secondary clauses: cc7–32, 34, 35 (v. 7), 40 (v. 9); and (3) embedded clauses: cc7–37 (v. 8), 45 (v. 9). 44 I am convinced by the argument of Lois K. Dow [Fuller], who uses ‘Genitive Construction’ instead of ‘Genitive Absolute.’ Lois K. Fuller, “The ‘Genitive Absolute’ in New Testament/Hellenistic Greek: A Proposal for Clearer Understanding,” JGRChJ 3 (2006), 142–67.

rom :–:

347

two embedded clauses in cc7–37 and 45 suggests that sin is taking advantage of the law (ἀφορμὴν λαβοῦσα διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς). As far as the topical participants are concerned, the main participants are Paul and his dialogical counterpart. Sin is mentioned as a personified one, which also appears as an interactive partner with the ‘I’ in Paul’s argument. The most vexing problem with regard to the participants is the identity of the ‘I.’ The debates on this issue have two foci: one has to do with the identity of the ‘I’: who is the ‘I’? The other is relevant to the nature of the experience of the ‘I’: Does the inner conflict of the ‘I’ reflect pre-Christian experience or present Christian existence? The former is relevant to this sub-unit and the latter is to Rom 7:13–25. Thus, I will only deal with the first issue here. Before the seminal study of W.G. Kümmel in 1929,45 the ‘I’ was generally understood as Paul’s autobiographical description. However, after Kümmel’s study, various views have been proposed, and they can be divided into three categories: (1) the ‘I’ is purely fictive or rhetorical, which excludes Paul’s own voice; (2) the ‘I’ is autobiographical or personal, in which Paul speaks of his personal experience;46 and (3) the ‘I’ is the general or typical voice of humankind including Paul. The first option is held by Kümmel and his followers on the basis of three reasons.47 The first reason is that what Paul uses is a rhetorical means, and it illustrates the general way of thought.48 Recently, suggesting this ‘I’ as a rhetorical device of προσωποποιία (“speechin-character”), “in which the speaker or writer produces speech that represents not himself or herself but another person or type of

45

W.G. Kümmel, Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus (UNT 17; Munich: Kaiser, 1974 [1929]). 46 E.g., A. Deissmann, Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History (2nd ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1927), 91; W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: (London: SPCK, 1965), 24–25; R.H. Gundry, “The Moral Frustration of Paul before His Conversion: Sexual Lust in Romans 7:7–25,” in D.A. Hagner and M.J. Harris (eds.), Pauline Studies (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1980), 232–33. 47 E.g., G. Bornkamm, “Sin, Law and Death: An Exegetical Study of Romans 7,” in Early Christian Experience, 93–94; Fitzmyer, Romans, 463–66; recently, Georg Strecker, Theology of the New Testament (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter/Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2000), 136. 48 Kümmel, Römer 7, 67–90, 118–32.

348

chapter eight

character,”49 S.K. Stowers rules out the autobiographic nature of the ‘I.’50 The second reason is that since Paul is a Jew, the condition of the ‘I’ apart from the law in Rom 7:9 cannot be applied to his pre-Christian period.51 In conjunction, the third reason is that if the description of the ‘I’ in Rom 7:7–25 refers to Paul’s pre-conversion experience, it contradicts his confession in Phil 3:6, where Paul depicts himself as blameless with respect to the law.52 Nevertheless, it is very doubtful that the ‘I’ is purely fictive. Even though the ‘I’ in a diatribal dialogue in Rom 7:7–25 seems to show the pattern of Speech-in-Character, the description in the ancient rhetorical handbooks53 or even the parallels in Greco-Roman literature54 do not give any warrant for the conjecture that Paul should exclude his own voice in using the ‘I.’55 On the contrary, as G. Theissen points out, it is more convincing that the use of the ‘I’ in the refutation or the answering part of a diatribal dialogue gives more weight on the involvement of Paul’s personal voice, just as he did in the previous arguments.56 In addition, since Paul identifies himself with the Roman Christians through the first person plural reference in Rom 7:5, from which the topical issue of this sub-unit is derived, it is difficult to regard the use of ‘I’ in Rom 7:7–25 as purely fictive.57 As Stowers and Tobin insist, the ‘you’ in Rom 8:2 seems to indicate the distance between Paul and the ‘I’ in Rom 7:7–25.58 However, in the next verse (Rom 8:3), Paul identifies himself with the ‘you’ by the first person plural reference;

49

S.K. Stowers, “Romans 7:7–25 as a Speech-in-Character (προσωποποιία),” in T. Engberg-Pedersen (ed.), Paul in His Hellenistic Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 180; idem, A Rereading of Romans, 264–69. 50 Stowers, “Romans 7:7–25,” 191–92; idem, A Rereading of Romans, 264. This idea is followed by Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 226. 51 Kümmel, Römer 7, 78–84. 52 Kümmel, Römer 7, 111–17. 53 E.g., Theon, Prog. 2.115.11–118.5; Hermogenes, Prog. 9.1–43; Demetrius, Eloc. 265–266; Rhet. Her. 4.66; Cicero, Inv. 1.99–100; Pat. or. 55, 57; De or. 3.205; Or. Brut. 85, 138; Top. 45; Quintilian, Inst. 1.8.3; 3.8.49–54; 4.1.28, 69; 6.1,3, 25–27; 9.2.29–39; 11.1.39–41. Cited from Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 227 n. 19. 54 E.g., Epictetus. Diss. 1.12. Jewett, Romans, 443. 55 J.-N. Aletti, “Romans 7:7–25: Rhetorical Criticism and Its Usefulness,” SEÅ 61 (1996), 90; Jewett, Romans, 443. Although they agree to the use of Speech-in-Character in Rom 7:7–25, they do not consent to a view that the ‘I’ is purely fictive. 56 G. Theissen, Psychological Aspect of Pauline Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 193. 57 Theissen, Psychological Aspect of Pauline Theology, 201. 58 Stowers, A Rereading of Romans, 281–82; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 226.

rom :–:

349

thus, the total exclusion of Paul in using the ‘I’ is not persuasive. Moreover, it is not convincing to use Phil 3:6 as an evidence of the fictive ‘I’ in Rom 7:7–25. The co-text of Phil 3:6 is not relevant to the inner state of a Jew, but to the comparison among Jews with respect to their ‘socio-religious status,’ so that the topical focus of Phil 3:6 is different from that of Rom 7:7–25.59 In this co-text, the statement κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος (“as to righteousness under the law blameless”) in Phil 3:6 should not be regarded as a spotless or a sinless situation of Paul. Instead, it must be viewed as a relatively higher status with respect to one’s obedience to the standard described by the law.60 Consequently, the case of Phil 3:6 cannot challenge the idea that Paul puts his own voice in the use of the ‘I,’ in some way. Rather, it is more appropriate to think that the voice of the ‘I’ reflects typical or general humankind, as well as Paul’s personal experience, even though we do not need to go back to the pure autobiographical view. If Paul uses the ‘I’ as having both personal and typical dimensions, then, who is the model of the ‘I’? This question is related to the understanding of Rom 7:9, which informs us that the law emerged later in the story of the ‘I.’ In general, four candidates have been proposed for the ‘I’: (1) Adam and the allusion of his fall; (2) the Israel; (3) Paul as a pre-conversion Jew; and (4) a Gentile who has an opportunity to know the Mosaic law. The first candidate relies on the several seeming allusions of the Genesis story in the voice of the ‘I.’61 For example, both

59 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 233; J.M. Espy, “Paul’s ‘Robust Conscience’ Re-examined,” NTS 31 (1985), 162; P.T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 380; M. Silva, Philippians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 175; contra Krister Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Intropspective Conscience of the West,” HTR 56 (1963), 200–201. 60 Thielman, From Plight to Solution, 110; Brian Dodd, Paul’s Paradigmatic “I” (JSNTSup 177; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 223. Esler shows the relative (or comparative) sense of ἄμεμπτος in several cases of Job (1:1, 8; 2:3) and Wisdom of Solomon (10:5; 18:21). Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 232–23. 61 Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 88–95; A.J.M. Wedderburn, “Adam in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” SB 3 (1978), 413–30; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 196–97; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 2:79–80; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 378–86; Theissen, Psychological Aspect of Pauline Theology, 202–208; J.A. Ziesler, “The Role of the Tenth Commandment in Romans 7,” JSNT 33 (1988), 45; Elliot, The Rhetoric of Romans, 246–50; Longenecker, Eschatology And The Covenant, 237–39; Seifrid, Justification by Faith, 149; idem, “The Subject of Rom 7:14–25,” NovT 34 (1992), 325; Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 106–107; Michael J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 372; H. Lichtenberger, Das Ich

350

chapter eight

Genesis 3 and Rom 7:8–11 seem to have the same narrative sequence of innocence, commandment, transgression, and death. In addition, the commandment (ἐντολή) and the deception of sin (ἐξηπάτησέν: v. 11) appear to be echoes of God’s command in Gen 2:16 (ἐνετείλατο) and the deception of the serpent in Gen 3:13 (ἠπάτησέν), respectively. Moreover, Adam is thought to be the only man who lived apart from the law. However, to regard the voice of ‘I’ as Adam or its allusion is not persuasive for several reasons. The temporal sequence of cc7– 38–41 (vv. 8–9) informs us that sin and the ‘I’ existed before the law came;62 however, there is no indication in the story of Genesis 2–3 that Adam and sin coexisted before God gave a commandment to Adam. Also, according to 2 Cor 11:3, it is not Adam but Eve who was deceived by the serpent in Paul’s understanding of the so-called the story of the fall.63 In Genesis 2–3, there is no implication of such an inner conflict as depicted in Rom 7:14–25. Most of all, Paul has clearly described in Rom 5:12–14 that Adam and the coming of the law are separate events with a time gap between the two. Considering that the whole argument of Romans 6–7 is derived from Rom 5:12–21 and that the commandment in Rom 7:7 refers to the tenth commandment of the Decalogue (Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21), it is less likely that Paul blurs his argumentative framework by merging the time gap between Adam and the coming of the Mosaic law in Rom 7:8–10.64 Thus, the identification of Adam and its allusion is not very convincing.65

Adams und das Ich der Menschheit (WUNT 164; Tübingen: Morhr Siebeck, 2004), 107–87; Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 184; etc. 62 Here, ἁμαρτία νεκρά (“sin is dead”) does not mean the non-existence of sin. Rather it should be viewed as an inactive or incapable state of sin to achieve its goal (R. Bultmann, “νεκρός κτλ.,” TDNT 5 [1967], 893; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 227; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:351; Jewett, Romans, 450). 63 Schreiner, Romans, 361; Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 235. Interestingly, Austin Busch insists that the voice in Rom 7:7–25 is Eve (Austin Busch, “The Figure of Eve in Romans 7:5–25,” BibInt 12 [2004], 1–36). 64 Even in Galatians 3–4, where Paul deals with his opponent’s view about the law, he does not confuse the chronological order between the event of God’s promise to Abraham and the coming of the Mosaic law (Gal 3:17). 65 D.J. Moo, “Israel and Paul in Romans 7:1–12,” NTS 32 (1986), 124–25; idem, The Epistle to the Romans, 429–30; J. Lambrecht, The Wretched “I” and Its Liberation: Paul in Romans 7 and 8 (LTPM 14; Louvain: Peters/ Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 63–64; Fitzmyer, Romans, 464; Schreiner, Romans, 361; Burnett, Paul & the Salvation of the Individual, 195–97; Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 234–36; Jewett, Romans, 442; etc.

rom :–:

351

The second candidate of the ‘I’ is Israel. This view seems to explain Rom 7:9 well, because Israel did not have the law until standing at Mt. Sinai. According to this view, Rom 7:9 means that sin was lifeless before the law was given to Israel. However, after Israel’s receiving of the law, sin became alive while Israel became dead or powerless. Moreover, the temporal sequence of this view does not contradict the chronological gap between Adam and the Mosaic law in Rom 5:12– 14.66 However, this option is also not exempt from difficulties. One of them is that the co-text of this sub-unit does not give much suggestion of the historical Israel or its historical sketch. At first, it is not likely that the antithesis between the law and grace in Rom 5:20–21, which is core of the argument in this sub-unit, is only related to the sinful history of Israel. Instead, it should be viewed that Paul had all humans in mind in that antithesis. Likewise, the expression, “we are not under the law but under grace,” in Rom 6:14 and the explanation of the law’s ruling power in Rom 7:1–6 do not show any reflection on the situation of Israel. The second difficulty is that if the voice of the ‘I’ refers to Israel, Paul’s argument in Romans 9–11 is not understandable. If the miserable description of the ‘I’ reflects Israel’s story and voice, the reversed states of the ‘you’ and the ‘we’ in Rom 8:1–17 also imply the situation of Israel in Christ. Why, then, does Paul mention the need of Israel to come into the new salvific realm in Christ in Romans 9–11? Thus, identifying the voice of the ‘I’ with Israel is not convincing.67 The third candidate of the ‘I’ is Paul’s own experience as a Jew. Some argue that Rom 7:7–12 reflects Paul’s experience as “a son of the commandment” (bar mitzwah),68 or his pre-conversion experience as 66 E. Stauffer, “ἐγώ,” TDNT 2 (1964), 358–62; J. Lambrecht, “Man before and without Christ: Romans 7 and Pauline Anthropology,” LS 5 (1974), 18–33; idem, The Wretched “I”, 64–65; Wright, “The Messiah and the People of God,” 93–96, 145–48; idem, The Climax of the Covenant, 197–98; idem, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” 49–54; idem, “New Exodus, New Inheritance: The Narrative Substructure of Romans 3–8,” in Sven K. Soderlund and N.T. Wright (eds.), Romans and the People of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 29; M.W. Karlberg, “Israel’s History Personified: Romans 7:7–13 in Relation to Paul’s Teaching on the ‘Old Man,’” TJ 7 (1986), 68–69; Moo, “Israel and Paul in Romans,” 125–28; idem, The Epistle to the Romans, 430–31; Thielman, “The Story of Israel and the Theology of Romans 5–8,” 190–94; Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 237–38; etc. Seyoon Kim thinks that the ‘I’ refers the combination of Adam and Israel (Seyoon Kim, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thought on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 154 n. 102). 67 Schreiner, Romans, 361–63; Burnett, Paul & the Salvation of the Individual, 185– 87, 197–98; Jewett, Romans, 442. 68 Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 24–27; Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 143–44; Bruce, Romans, 147–49; Burnett, Paul & the Salvation of the Individual, 193–95.

352

chapter eight

a zealot.69 Yet there are several objections to this view. For example, Rom 7:9 is not compatible with the other passages of Paul’s autobiographical descriptions (e.g., Phil 3:6), or with the first-century depiction of the Jew.70 Nevertheless, as mentioned above, the total exclusion of Paul’s own experience is not persuasive. Moreover, it is unrealistic to think that because of his faithful obedience to the law Paul had never experienced inner conflict with respect to sin. Hence, although it is uncertain how much the ‘I’ reflects Paul’s past experience as a Jew, it is not impossible to correlate the use of the ‘I’ with his retrospect to his past life under the law from the post-conversion point of view.71 The fourth view is that the ‘I’ refers to Gentile Christians. T.H. Tobin asserts that in light of the Hellenistic Jewish understanding of the law, the ‘I’ reflects the experience of the Gentile Christians in Rome on the basis of four pieces of evidence: (1) the concern for the Mosaic law; (2) the limitation of the law; (3) the use of ἐπιθυμία in Rom 7:7, which is a common ethical topic, both in Jewish literature and Greco-Roman philosophy; and (4) the resemblance between Euripides’ Medea and Rom 7:15–16 and 18–21.72 This view is plausible for several reasons. First, Paul has already mentioned the possibility of Gentiles having the same Jewish status through their obedience to the law in Rom 2:14. In addition, if the description of Rom 7:9 refers to an experience of the Gentiles, who are interested in Jewish law and life (e.g., God-fearers), it has merit to explain the two temporal aspects of before and after the coming of the law. Moreover, if one admits that the inner conflict of the ‘I’ in Rom 7:14–25 reflects the experience of pre-converted Gentile Christians, the agony of the ‘I’ under the law could be understood without difficulties. That is, it is possible that the Gentiles, who had an opportunity to hear the teaching of the law and tried to keep it, could suffer from the inner struggle between the will to obey the teaching of the law and the power of sin.73 One seeming problem of how Paul,

69

Jewett, Romans, 444. For example, Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.18 § 178; Philo, Gaius 16 § 115; 31 §210. 71 Schreiner, Romans, 364–65. Here, I am not saying that Paul’s past experience is representative of his contemporary Jews, but saying that the situation of the ‘I’ is not totally irrelevant to this past experience as a Jew. 72 Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 228–38; Stowers, “Romans 7:7–25,” 193– 202. Stowers’s conclusion is largely dependent on Origen’s interpretation. 73 Considering Paul’s carrier as the apostle of the Gentiles, it is unrealistic to think that Paul had never known such a struggle of the pre-converted Gentile Christians. Here, I do not mean that all Gentile Christians were so-called God-fearers before being believers, nor that all Gentiles had the same experience of the inner struggle. Rather I suggest that even Gentiles, who had some degree of adherence to the teaching 70

rom :–:

353

a Jew, can call himself a Gentile, does not serve as a serious obstacle, because Paul had identified himself with Roman Christians by the first person plural references in the previous argumentation. He even states in 1 Cor 9:20 that he does not hesitate to identify himself with the Gentile in order to preach the gospel. Lastly, considering the typical nature of the ‘I,’ hearing the experience of the Gentile, who had an opportunity to know the teaching of the law, is also possible. In sum, to discern the exact identity of the ‘I’ is not easy, because, fundamentally, Paul himself does not give clear indicators. This probably implies that he is more interested in describing the situation related to the law and sin than revealing the identification of the ‘I.’ Nevertheless, among the proposed candidates of the ‘I,’ the combination of the third and the fourth seem to be more plausible. That is, the ‘I’ probably reflects not only Paul’s past experience as a Jew from the post-conversion point of view, but also the experience of his Gentile Christian readers, who had an opportunity to meet the teaching of the law and tried to keep it. This combination suits well the personal situation of the ‘we (Roman Christians)’ in Rom 7:5. Thus, this sub-unit is composed of the interaction between Paul and his dialogical counterpart, and, through the ‘I,’ Paul puts both his reader and himself in the same category of those who suffer from the tyranny of sin despite the law.74 b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt: x4) (2) 33.E (νόμος: x3), 33.F´ (Command, Order: x3) (3) 92.A (‘I’: x2)

Predicators

(1) 23.G (Live, Die: x3) (2) 29.A (x2) (3) 33.F; 13.D; 33.I; 25.B; 27.A; 20.D; 31.B; 15.F

of the law, could experience that kind of inner struggle, and that it is possible for Paul to know the struggle of such Gentile Christians, who were part of the targets of his ministry. 74 Cf. Burnett, Paul & the Salvation of the Individual, 202.

354

chapter eight

(cont.) Semantic domains Complements (1) 88 (x6): C (Holy, Pure: x2), L´ (x2), B (Just, Righteous), A (Goodness) (2) 92.A (x3) (3) 25.B (Desire Strongly: x2); 23.G (x2) (4) 59.C Adjuncts

(1) 33.E (x3) (2) 22.G (Favorite Circumstances: x2); 18.A (Grasp, Hold: x2); 33.F´ (x2) (3) 92.A; 67.B; 23.G

Overall lists

(1) 23.G (x7) (2) 88.L´ (x6); 92.A (x6); 33.E (x6) (3) 33.F´ (x5) (4) 25.B (x3) (5) 22.G (x2); 18.A (x2); 88.C (x2) (6) 33.I, F; 27.A; 20.D; 59.C; 88.B. A; 67.B; 15.F; 31.B

As to the frequency of the semantic domains, seven occurrences of 23.G appear as the most frequent, and six occurrences of 88.L´and 92.A (ἐγώ) follow. Five appearances of 33.E (νόμος) and 33.F´ (ἐντολή), together with three instances of 25.B (ἐπιθυμία), can also be regarded as highly frequent semantic domains. These semantic domains show several interesting patterns, and are helpful in understanding the topicality of this sub-unit. First, 33.E and 33.F´ appear as the same category of God’s law, and their nature is described by 88.A (ἀγαθός), B (δίκαιος), and C (ἅγιος). Their role is either to provide knowledge (28. A [x2]) about sin (v. 7) or to kill (20.D) the ‘I’ (92.A: v. 11). Second, 88.L´ (ἁμαρτία) is mentioned only as a noun form. Especially, with the accompaniment of the active voices,75 the appearance of ἁμαρτία only in the Subject from v. 8 indicates that sin, an actor of a process, is a very important factor in determining the situation of a person. Furthermore, 92.A (ἐγώ) appears as an interactive counterpart of sin. Yet, interestingly, 92.A always appears as the passive recipient of the act of sin or its result (cc7–36 [v. 8], 43 [v. 10], 44 [v. 11]). Even the combination of 92.A and the active verb ἀπέθανον in c7–42 (v. 10)

75

Cc7–36, 37 (v. 8), 41 (v. 9), 44, 45, and 46 (v. 11).

rom :–:

355

suggests the result of the interaction between the ‘I’ and sin. This pattern shows the powerlessness of 92.A in comparison with 88.L´. Lastly, 23.G works to present the change of their situation of 92.A and 88.L´. While ‘live’ and ‘die’ aspects of 23.G are used to depict 92.A and 88.L´ respectively in cc7–38–39 (vv. 8–9), their conditions are reversed from cc7–41 (v.9). The watershed of this change is the coming of 33.E and 33.F´, and sin’s taking advantage of them (c7–40 [v. 9]; cf. cc7–36 [v. 8], 45 [v. 11]). In sum, from the above observation, the interactive pattern between 92.A (the ‘I’) and 88.L´ (sin) sheds light on the understanding of Paul’s argument about the nature of the law. Before the coming of the law (33.E and 33.F´), the ‘I’ was alive and sin was dead (23.G). But, after the emergence of the law, the situation changed. Sin became alive and the ‘I’ died on account of the deception and attack of sin. In the latter situation, Paul describes the aggressiveness of sin and the victimized impotent ‘I’ by putting them as the logical actor and the recipient of the verbs, respectively. In this interaction, the law does not give any positive help to the ‘I’ except for providing the knowledge of sin. Instead, it is used as a tool by sin, through which sin attacks the ‘I.’ These interactive patterns can be diagrammed as below. Before coming of the law

After coming of the law

The ‘I’ (92.A)

Sin (88.L')

The ‘I’ (92.A)

Alive (23.G)

Dead (23.G)

Dead (23.G)

28.A (Know) law

Sin (88.L')

Alive (23.G)

31.B (ἐξαπατάω) 20.D (Kill)

c) Analysis of logical relations In connection to Rom 7:5 that the sinful passion brings death by way of the law, Paul begins to expound the relationship between the law and sin through the absurd question of the interlocutor: Is the law sin? After refuting with μὴ γένοιτο, Paul articulates in cc7–33–35 (v. 7) that the primary role of the law is to inform the knowledge of sin (cf. Rom 3:20). And he provides the case of the tenth commandment

356

chapter eight

of the Decalogue as an example. In doing so, he elucidates that the instrumental use of the law (διὰ τοῦ νόμου) with regard to sin in Rom 7:5 is not the original purpose of the law. Yet, although Paul does not deny the existential situation that the law is used as an effective means of sin, he ascribes the main cause of this situation to the existence of violent sin. Even though the law forbids coveting (οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις), it is sin that produces all kinds of coveting in the ‘I’ by taking advantage of the commandment of the law (cc7–36–37 [v. 8]). According to Paul’s explanation in cc7–38–46, the aggressive act of sin in the ‘I’ is relevant to the coming of the commandment. Without the law, sin was lifeless and the ‘I’ was alive (cc7–38–39 [vv. 8–9]). It does not mean that the ‘I’ was sinless without the law; rather, it implies that the ‘I’ did not reckon the sinfulness of sin, because there was no regulation to inform the ‘I’ of sin as sin. However, when sin was exposed as sin by the commandment, the situation changed. The aggressive and violent sin became alive (ἀνέζησεν: c7–41 [v. 9]), and it deceived and killed the ‘I’ through the commandment (v. 11). As a result, the ‘I’ was dead, and the good commandment was found to be the way of killing the ‘I.’ This image suggests an illustration of a beast (sin) and a person (the ‘I’) staying in a dark cave. The beast was crouching down to attack the person, but the person did not recognize it. When the person turned on a flashlight (the commandment) and realized the existence of the beast, the beast jumped upon the person according to the light of the flashlight. As a result, the person became a victim of the beast, and the flashlight was used to lead the person to death. Therefore, in accordance with Paul’s explanation, the law itself is not sinful; rather, it is holy, good, and righteous (v. 12). In order to show the above relationship among the law, sin, and the ‘I,’ Paul uses two kinds of logical devices including a temporal sequence and contrast. The former is expressed by temporal deixis, ποτέ, which is used in between χωρὶς νόμου and ἐλθούσης τῆς ἐντολῆς. The latter device is used to reveal the difference of the ‘I’ and sin according to the temporal sequence. Before the coming of the law, the ‘I’ was alive and sin was dead; however, when the law came and the ‘I’ recognized sin as sin, sin became alive and the ‘I’ died because of the attack of sin (cc7–42–48 [vv. 9–11]).

rom :–:

357

3) Focality Several devices are used in this sub-unit in order to stress the topical issues. First, in response to the interlocutor’s absurd question, Paul uses double secondarizations after negating with μὴ γένοιτο in v. 7: (1) τὴν ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔγνων (protasis: c7–31)—εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου (apodosis: c7–32); and (2) τήν τε γὰρ ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ᾔδειν (protasis: c7–33)— εἰ μὴ ὁ νόμος ἔλεγεν οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις (apodosis: cc7–34–35). These expressions seem to stress that the function of the law is not to make sin but to inform about sin, so that it has an effect of distancing the law from sin. This intention is also expressed by the use of the pluperfect verb in c7–33. While the protasis in the first conditional structure uses a perfective stative verb (ἔγνων), that of in the second conditional structure has the stative aspect verb (ᾔδειν). It seems to indicate that, as an illustration, the second conditional structure presents a more vivid picture that the ‘I’ “was not in a state of knowledge of desire, without reference to his [the ‘I’] acquisition of it.”76 Second, several rhetorical devices are used in Paul’s explanation about the relationship among the law, sin, and the ‘I’ in vv. 8–11. At the outset, the use of a contrasting parallel is noticeable. As mention above, the situations of the ‘I’ and sin before and after coming of the law are contrasted: the ‘I’ was alive and sin was dead (before coming of the law) versus the ‘I’ was dead and sin was alive (after coming of the law). In each period, their condition also stands in contrast with regards to the semantic domain 23.G (Live, Die). In conjunction, the second device is an inverted parallel construction in cc7–38–39 (vv. 8–9): χωρὶς νόμου (A)—ἁμαρτία (B)—νεκρά (C)—ἐγώ (B´)—ἔζων (C´)—χωρὶς νόμου (A).77 It stresses the opposite situation between the ‘I’ and sin before the coming of the law. The third device is a ring composition. Verses 8 and 11 share the same expression ἀφορμὴν λαβοῦσα διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς (“sin taking opportunity through the commandment”), which describes sin and the ‘I’ as the logical actor and recipient respectively.78 This device could work not only to indicate a division of Paul’s thought, but also to emphasize the content of the first and the last verses: the violent and destructive act of sin.

76

Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, 286. This stricture raises a question for some scholars’ division of vv. 8–11. For example, Schreiner (Schreiner, Romans, 537) and Jewett (Jewett, Romans, 445) divide between c7–38 (v. 8) and c7–39 (v. 9). However, cc7–38 and 39 should be regarded as one group, because both mention the situation before the coming of the law. 78 Jewett, Romans, 440; Harvey, Listening to the Text, 196. 77

358

chapter eight

The fourth device is to use the emphasizing pronoun αὕτη in c7–43 (v. 10). It probably works to stress the contradictory situation of the commandment that, although it was expected to bring life (ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωήν), it was only to result in death.79 Lastly, the intentional use of the first person references in vv. 8–11 should not be neglected, even though the exact identity of the ‘I’ is not clear. By serving “as a vivid example for his readers to picture the main point of his argument,”80 it probably functions to evoke an affirmative response from his readers about his argument. However, the final goal of Paul’s use of the ‘I’ is not to stress the impotent situation of the ‘I’ per se, but to highlight the reversal of that condition, which is mentioned in Rom 7:6 and will be dealt with in Romans 8. Third, Paul’s use of emphatic devices is also shown in his reaffirmation of the positive nature of the law, such as good, holy, and righteous, in v. 12. As a “relatively weak emphatic marker,”81 a particle μέν is used to indicate the innocence of the law. The double expression of the holy nature (ἅγιος) of the law and its commandment stresses the irrelevance of the law to sin, as well. In sum, according to the above observations, Paul uses various devices to deliver his thought in relation to the three topical issues: (1) the informing role of the law and its good nature; (2) the ironic situation of the law, in that, even though it is holy, it results in death; and (3) the aggressive nature of sin and the powerless situation of the ‘I.’ 4) Grouping a) External evidence The most distinguished external evidence for grouping is the introduction of a diatribal dialogue in v. 7: τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν (“What then shall we say?”). As in the cases of Rom 6:1 and 6:15, the content of the question is drawn from the previous statement (Rom 7:5), and it works to develop Paul’s argument about the relationship between the law and sin. Some scholars insist on Rom 7:7–13 as one discourse unit for two reasons. One reason is that v. 13 functions as a conclusion of v. 12, and the other is the shift of tense-form from the aorist tense (v. 13) to the 79 Moo (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 439) insists that “from these verses, it seems fair to conclude that the law would have given life had it been perfectly obeyed.” 80 Dodd, Paul’s Paradigmatic “I”, 234; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 236. 81 Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 1:810; Jewett, Romans, 441.

rom :–:

359

present tense (v. 14).82 Other scholars even consider the entire Rom 7:7–25 as one unit.83 However, it is more convincing that v. 13 should be treated as the beginning of another sub-unit, since this verse has a diatribal interaction between a false conclusive question and a rejection with μὴ γένοιτο. Moreover, the use of οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι in v. 14, which denotes Paul’s reliance on the shared knowledge for unfolding his argument, is also the same pattern shown in the previous sub-units (Rom 6:3, 15; 7:1). Thus, Rom 7:7–12 should be viewed as one subunit, and v. 13 as the beginning of another discourse unit.84 b) Internal evidence The internal unity of this sub-unit is delivered through several elements. First, a diatribal interaction between Paul and his hypothetical interlocutor serves as a coherent device for unity: the interlocutor’s question (cc7–28–29 [v. 7])—Paul’s negation (c7–30 [v. 7])—Paul’s refuting argument (cc7–31–48 [vv. 7–12]). Second, the use of conjunctions contributes to the unity of this sub-unit. The three parts of Paul’s refuting argument show their link by two conjunctions. δέ, in c7–36 (v. 8) connects the informing role of the law in cc7–31–35 (v. 7) and the interrelationship among the ‘I,’ sin, and the law in vv. 8–11. Also, ὥστε links vv. 8–11 and Paul’s reaffirmation of the irrelevance of the law to sin in v. 12. Third, semantic links also give cohesive ties to this sub-unit. The interlocutor’s question (cc7–28–29 [v. 7]) and the last part of Paul’s refutation (cc7–47–49 [v.12]) are linked with 33.E (the law). Likewise, 33.E and 33.F´ (commandment) connect the middle (vv. 8–11) and the last parts of Paul’s refuting argument (v. 12). Verses 8–11 themselves show their tight inner connection through four kinds of semantic chains, such as the ‘I,’ sin, the law or commandment, and life and death (a semantic domain 23.G). Therefore, Rom 7:7–12 demonstrates

82 E.g., Bruce, Romans, 147; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 191; Fitzmyer, Romans, 462; Byrne, Romans, 216; Dodd, Paul’s Paradigmatic “I”, 222; Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 228; Burnett, Paul & the Salvation of the Individual, 192; Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 179. Even Theissen (Theissen, Psychological Aspect of Pauline Theology, 186) insists that the rhetorical questions in vv. 7 and 13 make vv. 7–13 a ring composition. However, his view results from negligence of a diatribal pattern in Romans 6–7. 83 E.g., Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:340; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 376–78. 84 E.g., Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, 155; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 284; Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 105; Porter, “A Newer Perspective on Paul,” 384–85; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 451–52; Schreiner, Romans, 371; Keck, Romans, 185; Jewett, Romans, 454.

360

chapter eight

its internal unity through the overall diatribal interactions and the cohesive elements, such as conjunctions and semantic links.

Interlocutor’s question (v. 7)

Rom 7:7 τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία,

Paul’s negation (v. 7)

μὴ γένοιτο

Paul’s refutation: part 1 (v. 7)

ἀλλὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔγνων εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου· τήν τε γὰρ ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ᾔδειν εἰ μὴ ὁ νόμος ἔλεγεν . . . 8

ἀφορμὴν δὲ λαβοῦσα ἡ ἁμαρτία διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς . . .

ἐν ἐμοὶ πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν· χωρὶς γὰρ νόμου ἁμαρτία

Paul’s refutation: part 2 (vv. 8–11)

νεκρά 9 ἐγὼ δὲ ἔζων χωρὶς νόμου ποτέ, ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς ἐντολῆς ἡ ἁμαρτία ἀνέζησεν 10 ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπέθανον καὶ εὑρέθη μοι ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωήν, αὕτη εἰς θάνατον

11

ἡ γὰρ ἁμαρτία ἀφορμὴν λαβοῦσα διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς ἐξηπάτησέν με καὶ δι᾽αὐτῆς ἀπέκτεινεν

Paul’s refutation: part 3 (v. 12)

12

ὥστε ὁ μὲν νόμος . καὶ ἡ ἐντολὴ . . .

5) Summary The whole idea of Rom 7:7–12 reflects the content of Rom 7:5, especially the closeness of sin and the law (τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τὰ διὰ τοῦ νόμου) in producing death in a person. In response to the interlocutor’s question, Paul refuses to identify the law with sin. Instead, he puts the informing role of the law as its primary function (cc7–31–35 [v. 7]), and clarifies the holy nature of the law (v. 12). However, he does not deny the use of the law as an instrument of sin. In c7–43 (v. 10), he describes the ironic situation that the law (commandment), which is for life, brings death to a person. According to

rom :–:

361

Paul’s argument, the core problem of this irony is the existence of sin in a person who knows the law. When sin is illuminated by the law, it becomes alive, and attacks the person by means of the law or commandment (δι᾽αὐτῆς: v. 11). In this sub-unit, Paul’s argument seems to focus on the interrelationship among a person, sin, and the law. Within such an interrelationship, Paul puts sin in the position of a powerful aggressor, and a person as an impotent victim. The law is also shown as powerless in coping with the sinful human situation, in that, in spite of its holy nature, its resultant function is to bring death to a person. Paul stresses these concepts with various syntactic and structural devices, such as secondarization, contrasting parallels, chiastic construction, and so on. Most of all, the paradigmatic ‘I’ is very noticeable. As a combination of both personal and representative aspects, the unclear identity of the ‘I’ could embrace the experience of Roman Christians, who know the teaching of the law. Thus, through the use of the ‘I,’ Paul brings his reader to his argument more deeply in this sub-unit, and makes a path to a detailed description of the interrelationship among the ‘I,’ sin, and the law in the next sub-unit (Rom 7:13–25). B. Rom 7:13–25: The tyrant power of sin and the vulnerable ‘I’ 1) Text analysis of Rom 7:13–25

FPO

362

chapter eight

rom :–:

363

364

chapter eight

2) Topicality a) Analysis of structure Rom 7:13–25 is composed of twenty-six primary, eight secondary, and nineteen embedded clauses.85 The primary clauses lead the dialogue between Paul and his interlocutor. The secondary clauses appear in three situations: (1) as a purpose clause (cc7–52, 54 [v. 13]); (2) as a content clause of cognitive verbs (οἶδα [vv. 14, 18], and εὑρίσκω [v. 21]); and (3) as a conditional clause (vv. 16, 20). Lastly, the embedded clause in this sub-unit plays a significant role, in that they are used to express the inner conflict of the ‘I.’ In this sub-unit, there appear three kinds of embedded clauses. The first pattern is a relative clause that is embedded in a clause. One of seven cases is used to rephrase ἐν ἐμοί in c7–74 (v. 18), and other six cases, whose content is about the cognitive attitude of the ‘I’ (θέλω and μισῶ), appear in the Complements as a logical object of πράσσω or ποιέω.86 The second one is an infinitive embedded clause. In v. 18, the conflict of willing and doing is described through a contrast of two infinitive clauses (cc7–76 and 78), which functions as the logical subjects of the primary clauses (cc7–75 and 77). The third one is shown in v. 23. Here, Paul depicts the confrontation of two sorts of law by two participial clauses (cc7–94 and 95). The latter participial clause (c7–95) is even modified by another participial clause, τῷ ὄντι ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου. Therefore, the above syntactical structure seems to indicate that even though the primary clauses lead Paul’s argument, it is the embedded clauses that Paul uses to display the kernel of his argument. Regarding topical participants of this sub-unit, Paul and his hypothetical dialogue partner appear as those who make a conversation. In their dialogue, the ‘I’ appears as an important topical participant, and personified sin is depicted as an interactive counterpart of the ‘I.’ In connection to the identity of the ‘I’ in Rom 7:7–12, the understanding of the ‘I’ in Rom 7:13–25 is also a debatable issue. Various

85 (1) Primary clauses: cc7–49, 50, 51 (v. 13), 55 (v. 14), 59, 61, 63 (v. 15), 67, 68 (v. 16), 69, 70, (v. 17), 72, 75, 77 (v. 18), 79, 81 (v. 19), 85, 86 (v. 20), 88 (v. 21), 92 (v. 22), 93 (v. 23), 97, 98 (v. 24), 99, 100, 101 (v. 25); (2) secondary clauses: cc7–52, 54 (v. 13), 56, 57 (v. 14), 65 (v. 16), 73 (v. 18), 83 (v. 20), 91 (v. 21); and (3) embedded clauses: cc7–53 (v. 13), 58 (v. 14), 60, 62, 64 (v. 15), 66 (v. 16), 71 (v. 17), 74, 76, 78 (v. 18), 80, 82 (v. 19), 84, 87 (v. 20), 89, 90 (v. 21), 94, 95, 96 (v. 23). 86 Cc7–62, 64 (v. 15), 66 (v. 16), 80, 82 (v. 19), 84 (v. 20).

rom :–:

365

options have been suggested,87 and, largely, they can be categorized into two. One category is that the voice and the situation of the ‘I’ refer to Christian experience.88 Those who adhere to this view suggest several reasons. The first reason is the shift of verbal tense from aorist (vv. 7–13) to present (vv. 14–25), and it seems to indicate the present situation of a Christian. The second one is the duality between the flesh and mind in the ‘I.’ It is also related to the idea that only a Christian, who has the ‘inner person’ (v. 22; cf. 2 Cor 4:16; Eph 3:16), can truly desire to obey God’s law, because the unregenerate neither seeks for God (cf. Rom 3:11) nor submits to the law of God (cf. Rom 8:7). Accordingly, the inner struggle between the flesh and

87

For example, B. Witherington enumerates eight kinds of view in his commentary (Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 187). (1) the ‘I’ is autobiographical and refers to Paul’s current Christian experience (2) the ‘I’ is autobiographical and refers to Paul’s pre-Christian experience as he views it now (3) the ‘I’ represents the experience of the non-Christian Jew as seen by himself (4) the ‘I’ presents how Christians view Jews (5) the ‘I’ is autobiographical and refers to Paul’s pre-Christian experience as he viewed it then (6) the ‘I’ reflects the so-called “carnal” Christian (7) the ‘I’ reflects the experience of Christians in general (8) the ‘I’ reflects a person under conviction of sin and at the point of conversion: i.e., Rom 7:14–Romans 8 provide a narrative of a conversion. 88 Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 284–97; Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 151–54; J.I. Packer, “‘The wretched Main’ in Romans 7,” in F.L. Cross (ed.), Studia Evangelica, Vol. 2: Papers Presented to the Second International Congress on New Testament Studies Held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1961, Part 1: The New Testament Scriptures (TU 87; Berlin: Akademie-Verleg, 1964), 621–27; idem, “The Wretched Man Revisited: Another Look at Romans 7:14–25,” in Sven K. Soderlund and N.T. Wright (eds.), Romans and the People of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 70–81; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:344–47; D.H. Campbell, “The Identity of Ἐγώ in Romans 7:7–25,” in E.A. Livingston (ed.), Studia Biblica 1978: Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies, Vol. 3: Paper on Paul and Other New Testament Authors (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 57–64; D. Wenham, “The Christian Life: A Life of Tension? A Consideration of the Nature of Christian Experience in Paul,” in D.A. Hagner and M.J. Harris (eds.), Pauline Studies (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1980), 80–94; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 256–59; J.D.G. Dunn, “Rom 7:14–25 in the Theology of Paul,” TZ 31 (1975), 257–73; idem, Romans 1–8, 387–89, 403–12; Espy, “Paul’s ‘Robust Conscience’,” 161– 88; A. van den Beld, “Romans 7:14–25 and the Problem of Akrasia,” RelS 21 (1985), 495–515; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 284–88; Don B. Garlington, “Romans 7:14–25 and the Creation Theology of Paul,” TJ 11 (1990), 197–235; idem, Faith, Obedience and Perseverance, 110–43; Porter, “A Newer Perspective on Paul,” 385; R.H. Mounce, Romans (NAC 27; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 167–68; Marshall, New Testament Theology, 319–20; etc.

366

chapter eight

mind reflects Christian experience. In relation to the second reason, the third one is that the agony and exclamatory thanksgiving in vv. 24 -25 depict a struggle of a Christian who already knows the salvation of God through Jesus. Moreover, this struggle between the existential suffering and conviction in faith is regarded as a reflection of the ‘already-not yet’ situation of a Christian.89 The other category is that the struggle in relation to the law is a portrait of non-Christian experience.90 The first reason is the crucial role of Rom 7:5 and its relationship to Rom 7:7–25 and 8:1–17. Just as Paul begins his diatribal dialogue in the preceding sub-units with an absurd question derived from the preceding statement, the question in Rom 7:7 shows its relevance to the content of Rom 7:5 by sharing such topical elements as sin, the law, and a person. Especially, the use of σάρξ (vv. 14, 18, 25; cf. 3:20) and μέλεσίν (v. 23) in Rom 7:13–25 demonstrates its close link to Rom 7:5. On the other hand, Rom 8:1–17 is connected to Rom 7:6, in that both mention life under the Holy Spirit. Thus, Rom 7:7–25 and 8:1–17 can be regarded as a further description of the enslaved situation by sin through the law (Rom 7:5) and its reversal (Rom 7:6), respectively. In light of this structure, it is hard to regard the depiction of the ‘I’ in Rom 7:14–25 as Christian

89 For more detailed explanation about Christian experience, see Schreiner, Romans, 380–84. 90 Kümmel, Römer 7 und das Bild des Menschen in Neuen Tesatament, 57–73, 97– 138; R. Bultmann, Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann (Selected, translated, and introduced by S.M. Ogden; New York: Meridian, 1960), 147–57; Bornkamm, Early Christian Experience, 87–104; K. Kertelge, “Exegetische Uberlegungen zum Verständnis der paulinischen Anthroplogie nach Römer 7,” ZNW 62 (1971), 105–14; H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Translated by J.R. de Witt; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 126–30; R. Schnackenburg, “Römer 7 in Zusammenhang des Römerbriefes,” in E.E. Ellis and E. Gräßer (eds.), Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70 Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 283–300; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 2:85–97; Beker, Paul, the Apostle, 237–43; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 198–212; Theissen, Psychological Aspect of Pauline Theology, 182–84; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 447–48; P. Meyer, “The Worm at the Core of the Apple: Exegetical Reflections on Romans 7,” in R.T. Fortna and B.R. Gaventa (eds.), The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 62–84; Lambrecht, The Wretched “I”, 87–89; Fitzmyer, Romans, 465; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 511–15; Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 114–16; A.A. Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001), 227–28; Burnett, Paul & the Salvation of the Individual, 205; John Byron, Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity (WUNT 162; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 222; Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord, 327; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 238; Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 195; N.T. Wright, Romans (Vol. 10 of NIB; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 551–55; etc.

rom :–:

367

experience, because Rom 7:5 does not refer to a Christian life. The second evidence is that the shift of a tense form does not necessarily denote the present situation of the speaker. Rather, as an author’s perspective on the process,91 it could be used to deliver the enslaved condition or the state of the ‘I’ to sin more vividly.92 The third reason is that to regard πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (“being sold into the slavery under sin”)93 in Rom 7:14 as the state of a Christian is contradictory to Paul’s thought. This is because, in the previous argument, he has depicted the fundamental situation of unbelievers as being under the dominion of sin (Rom 3:9; 5:12–14, 21) and that of believers as being under grace (Rom 5:21; 6:14–15, 18, 22). Moreover, in other letters, Paul consistently uses the negative ὑπό phrase in relation to those who were/are in the old realm in salvation history (cf. 1 Cor 9:20; Gal 3:10, 22, 23, 25; 4:2, 3, 21; 5:18).94 The fourth reason is that it is not very persuasive that the description of duality and inner struggle with regard to the law are only applied to Christian. On the contrary, it is more cogent that the tension between willing and doing of a person is a universal phenomenon of those who know the law and try to keep it. Lastly, since the contrast between Rom 7:13–25 and 8:1–17 is very striking, it is difficult to think that both depict a situation of a Christian as two sides of a coin. In addition, no mention of the Holy Spirit and the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ in Rom 7:13–25 is noteworthy, because the Holy Spirit in the new salvific realm appears as the key impetus of the Christian life in Rom 7:6 and 8:1–17. Of the two options, I incline to the latter, mainly because of Paul’s ongoing argumentative pattern in Romans 6–7. It is true that, being drawn from Rom 5:12–21, especially, 5:20–21, the overall interest of Paul in Romans 6–7 is related to the life and situation of a believer, who has entered the new salvific realm through Christ. Yet the more important thing in relation to the issue of the ‘I’ is the delivery method of his topical interests. In this regard, his major means is the constant use of the temporal and logical contrasts between the conditions of a

91 Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, 86–108; idem, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 20–49. 92 Seifrid regards the shift of tense form as the change of delivery style from narration to description (Seifrid, “The Subject of Rom 7,” 321; cf. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 2:85). 93 Here, a connotation of πιπράσκω has a relation to the slave trade (Herbert Preisker, “πιπράσκω,” TDNT 6 [1968], 160). 94 Schreiner, Romans, 389.

368

chapter eight

person in two realms. In Rom 6:1–14, Paul uses a contrast between past situation of a believer in the old realm of sin and death and his/ her state in the new realm of grace. With regard to the sinful act of a Christian in Rom 6:15–23, Paul uses an antithesis of the enslaved situation in the old realm and the freed condition in the new realm. Similarly, in relation to the law in Rom 7:1–6, he introduces a marital image, and contrasts between the old (the old realm of sin and death) and new marital situations (the new realm of grace). In these contrasts, the two realms are so dichotomous that it is a very foreign concept that a believer, who has been transferred from the old realm to the new, can live in two realms simultaneously. Thus, it is hard to think that the miserable situation of the ‘I’ under the sin’s dominant power in Rom 7:13–25, which is the typical depiction of the old realm, refers to the situation of the one who is in the new realm.95 Moreover, the contrast between Rom 7:14–25 and Rom 8:1–17 also indicates that both parts are in line with the ongoing argumentative pattern. So, since Romans 8 is clearly about the situation of the new realm, it can be thought that Rom 7:13–25 refers to the situation in the old realm. From the above observations, therefore, Rom 7:7–25 can be viewed as the reflection of non-Christian experience. b) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

Predicators

95

(1) 92.A (x7) (2) 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt: x5) (3) 88.A (x3) (4) 85.E (x2) (5) 33.E (νόμος); 25.A; 90.K; 88.O; 33.J´ (1) 13 (Be, Become, Exist, Happen: x5): A (x3), B, D (2) 42.B (Do, Perform: x6) (3) 28.A (Know: x2); 90.K (Agent of a Numerable Event: x2); 85.A (Be in a Place: x2) (4) 14.F; 32.A; 31.C; 27.A; 24.A; 21.E; 35.B; 25.K

In this sense, the compromising view that Paul’s description of the ‘I’ is applied to both Christian and non-Christian is not likely (contra Seifrid, “The Subject of Rom 7,” 331; Schreiner, Romans, 390–91). Actually, even though Paul opens a possibility for a believer to interact with sin, he never mixes the fundamental situation of a person in the old realm with that of one in the new realm in Rom 6:1–7:6.

rom :–:

369

(cont.) Semantic domains Complements (1) 88 (x8): A (Goodness: x3), L´ (x3), Z, O (2) 92.A (x8) (3) 25.A (x6) (4) 33.E (x4); 33.G´ (Law, Regulation, Ordinance: x4) (5) 26 (Psychological Faculties: x3); 12.A (x3) (6) 23.G; 90.K; 42.B; 58.F; 39.A; 55.E; 8.B; 22.A; 9.A Adjuncts

Overall lists

(1) 26 (x4) (2) 92.A (x3) (3) 23.G (x2), 88 (x2): L´, A (4) 8 (Body, Body Parts, Body Products: x2): A, B (5) 90.K; 78.B; 33.F´; 57.D; 9.A; 12.A; 92.B; 13.A (1) 92.A (ἐγώ: x18) (2) 88.L´ (Sin: x9) (3) 25.A (Desire, Want, Wish: x7) (4) 26 (Psychological Faculties: spiritual, flesh: x7) (5) 88.A (Goodness: x7) (6) 42.B (Do, Perform: x7), cf. 90.K (x5) (7) 33.E (the law: x5), cf. 33.G´ (Law, Regulation, Ordinance: x4) (8) 13.A (εἰμί: x5); 12.A (x4) (9) 23.G (Live, Die: x3) (10) 9.A (x2); 28.A (x2); 85.A (x2); 85.E (x2); 88.O (x2); 8.B (x2)

According to the frequency of semantic domains, the most frequent domain is 92.A (ἐγώ). It appears eighteen times. The second most frequent one is nine occurrences of 88.L´; and seven times of 25.A, 26, and 88.A follow. 42.B (x6), 90.K (κατεργάζομαι: x5), 33.E (νόμος: x5), and 33.G´ (νόμος: x4)96 also belong to high frequency semantic domains.

96

The understanding of the law in vv. 21–23 is debatable. Some scholars argue that all references to it in vv. 21–23 refer to the Mosaic law. They understand τὸν νόμον in v. 21 as “accusative of respect or reference,” and translate εὑρίσκω τὸν νόμον as “I find with respect to the Mosaic law.” In addition, they view νόμος in vv. 23 and 25 as the same law operated by different forces. That is, the law of God or mind indicates the divine and good nature of the Mosaic law, and the law of sin refers to the Mosaic law under the use of sin (E. Lohse, “ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος: Exegetiche Anmerkumgen zu Röm. 8:2,” in H.D. Betz and Luise Schotroff [eds.], Neues Testament und christliche Existenz [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973], 285–86; B. Reicke, “Paulus über das Gesetz,” TZ 41 [1985], 242–44; Wright, “Messiah and the People of God,” 153; idem,

370

chapter eight

These semantic domains, together with minor semantic domains, offer some considerations regarding topical issues in this sub-unit. At the outset, three semantic domains, 92.A, 88.L´, and 33.E (and 33.G´) show a topical connection to the preceding sub-unit. Unlike Rom 7:7–12, however, Rom 7:13–25 presents a depiction of the internal conflict between the ‘I’ and sin with some indicators, such as 85. A (παράκειμαι [vv. 18, 21]), 85.E (οἰκέω [vv. 17, 20]), and a preposition ἐν with a dative form of 92.A in vv. 17, 18, 20 or with a plural form of μέλος (8.B) in v. 23. The next consideration is the contrast between willing (25.A) and doing (42.B and 90.K). There are seven utterances of the inharmoniousness between the two (vv. 15 [x2], 16, 18, 19 [x2], and 20). The content of willing and doing is related to 88.A (ἀγαθός, καλός) and 88.O (κακός): e.g., the ‘I’ does not do good that he/she wants to do, but performs the evil that he/she does not want to do. Thus, the tension between the two semantic groups of willing and doing appears to be the substance of the internal conflict of the The Climax of the Covenant, 199; idem, Romans, 570; K.R. Snodgrass, “Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution for the Problem of Paul and the Law,” JSNT 32 [1988], 106–107; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 392–93; Meyer, “The Worm at the Core of the Apple,” 78–79; Longenecker, Eschatology and the Covenant, 240–41; Schreiner, Romans, 377; Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant, 231; Keck, Romans, 190; Jewett, Romans, 469; etc.). However, for several reasons I think that there are three kinds of law here: (1) νόμος in v. 21 refers to a general rule or principle; (2) the law of God or mind is the Mosaic law; and (3) another law (ἕτερον νόμον) and the law of sin indicate a force or authority of sin. First, all occurrences νόμος in Romans do not refer to the Mosaic law. For example, the reference of Rom 3:27 can be interpreted as a principle or rule. Second, to regard another law and the law of sin as the Mosaic law does not go with Paul’s argument. If another law and the law of sin refer to the Mosaic law, it means that God’s spiritual and good law makes humans miserable. This is the direct opposite to Paul’s thought, since both the goodness of the law and the responsibility of sin for the human problem is his topical concerns in Rom 7:7–25. Thus, it would be better to think that as a rhetorical device, another law and the law of sin imply power or authority caused by sin (Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:361–62; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 205; Ziesler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 197–98; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 294; Michael Winger, By What Law? The Meaning of Νόμος in the Letter of Paul [SBLDS 128; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992], 186–88; Lambrecht, The Wretched “I” and Its Liberation, 53–54; Fitzmyer, Romans, 475–76; Thielman, Paul and the Law, 200; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 465; Bryne, Romans, 228, 232; Seifrid, “The Subject of Rom 7:14–25,” 329 n. 50; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 243–44; Witherington, Paul’s letter to the Romans, 201; etc.). Lastly, the more naturally reading of v. 21 is to regard τὸν νόμον in v. 21 as an object of a verb εὑρίσκω. However, this law is not likely identified with another law or the law of sin, because it just refers to the situation of the inner conflict itself, not to the power of sin (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 460 n. 62; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 243–44; contra Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 149; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 264–65; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:362; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 294).

rom :–:

371

‘I.’ In conjunction, the third consideration is the contrast in regards to semantic domain 26. The cognates σάρξ are used to describe an external contrast between the nature of the ‘I’ and the law in v. 14. Also, they work to show the inner conflict in the ‘I’ in vv. 18, 22, 25. All in all, according to these above considerations, the topical issues in this sub-unit can be summarized as that: (1) regarding the interrelationship among the law, sin, and the ‘I,’ Paul concentrates on the internal conflict between the ‘I’ and sin; (2) he depicts the discord between willing and doing of the ‘I’ as the core of the internal conflict; and (3) he suggests the fleshly nature of the ‘I,’ which is sold into the bondage of sin, as one of the key reasons for the problem of the ‘I.’ c) Analysis of logical relations Rom 7:13–25 begins with the hypothetical question drawn from the conclusion of the preceding sub-unit: Did what is good bring death to me? After negating (μὴ γένοιτο), Paul makes clear that it is not the law but (ἀλλά) sin that is responsible for the problem of the ‘I.’ He, then, reinforces his statement through two additive purpose clauses (cc7–52 and 54). Here, even though the law is used by sin to bring death to the ‘I,’ the law is not accusable, because it is still faithful to its role in revealing the sinfulness of sin. After all, the kernel of the problem is sin. From v. 14, Paul re-describes the predicament of the ‘I’ by retelling the relationship among the law, sin, and the ‘I’ with a different angle. While he gives an impression in Rom 7:8–11 that the interactions among these three elements happen outside of the ‘I,’ however, he mentions in this part that the battle field is the inside of the ‘I.’ For a start, he relies on the shared knowledge in v. 14 that the law is spiritual (πνευματικός), but the ‘I’ is of flesh (σάρκινος) sold as a slave of sin. In accordance with the content of this shared knowledge, Paul describes the contrast between the spiritual nature of the law and the fleshly nature of the ‘I’ in vv. 15–16. After that, he deals with the situation of the fleshly ‘I’ in vv. 17–20, which is under the mastery of sin. Thus, as in the preceding diatribal dialogues (Rom 6:3, 16; 7:1), Paul uses the shared knowledge as a thematic blueprint for the following argumentation.97

97 There seems to be no consensus on the structure of Rom 7:14–25. For example, Theissen thinks of vv. 15 (c7–59)-18 as the first train of thought and vv. 19–25 as the second on the basis of the parallel structure between the two (Theissen, Psychological Aspect of Pauline Theology, 186–88). Some other scholars divide vv. 14–25 into three,

372

chapter eight

In dealing with the contrast between the nature of the law and the ‘I,’ Paul places his focus on the inner confusing situation of the ‘I’ between willing and doing, instead of explaining the spiritual nature of the law: “I do what I do not want, but what I hate.” In doing so, he not only delivers a message that the law is innocent of producing the problem of the ‘I,’ but also ascribes the cause of the inner conflict, which hinders from keeping the law, to the fleshly nature of the ‘I’ (v. 16). If this is so, is the fleshly nature of the ‘I’ itself the core of human problem? No! It is because the ultimate responsibility is on the indwelling sin (v. 17).98 This idea is strengthened by the re-description in vv. 18–19 that, in spite of the cognitive acknowledgment and willingness to do the law, the ‘I’ is impotent to do good. Such a situation makes the ‘I’ confess that nothing good dwells in the ‘I’ (cc7–72–74 [v. 18]), and that indwelling sin is the core of the problem (v. 20). After all (ἄρα), the ‘I’ confesses that he/she finds a principle (τὸν νόμον) that there is an inescapable predicament in the ‘I’ (v. 21). While the ‘I’ delightfully agrees to the law of God in mind, the indwelling power of sin fights vv. 14–17, 18–20, and 21–25, and suggest a repetition of “confessional statement” (cf. οἶδαμεν and οἶδα) in vv. 14 and 18, and ἄρα in v. 21 as important evidence (Seifrid,

“The Subject of Rom 7,” 326–30; Schreiner, Romans, 371; Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 240–42). However, I divide Rom 7:14–25 into four, vv. 14, 15–16, 17–20, and 21–25, for several reasons. First, v. 14 could be separated as a thematic statement, because, in the preceding sub-units (Rom 6:3, 16; 7:1), Paul advances his argument according to common shared knowledge. Actually, the following argument of Paul is unfolded according to the content of v. 14. However, it is not likely that the statement with οἶδα in v. 18 brings a premise for the following argumentation. Instead, together with cc7–75–78 (v. 18), it seems to be regarded as an exposition or supportive statement for v. 17. It is because vv. 17 and 18 contain a contrastive situation of the inner ‘I’: indwelling sin versus non-existence of the good. The second reason is the indicators of the topical shift in v. 17. νυνὶ δέ implies a relatively marked transition or contrast between the preceding and following parts. In addition, v. 17 shows its connection to vv. 18–20 by the reference of sin and the innerness of the ‘I’ (ἐν ἐμοί). The third reason is that the apodoses are different in the parallel conditional construction in vv. 16 and 20. That is, vv. 16 and 20 have the same expression about a conflict between willing and doing in the protasis, but their apodoses are different: one is about the good nature of the law (v. 16) and the other is about sin as the cause of the human problem (v. 20). This may imply that Paul ends his argument with a conditional structure, and different apodoses indicate different topical issues: one is about the relationship between the law and the ‘I’; and the other is about that between the ‘I’ and sin. Therefore, I regard that vv. 14–25 consists of four parts, vv. 14, 15–16, 17–20, and 21–25. 98 Here, νυνὶ δέ should not be viewed as a temporal but as a logical transition marker (Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 2:87; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 205; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 457; Schreiner, Romans, 373; contra Nygren, Commentary on Romans, 300; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 390).

rom :–:

373

with the will of the ‘I’ and makes him/her succumb to the authority of sin (vv. 22–23). Therefore, for Paul, there is no way to escape from such a miserable situation of the ‘I,’ who is enslaved by sin. Even the law cannot solve the dilemma. The only way is to anticipate God’s salvation through Jesus Christ (c7–99 [v. 25]). From the above observation, two considerations can be drawn. One is that Paul’s argument seems to be focused on who is blamable for the human predicament. It is suggested through the interlocutor’s voice and Paul’s answer. According to Paul, sin is the ultimate cause for human problem. The other consideration is that Paul’s overall thought is delivered through two logical means. The first way is the pattern of the interrelationship among the law, sin, and the ‘I.’ At the outset, he first mentions a relationship between the law and sin in cc7–52–54 (v. 13). Here, he not only demonstrates sin as the fundamental cause of human problem, but also defends the blamelessness of the law. Then, in vv. 15–16, he mentions the contrastive nature between the ‘I’ and the law. Through these verses, Paul displays that the matter is not the spiritual law but the fleshly ‘I,’ who has inner confusion between willing and doing. Lastly, after proclaiming indwelling sin as the key reason for the human problem in vv. 17–20, Paul reaffirms his topical statement that the ‘I’ and the law are vulnerable to the attack of sin, so that the ‘I’ becomes a slave of sin. In relation to the first one, the second logical means for the progression of Paul’s argument is a movement of his descriptive angle towards the deep inside of the ‘I.’ The depiction of the interrelationship between the law and sin in v. 13 does not give an impression that it is related to the inner state of the ‘I.’ Yet, in dealing with the contrastive nature of the law and ‘I’ in vv. 15–16, he moves his descriptive angle to the inner state of the ‘I.’ When Paul treats the effect of sin on the ‘I’ in vv. 17–25, he more apparently reveals the inner state of the ‘I’ as his main concern. It is shown by several indicators, such as οἰκέω, παράκειμαι, ἔσω, and ἐν + dative phrase including use of μέλος. The logical flow of this sub-unit can be summarized as below: 3) Focality Various means are used to emphasize topical issues in this sub-unit. First, at the level beyond the sentence, one noticeable feature is a continuous use of present tense-forms. In comparison to the preceding

374

chapter eight Topical question: Who is the blamable for human problem? Topical answer: Sin is ultimate responsible

v. 13

Sin as the core reason of human problem: a relationship of the law and sin

v. 14

A statement about the relationship among the law, sin, and the ‘I’: 1) the law is spiritual 2) the ‘I’ is fleshly 3) the sin is the owner of fleshly ‘I’

vv. 15–16 The fleshly ‘I’ as a cause of problem: a relationship between the ‘I’ and the law vv. 17–20 The indwelling sin as the core reason of human problem: a relationship between the ‘I’ and sin

descriptive angle moving deep into the inner ‘I’

vv. 21–25 Sin as the central problem of humans: a conclusive summary of the relationships among the law, sin, and the ‘I’

sub-unit (Rom 7:7–12), this usage probably implies that Paul intends to give a more vivid description in this sub-unit. In addition, rhetorical devices, such as repetition and contrast, function to reveal Paul’s topical interest. The device of contrast is employed as the major way in describing both the internal state of the ‘I’ and the interrelationship among the law, sin, and the ‘I.’ As to the inner state of the ‘I,’ there appear three kinds of contrast: (1) a contrast of willing and doing (vv. 15–16, 18 [cc7–75–78], 19–20); (2) a contrast between the existence of sin in the ‘I’ (c7–70 [v. 17]) and non-existence of the good (cc7–73–74 [v. 18]); and (3) a contrast of the law of God (mind) and the law of sin (another law) in vv. 24–25. The device of repetition is used in relation to the inner conflict situation of the ‘I’ in vv. 15–16 and 19–20. Yet its goal is different, in that this device in vv. 15–16 shows a contrast between the natures of the ‘I’ and law, and in vv. 19–20 demonstrates sin as the cause of the human problem. Another two examples of repetition are also relevant to the above two topical issues. As to the relationship among the law, sin, and the ‘I,’ the statement in v. 17 that it is not the ‘I’ but sin that produces the human predicament is reiterated in v. 20. Regarding the inner conflict situation of the ‘I,’ a phrase ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου is

rom :–:

375

mentioned twice in v. 23. These two examples can be viewed as an indicator of ring structure. Second, several prominence markers at the sentence level are also used in relation to the above two topical issues. With regard to the inner conflict, at the outset, the marked word order in vv. 15–16 and 19–20 is conspicuous. Here, the relative clauses serving objects of verbs come before the verbs themselves.99 Together with τοῦτο (“this”), it helps to show the conflict between willing and doing by emphasizing the content of the relative clauses. Similarly, a reversed word order also appears in v. 21 as a prominence feature. In this verse, a reference (ἐμοί) follows a relative clause (τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν), which is opposite to the normal word order of ‘head term—Rc (relative clause).’100 An unusual word order in v. 24, where a personal pronoun as grammatical subject (ἐγώ) is located between adjectival definer (df [A]: ταλαίπωρος) and noun (ἄνθρωπος), also functions to demonstrate the seriousness of the inner conflict of the ‘I.’ Another prominence marker in relation to the inner conflict is αὐτός in v. 25. This pronoun stresses that this very I (αὐτὸς ἐγὼ) suffers from the inner conflict.101 This situation is also emphasized by a double inferential marker. In comparison to ἄρα in v. 21, ἄρα οὖν in v. 25 more strongly indicates the conclusive situation of the ‘I.’ Lastly, the exclamation of the ‘I’ in v. 24 works to stress the wretched situation of a person, who is under the power of sin. On the other hand, with regard to the relationship among sin, the law, and the ‘I’ at the sentence level, a stative aspect verb πεπραμένος in c7–58 (v. 14) is noteworthy. It emphasizes the enslaved state of the ‘I’ under sin. Another indicator is νυνὶ δέ in v. 17. As a relatively strong adversative transition marker, it denotes a topical shift from the relationship between the law and the ‘I’ to that of between the ‘I’ and sin. It works to highlight what is the real cause of the human problem in the following argument of Paul. In sum, according to the above observation, Paul’s focus is on two topical issues: one is the internal struggle of the ‘I,’ and the other is the

99

Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 303. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:362. 101 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 467 n. 89; contra Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty, 96–97. 100

376

chapter eight

interrelationship among the law, sin, and the ‘I.’ However, these two topical issues are not isolated, because the interrelationship among the three is connected to the predicament of the ‘I.’ Moreover, the explanations of the relationship among the three also function to manifest two things: (1) sin is the core reason of the human problem, and (2) the ‘I’ and the law are too weak to overcome the power of sin. 4) Grouping a) External evidence Rom 7:13–25 is separated from Rom 7:7–12 by bringing another diatribal question in v. 13. The following refutation with μὴ γένοιτο in v. 13 and reliance on the shared knowledge (οἶδαμεν) in v. 14 also imply that this sub-unit has a different diatribal interaction between Paul and his interlocutor. b) Internal evidence The internal unity of Rom 7:13–25 is established by several elements. First, a diatribal interaction between Paul and his interlocutor holds together the overall logical framework of this sub-unit. Second, the sequence of explanations about the interrelationship among the law, sin, and the ‘I’ helps to see the coherent unity of this sub-unit: (1) the relationships between the law and sin (v. 13); (2) the law and the ‘I’ (vv. 15–16); (3) sin and the ‘I’ (vv. 17–20); and (4) a conclusive summary of the relationship among the three (vv. 21–25). Third, the conjunctions or particles work to indicate the transition of these relationships. For example, the shift of the above relationships from second (vv. 15–16) to third (vv. 17–20) is introduced by νυνὶ δέ, and that of from third to fourth (vv. 21–25) is expressed by an inferential particle ἄρα. Lastly, the chain links of several semantic domains also function to create the internal unity of this sub-unit. According to the analysis of semantic domains, the first person references (92.A), sin (88.L´), and the law (33.E and 33.G´) appear as the sources for major semantic chains. Moreover, the repetitive pattern between willing (25.A) and doing (42. B and 90.K) of the ‘I’ (8.B and 26) also contributes to the unity of Rom 7:13–25. The internal unity of this sub-unit established by the above elements can be shown as below.

rom :–:

377

Dialogical pattern

Topical sequence

Interlocutor

13

Paul

μὴ γένοιτο ἀλλὰ ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἵνα φανῇ ἁμαρτία . . .

τὸ οὖν ἀγαθὸν ἐμοὶ ἐγένετο θάνατος

the law and sin

μοι κατεργαζομένη . . . ἁμαρτωλὸς ἡ ἁμαρτία διὰ

τῆς ἐντολῆς

the law, sin, and the ‘I’

οἶδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι ὁ νόμος πνευματικός ἐστιν, ἐγὼ

14

δὲ σάρκινός εἰμι πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν 15

ὃ γὰρ… ὃ θέλω τοῦτο πράσσω, ἀλλ᾽ὃ μισῶ

τοῦτο ποιῶ

16

εἰ δὲ ὃ οὐ θέλω τοῦτο ποιῶ,

σύμφημι τῷ νόμῳ ὅτι καλός 17

25.A vs. the law 42.B and 90.K the ‘I’

νυνὶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζομαι αὐτὸ ἀλλὰ ἡ

οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία

18

the ‘I’ and sin

οἶδα . . . ἐμοί . . . μου,

ἀγαθόν τὸ γὰρ θέλειν παράκειταί μοι . . . 19 οὐ γὰρ ὃ θέλω ποιῶ ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ ὃ οὐ θέλω κακὸν τοῦτο πράσσω

20

εἰ δὲ ὃ οὐ θέλω τοῦτο ποιῶ,

οὐκέτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζομαι αὐτὸ . . . ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία 21

εὑρίσκω ἄρα τὸν νόμον, τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν

τὸ καλόν, ὅτι ἐμοὶ . . .

. . . ἄνθρωπον

23

22

συνήδομαι γὰρ τῷ νόμῳ

βλέπω δὲ ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς

μέλεσίν μου . . . τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ νοός μου καὶ αἰχμαλωτίζοντά με ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τῷ

. . . μου

24

ταλαίπωρος ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος τίς με

ῥύσεται . . . 25 . . . ἐγὼ τῷ μὲν νοῒ δουλεύω νόμῳ θεοῦ τῇ δὲ σαρκὶ νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας

25.A vs. 42.B 90.K summary

378

chapter eight

5) Summary Rom 7:13–25 is connected to Rom 7:5 and 7:7–12 in a sense that it deals with the unregenerate situation of the one who is in the flesh and is sold under the power of sin. In relation to Rom 7:7–12, especially, Rom 7:13–25 provides a more vivid description of the human predicament. According to the topicality, Paul is interested in the question, “Who is the real cause of human problem?” and puts forward indwelling sin as the answer. In order to show his answer, he deals with three kinds of relationships among the law, sin, and the ‘I’ in an order of a relation between (1) the law and sin, (2) the law and the ‘I,’ and (3) the ‘I’ and sin. In the course of treating such relationships, he particularly focuses on the inner conflict situation of the ‘I.’ The conclusive depiction of the relationship among the three in vv. 21–25 well describes how miserable the situation of the unregenerate is. Yet Paul’s ultimate goal is not to depict the misery of humans under the power of sin. Rather, it seems that he intends to deliver two other truths: a person has no strength to overcome the power of sin, on the one hand; the law cannot be a means for salvation, on the other hand. These two corollaries not only affirm the previous argument on God-initiative salvation, but also pave the way for the important role of the Holy Spirit in the following argumentation. 3. Conclusion In connection to Rom 5:12–21, where Paul explains salvation as a transfer through Jesus from the old realm to the new, Rom 6:1–7:6 deals with a believers’ life in the new realm. Particularly, he focuses on the relationship between sin and believers’ new life. Although Paul brings the law as a topical issue into Rom 7:1–25, his overall argument is not restricted to the law itself. Instead, he seems to focus on the seriousness of sin in human life. He shows it through the depiction of a tragic situation of the unregenerate person in Rom 7:7–25, who is under the power of sin in spite of knowing the law. Paul’s way of unfolding his thought in this section has several notable characteristics. The first one is found in his use of diatribal dialogue. In this section, Paul consistently introduces the topical issue(s) in each sub-unit through the absurd question or conclusion of his hypothetical interlocutor. Moreover, these diatribal objections also function to link each sub-unit by bringing the last statement of the preceding sub-unit as the new topic in the present sub-unit. For example, the relationship

rom :–:

379

between sin and grace in Rom 5:20–21 becomes a new topical issue through the interlocutor’s false question in Rom 6:1. A relationship among sin, the law, and grace in a diatribal question in Rom 6:15 is derived from the last statement of the previous sub-unit, “you are not under the law but under grace” (Rom 6:14). Likewise, a topical issue regarding the relationship between the law and sin in Rom 7:7 originates from the last part of the preceding sub-unit (Rom 7:5), and the expression about the real cause of the human problem in Rom 7:14 is drawn from the vocabulary in Rom 7:12. In relation to the first one, the second feature is that Paul has a tendency to use the common shared knowledge expressed by semantic domain 28.A (Know: γινώσκω, ἀγνοέω, and οἶδα) as a premise of his following argument. In Rom 6:3, after rejecting the interlocutor’s question, he uses shared knowledge about baptism as the ground of his argumentation about believers’ co-death and resurrection with Jesus. In regard to the relationship between sin and the status of believers in Rom 6:15–7:6, who are not under the law but under grace, Paul explains his thought in the order of dealing first with a concept of enslavement in Rom 6:16–23, and then treating a matter of the law in believers’ life in Rom 7:1–6. In each case, he advances his argument on the basis of common shared knowledge in Rom 6:16 and Rom 7:1–3. Lastly, when he explicates the complexity of the human predicament and sin as its cause, he relies on the statement about the relationship among the law, sin, and the ‘I’ in Rom 7:14. The third feature of Paul’s argument is the use of comparison. Throughout this section, Paul demonstrates the body of his argumentation through temporal or logical contrasts. Through the contrast of states in the old and new realms, Paul explains in Rom 6:1–14 how absurd it is to insist on believers’ abiding in sin. At the center of this contrast, there is the union of believers with Christ’s death and resurrection. Similarly, in Rom 6:15–7:6, Paul explains the status of believers by means of two kinds of contrast. One is that the enslaved situation before being saved is contrasted to the liberated state after being saved (Rom 6:16–23). The other kind of contrast is that one’s condition being under the controlling power of the law is opposite to that of being under the guide of the Holy Spirit (Rom 7:1–6). The case in Rom 7:7–25 is not related to the contrast between the old and new realms. However, the use of comparison in this part also contains temporal and logical senses. In the case of Rom 7:7–12, the opposite situation of the ‘I’ and sin centers around the temporal coming of the

380

chapter eight

law. Although the temporal sense is not very strong in the case of Rom 7:13–25, the logical contrast between willing and doing of the ‘I’ is very significant. Therefore, it is not too much to say that the device of comparison permeates every aspect of Paul’s argumentation. The fourth feature is Paul’s defense of the good nature of the law. He allotted two diatribal interactions in Rom 7:7–25 to argue that the law is neither sin, nor the kernel reason of human problem. According to him, the original role of the law is to expose sin as sin, and the law performs its role faithfully even when it is used by sin, resulting in death to humans (Rom 7:13). However, he does not deny the limitation of the law. Even though the law functions as a controlling power over a person that knows the law (Rom 7:1–6), it does not have the power to protect a person from sin, or to save him/her. Instead, it becomes a means of sin, and offers an opportunity to the indwelling power of sin to attack a person. Thus, the explanation about the law in this section can be viewed as a complementary exposition of both the negative aspect of the law in Rom 3:20 and the positive aspect in Rom 3:31. The fifth characteristic is that the description of the human situation before being saved in Rom 7:7–25 is very impressive. Through the repetitive use of the first person singular references, Paul makes his illustration attractive and lively. Moreover, the shift of verbal tense-forms from aorist to present also helps to provide a more vivid effect to the miserable situation of humans, who are under the power of sin. Lastly, Paul’s exhortation for believers to have a new mode of life in the new realm cannot be neglected. The five occurrences of imperative verb in this section (Rom 6:11 [λογίζεσθε], 12 [βασιλευέτω], 13 [παριστάνετε, παραστήσατε], and 19 [παραστήσατε]) are unique, in the sense that these are the first instances of Paul’s commands given to Roman Christians.102 After explaining about the different conditions of a person in two realms, Paul demands with these verbs not to interact with sin but with God. It may imply that it is possible for believers in the new salvific realm to interact with sin. However, Paul strongly claims that such an attitude is not appropriate for believers because they are dead to sin and liberated from the slavery of sin. In this sense,

102 Even though Rom 3:4 has an imperative verb, γινέσθω, it is not Paul’s command given to Roman Christians.

rom :–:

381

Rom 5:20-21 Rom 8:1-17

(sin and grace) The flow of argumentation according to the diatribal dialogue

Rom 6:1-14 (do not sin/ not under the law but under grace) Rom 6:15-7:5, 6 (sin’s use of the law in the fleshly ‘I’) Rom 7:7-12 (the law is holy and good) Rom 7:13-25 The transfer of believers from the old realm to the new through union with Liberation from Christ’s death and the slavery resurrection of sin (6:15-23)

A topic(s) of each sub-unit

Liberation from the ruling power of the law The law is not sin: The relationship between the ‘I’ and sin according to the coming of the law A contrast between the old and new realms The law does not bring death, but sin does: Sin as the real cause of the human problem, and the relationship among sin, the law, and the ‘I’

A situation of the old realm

382

chapter eight

this section seems to be linked to Rom 5:1–11, where Paul mentions a new interactional attitude of those who experience God’s salvation. According to the above characteristics, the overall flow of Paul’s argument in this section can be diagrammed as above.103 In sum, Rom 6:1–7:25 is closely connected to Romans 5, in the sense that it not only provides more detailed explanations about the meaning of one’s transfer from the old realm to the new, but also offers a new interactional paradigm of believers in the new realm. The former is linked to Rom 5:12–21 and the latter is to Rom 5:1–11. Throughout this section, by depicting sin as the ultimate cause of the human problem in the old realm, he encourages believers not to look back to the old realm by interacting with sin, but to make a new interactive relationship with God. All the more, the dramatic description of the unregenerate person in Rom 7:7–25 functions as a way to highlight the great reversal in the new salvific realm in Romans 8, where the Holy Spirit supersedes the ruling power of sin.

103 Here, the line in the flow of argumentation indicates a topical link between Paul’s statement in one sub-unit and interlocutor’s absurd question in the following sub-unit.

CHAPTER NINE

ROM 8:139: THE HOLY SPIRIT AND BELIEVERS IN GOD’S SALVATION In accordance with the contrast between the old and new realms in Rom 7:5–6, Paul has dealt with the miserable conditions of those who are in the old realm in Rom 7:7–25. Then, he begins to articulate the counter situation in Rom 8:1. In this sense, Rom 8:1–39 has a close connection with the preceding section. Nonetheless, Rom 8:1–39 can be considered as a discrete discourse unit, because the reference of the Holy Spirit provides a new topical boundary. The frequency of the appearance of the term, πνεῦμα, is a very noticeable change from the previous argumentations. While there are only three occurrences of πνεῦμα prior to Rom 8:1 (Rom 2:29; 5:5; 7:6), it is used twenty-one times in Rom 8:1–39.1 Moreover, the depiction of the Spirit is distinguished from the previous sections. Unlike what Paul has argued previously, the Spirit in Rom 8:1–39 is now described as having a significant role in both the transfer of believers into the new salvific realm and their life in it. Thus, Romans 8 can be viewed as another discourse unit, which deals with the significance of the Spirit in respect to the life of believers. Regarding the inner structure, Rom 8:1–39 can be divided into three sub-units. At the outset, Rom 8:1–17 is connected to Rom 8:18–30 by the temporal sequence of present suffering and future glory mentioned in v. 17. Yet such temporal scheme also makes them two distinct subunits. Focusing on the present situation, most of Paul’s arguments in Rom 8:1–17 is made in regard to the comparison between the past situation in the old realm and the present condition in the new realm. However, Rom 8:18–30 does not mention any of the past situation. Instead, it only focuses on the comparison between the present and future conditions. Thus, Rom 8:1–17 and 18–30 could be viewed as two discrete sub-units. Moreover, the use of vivid rhetorical questions in Rom 8:31–39 signifies its distinction from Rom 8:18–30. Therefore, the overall division of Romans 8 is (1) Rom 8:1–17, (2) Rom 8:18–30, and (3) Rom 8:31–39. 1

Rom 8:2, 4, 5 (x2), 6, 9 (x3), 10, 11 (x2), 13, 14, 15 (x2), 16 (x2), 23, 26 (x2), 27.

384

chapter nine

1. Rom 8:1–17: The Holy Spirit and believers’ new identity and life in the new realm A. Text analysis of Rom 8:1–17

rom :–

385

386

chapter nine

rom :–

387

B. Topicality 1) Analysis of structure Rom 8:1–17 consists of twenty five primary, eighteen secondary, and eleven embedded clauses.2 The primary clauses are used to move Paul’s argument forward, while the secondary clauses give supporting materials such as purpose (cc8–7 [v. 4], 54 [v. 17]), reason (cc8–15–18 [vv. 7–8]), the confession from believers (c8–46 [v. 15]), and the witness of the Holy Spirit with our spirit (c8–48 [v. 16]). This sub-unit shows a cluster of eight conditional structures in regard to the status and life of believers, especially in Rom 8:9–17, and all of their protases are secondary clauses.

2 (1) Primary clauses: cc8–1 (v.1), 2 (v. 2), 3, 5 (v. 3), 10, 12 (v. 5), 13, 14 (v. 6), 21, 22, 25 (v. 9), 27, 28 (v. 10), 31 (v. 11), 34 (v. 12), 37, 40 (v. 13), 41, 42 (v. 14), 43, 44 (v. 15), 47 (v. 16), 50, 51, 52 (v. 17); (2) secondary clauses: cc8–4 (v. 3), 7 (v. 4), 15, 16, 17 (v. 7), 18 (v. 8), 23, 24 (v. 9), 26 (v. 10), 29 (v. 11), 36, 39 (v. 13), 45 , 46 (v. 15), 48 (v. 16), 49, 53, 54 (v. 17); and (3) embedded clauses: cc8–6 (v. 3), 8, 9 (v. 4), 11 (v. 5) 19, 20 (v. 8), 30, 32, 33 (v. 11), 35 (v. 12), 38 (v. 13).

388

chapter nine

As far as the topical participants are concerned, there are two groups of participants in this sub-unit. The first one is a divine group, consisting of God, Jesus, and the Spirit. God appears as the one who performs his salvaific process by sending his son, Jesus, as an atoning sacrifice (v. 3). Also, he is shown as the interactional counterpart of humans. For non-believers, God is their enemy on account of their enmity toward God and impossibility to obey and please him (vv. 7–8). On the other hand, for believers, God appears as the Father (vv. 14, 15, 16), and the one who makes believers as his inheritance (v. 17). Jesus is mentioned as the core means of God’s salvific process (v. 2). Being sent by God, his sacrificial death became the ground for the removal of God’s condemnation. Moreover, he appears as a relational counterpart of believers. The relationship between Jesus and believers is expressed by a genitive pronoun (αὐτοῦ [v. 9]) and a preposition ἐν. As a genitive of possession, the former denotes believers’ position that they belong to Jesus in the new relational realm. The prepositional phrases with ἐν imply a mutual belonging between Jesus and believers: believers are in Jesus Christ (τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ [v. 1]) and Christ is in believers (Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν [v. 10]). Moreover, Jesus is depicted as the archetype of the believers’ status and life in several areas, such as resurrection (v. 11), acknowledgment of their sonship of God (αββα ὁ πατήρ [v. 15: cf. Mark 14:36]), inheritance (συγκληρονόμοι [v. 17]), and suffering (συμπάσχομεν [v. 17]). The Holy Spirit is expressed as God’s agent, who works according to the three different stages of believers’ life. The first stage is when believers enter into the new salvific realm. In this stage, the Spirit functions to liberate believers from the tyranny of sin (v. 2). The second stage is the present status and life of believers in the new realm. The Holy Spirit works as an identity marker of their new relationship with God (vv. 9, 14, 15, 16), and as an empowering agent who helps them to live in the new realm (vv. 2, 6, 13, 14). The last stage is believers’ future conditions. In this stage, the Spirit works as a guarantee, who will make the mortal bodies of believers alive (ζῳοποιήσει: v. 11). As for the human group, believers and non-believers appear as participants. They are introduced by antithetical descriptions. Non-believers are in the realm of flesh, where sin dominates as the ruling power. Thus, their mind-set is hostile to God, and they are not willing to obey God’s words, nor can they (vv. 7–8). Decisively, they do not have the Spirit. On the contrary, believers possess the indwelling Holy Spirit.

rom :–

389

Through the Spirit, their status and life with respect to God become distinguished from those of non-believers. In sum, the above observations lead to the idea that the topical issue of this sub-unit is relevant to the interactions between divine and human groups. The works of three divine participants (God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit) determine the differential status between believers and non-believers. For believers, their intimate relationship with the divine participants becomes an identity marker for them. Moreover, their life is also closely connected to the works of the divine participants, especially that of the Holy Spirit. 2) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 12.A (Supernatural Beings: x9): God (x2), the Holy Spirit (x7) (2) 26 (Psychological Faculties: x7): the cognates of σάρξ (x4), the cognates of φρόνημα (x3) (3) 23.G (Live, Die: x5) (4) 93.A (Jesus: x3) (5) 33.G′ (Law, Regulation, Ordinance: x2); 13.A (εἰμί: x2) (6) 56.E; 33.E; 92.C; 8.A

Predicators

(1) 13.A (x5) (2) 23.G (x3) (3) 74 (Able, Capable: x2); 57.I (Receive: x2); 85.E (Dwell, Reside: x2) (4) 56.E; 59.D; 26 (cognates of φρόνημα); 67.B; 15.W; 24.F; 87.B; 33.T; 33.F; 57.A (Have, Possess, Property, Owner)

Complements (1) 12.A (x9): God (x5), the Holy Spirit (x4) (2) 23.G (x6) (3) 26 (x3); cf. 8.B (σαρκός); 10.B (Kinship Relations Involving Successive Generations: x3); 57.I (x3); 93.A (x3); 92 (x3): C (x2), B (4) 74 (x2); 33.E (x2); 8.A (σῶμα: x2) (5) 88.L′; 22.G; 39.A; 25.H; 42.B; 37.A; 35.G; 57.R Adjuncts

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

12.A (x6): God, the Holy Spirit (x5) 26 (x4) (cf. 8.B [σαρκός: x2]) 92 (x5): B, C (x4) 88.L′ (x4) 23.G (x2) 58.B; 93.A; 33.G′; 10.B; 15.D; 64; 41.A; 85.E; 25.V

390

chapter nine

(cont.) Semantic domains Additive

(1) 12.A (God: x2) (2) 11.B

Overall lists

(1) 12.A (x26): God (x10), the Holy Spirit (x16), cf. 93.A (Jesus: x7) (2) 23.G (x16) (3) 26 (x15): the cognates of σάρξ (x10), the cognates of φρόνημα (x4), πνεῦμα (x1), cf. 8.B (x3) (4) 92 (x9): B (x2), C (x7) (5) 13.A (x7); 57 (x7): I (x5), R, A (6) 33.G′ (x3); 33.E (the law: x3) (7) 88.L′ (x5) (8) 74 (x4); 10.B (x4), cf. 35.G (υἱοθεσία) (9) 85.E (x3)

As far as the semantic domains are concerned, many occurrences of πνεῦμα and the cognates of σάρξ are very noticeable. Except for the case in v. 16 (τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν), πνεῦμα appears sixteen times referring to the Holy Spirit (domain 12.A), an empowering agent in the new salvific realm. Thirteen occurrences of the cognates of σάρξ (domain 26 [x10] and 8.B [x3]) are relevant to the old realm. They denote the feeble human nature that complies easily with the sinful power. Although the instance in cc8–5–6 (v. 3) refers to a human body (domain 8.A), especially that of Jesus, its conceptual link with the old realm still remains. This is because Jesus’ being in the likeness of sinful flesh is related to the removal of the power of sin.3 These two high frequency references imply that the topical issue of this sub-unit is relevant to the antithetical description of the two realms. This conjecture is also supported by another high frequent semantic domain, 23.G (x16). As in the case of the preceding sub-units, the ‘live’ aspect of 23.G describes the state of those who are in the new realm, while the ‘die’ aspect denotes the condition of people in the old realm. Within this framework of two antithetical realms, this sub-unit shows its topical interest through several other semantic domains. First, frequent occurrences of divine participants in the salvific process are noticeable. The references to God appear ten times, and Jesus is 3

Cf. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 480.

rom :–

391

mentioned eight times including a reference of God’s son (τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν: v. 3). As mentioned in the analysis of the structure, these divine participants are the key factor in determining believers’ transfer into the new realm and their new lives in it. Second, in relation to the transfer of believers into the new realm, 88.L′ (ἁμαρτία: x5) appears as the oppressing power in the old realm, from which believers have escaped. However, the occurrences of it are relatively fewer in this sub-unit than in previous sub-units. Third, two instances of 92. B (‘we’) and seven appearances of 92.C (‘you’) are also noteworthy. In Rom 7:7–25, the first person references (92.A) are used in relation to the old realm. However, the first person plural references in this sub-unit only appear in connection to the new realm. The fourth semantic domain that reveals topical interest is the seven occurrences of 13.A (εἰμί). It demonstrates the state of those who are in the old and new realms. Particularly, the state of believers in vv. 14–17 is depicted by the combinations of 13.A with πνεῦμα, 10.B (υἱός and τέκνον),4 and 57.I (κληρονόμος and συγκληρονόμος).5 These combinations reveal believers’ new identity that they, who have the Spirit, are the children and inheritances of God. In accordance with the above semantic domains, the topical issues in Rom 8:1–17 are relevant to the state of those who are in the old and new realms. Yet the state of believers in the new realm appears to be Paul’s major concern in this sub-unit. The observation of the semantic patterns contributes to acknowledge the overall structure of this sub-unit. Rom 8:1–4 is characterized by 88.L′ (x4), and the divine participants in the salvific process (God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit). Throughout vv. 5–17, 13.A appears as the main Predicator, and it implies that the main concern of this part is not about behavioral but about an ontological state of believers.6 Verses 5–6 are characterized by three semantic domains, 12.A (πνεῦμα), 26 (the cognates of σάρξ), and 23.G. The contrast between the domains 12.A and 26 is related to the ‘live’ and ‘die’ aspects of 4 In addition, semantic domains 35.G (Adopt: υἱοθεσία) and 12.A (ἀββά and πατήρ) in v. 15 also reveal believers’ new identity as God’s children. 5

The combination of 13.A and 57.I is expressed by ellipses in v. 17. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 147; Fitzmyer, Romans, 488; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 539–40; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 486; Schreiner, Romans, 411; Jewett, Romans, 486; contra Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:385; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 425. 6

392

chapter nine

23.G. That is, a combination of 12.A and the ‘live’ aspect of 23.G is mentioned as the antithesis of the combination of 26 and the ‘die’ aspect of 23.G. This indicates a contrast between two realms. The main semantic domain in vv. 7–8 is domain 26, and it denotes that this part is related to the old realm. However, vv. 9–11 contain 12.A (πνεῦμα) and two other divine participants (God and Jesus), as well as the ‘live’ aspect of 23.G. This implies that vv. 9–11 are about the new realm. Moreover, vv. 9–11 is distinguished from vv. 7–8 by the use of a repetition of 85.E (οἰκέω, ἐνοικέω) and ἐν + dative pronouns. Verses 12–13 show a contrast between two realms by using the same combination of 12.A and 26 with the two different aspects of 23.G that was used in vv. 5–6. Finally, vv. 14–17 have three divine participants, 10.B, and 57.I as main semantic domains. The overall structure according to the above semantic patterns is summarized as below.

Content related the two realms

Structure

Semantic domains 88.L′, 12.A (divine participant including Jesus)

transfer of believers from the old to the new realms

vv. 1–4

contrast between the old and new realms

vv. 5–6

‘live’ aspect of 23.G with 12.A (πνεῦμα), ‘die’ aspect of 23.G with 26

the old realm

vv. 7–8

26

the new realm

vv. 9–11

12.A (πνεῦμα), ‘live’ aspect of 23.G, and 85.E

contrast between the old and new realms

vv. 12–13

‘live’ aspect of 23.G with 12.A (πνεῦμα), ‘die’ aspect of 23.G with 26

the new realm

vv. 14–17

three divine participants, 57.I, 10.B (cf. 35.G, 12.A [ἀββά and πατήρ])

13.A

rom :–

393

3) Analysis of logical relations Paul begins Rom 8:1–17 with the statement, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” The nature of this statement is clarified by four elements. The first element is the combination of a conjunction ἄρα and an adverb νῦν. As an inferential conjunction, ἄρα indicates that this statement is a result of the previous statement in Rom 7:7–25. Yet, since Paul has used νῦν (or νῦνί) as a marker of temporal contrast between one’s being in the old and new realms (cf. Rom 6:19, 22; 7:6–20), the temporal sense of νῦν in Rom 8:1 implies that the content of v. 1 is about the situation in the new realm.7 So, the statement in v. 1 should not be viewed as a summation or conclusion, but as a counter statement of the preceding arguments. Such observation is also supported by the second and third elements. The second element is an expression of οὐδὲν κατάκριμα (“no condemnation”). According to Rom 5:16 and 18, κατάκριμα refers to the consequence of the acts of those who are in the first Adamic realm. Thus, ‘no condemnation’ in Rom 8:1 denotes the reversal of the situation of those who are not in the first Adamic realm. Moreover, such reversal is clarified by the third element, ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. The mention of Jesus Christ in this phrase shows its link to the thanksgiving of the ‘I’ in Rom 7:25. Even though there is a debate on the nature of this phrase, based on the preceding arguments in Romans, it refers to the opposite of the first Adamic realm, where one’s entering and staying are relevant to Jesus Christ.8 Accordingly, the statement in v. 1 speaks of the new situation in the realm of Jesus, the second Adam, which is the reversal of miserable situation shown in Rom 7:7–25. Lastly, the fourth element, τοῖς, reveals that Paul’s interest is not in the description of the new situation itself but in the people. That is, what Paul is concerned about is the two kinds of contrastive people: (1) those who suffer from the miserable situation in the old realm (Rom 7:7–25); and (2) those who are freed from condemnation in the new realm. In vv. 2–4, Paul expatiates the statement of v. 1, and focuses on the question, “How does it happen?” In v. 2, he describes the Holy Spirit as 7

Dunn, Romans 1–8, 415; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 521; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 472. 8 For Paul’s understanding of ‘in Christ,’ see M.A. Seifrid, “In Christ,” in G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid (eds.) Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 433–36.

394

chapter nine

the key to understanding the new life of believers (σε).9 The use of the Holy Spirit and the slavery image (ἠλευθέρωσεν) harks back to Rom 7:6. Yet the concept that the Spirit is the agent of the salvific transfer from the old realm to the new realm is new in Paul’s argument.10 Here, Paul states for the first time that the Spirit is the one who enables believers to be exempt from condemnation. However, the work of Spirit is not separated from God’s initiative and Jesus’ mediatorial role in the process of salvation. Paul makes this point clear in vv. 3–4. In v. 3, he articulates that the fundamental ground for salvation is God’s work. It is God who did what the law could not do on account of the impotence of human flesh. He did it by sending his son as a sacrifice

9 There are three important textual variants: σε (‫ א‬B F G 1506* 1739* etc.); με (A Cc D K L P etc.); and ῆμας (Ψ sypal etc.). Among them, I opt for the first one as original because it has broader support than the other two. Moreover, in light of the first person references in Rom 7:7–25, με seems to be the more expected reading than σε. So, σε seems to be original because it is harder reading (Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 516; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:376–77; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 519 n. 134; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 470 n. 11; contra Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 244). 10 There is a considerable dispute on the meaning of νόμος in Rom 8:2. One group regards it as the Mosaic law, and interprets v. 2 that “if the law is appropriated in the realm of the Spirit and by faith, then one is liberated from using the Mosaic law in such as way that it leads to sin and death” (Schreiner, Romans, 400). The rationale of this view is two-fold: (1) Paul’s use of νόμος in this co-text always refers to the Mosaic law; and (2) the dual understanding of the law, i.e., the Mosaic law both as God’s law and sin’s law, is already mentioned in Rom 7:22–23, 25b (E. Lohse, “ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος: Exegetische Anmerkungen zu Röm 8.2,” in Neues Testament und christliche Existenz [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973], 279–87; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 2:122; Räisänen., Paul and the Law, 51; Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, 144–49; E.J. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul [WUNT 2.16; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985], 288; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 416–17; Schreiner, Romans, 400; Jewett, Romans, 481). The other group views that, as a rhetorical expression, νόμος denotes a contrast between the ‘power,’ ‘authority,’ or ‘principle’ of the Holy Spirit and sin (Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 190; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 276; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:375–76; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 215; T.J. Deidun, New Covenant Morality in Paul [AnBib 89; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1981], 194–203; Ziesler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 202; Fitzmyer, Romans, 483; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 522; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 474–76; Byrne, Romans, 242; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 281). Of the two, I follow the second view because it is very foreign to Paul’s argument in Romans that the law functions as an agent of salvation in God’s salvific process. On the contrary, throughout Romans, the Mosaic law has been described as being impotent to cope with the tyranny of sin. Only divine initiative and human response with faith are mentioned as the key factors for salvation. For more detailed contention about this view, see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 474–76.

rom :–

395

and condemning sin in Jesus’ body on behalf of sinful humans. This is a summary of previous arguments on God’s salvific process through Jesus (cf. Rom 3:21–26; 4:24–25; 5:6–8). Then, through the purpose clause of v. 4, he re-links the life of believers in the new realm to the work of the Holy Spirit. Based on the outcome of God’s work through Jesus, believers could fulfill God’s righteous regulation (δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου) with the help of the empowering Spirit.11 After all, it is the divine participants in the salvific process who change one’s fate by solving the problem of sin and transferring him/her into the new salvific realm. Among the three divine participants, Paul’s interest here seems to be in the role of the Holy Spirit. Drawing from cc8–8–9 (v. 4), Paul elaborates on the contrast between flesh (σάρξ) and the Spirit (πνεῦμα) in Rom 8:5–11. The basic premise is that, since flesh and the Spirit are the representatives of two realms, one’s status and situation are determined according to his/her relationship to them. Paul unfolds this concept through an alternative structure: the old realm (cc8–10, 11 [v. 5])—the new realm (c8–12 [v. 5])—the old realm (c8–13 [v. 6])—the new realm (c8–14 [v. 6])— the old realm (vv. 7–8)—the new realm (vv. 9–11). As for those who are in the old realm (οἱ κατὰ σάρκα ὄντες), their mindset is fixed on the flesh, and it brings them death, because the mindset of the flesh is hostile to God. In fact, they do not have wills and abilities to obey

11 In general, two options have been proposed to understand Rom 8:4. Focused on the passive verb πληρωθῇ and God as its agent, the first view is that it is God who fulfills his righteous regulation through the sacrifice of Jesus and transfers it to believers who live according to the Spirit (Leenhart, The Epistle to the Romans, 204–5; M.D. Hooker, “Interchange in Christ,” JTS 22 [1971], 349–61; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 304; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 483; Byrne, Romans, 237). The other view is that it is believers who fulfill the righteous regulation of the law through the aid of the Spirit. Of the two, I incline to the latter for several reasons. First, even though the ultimate agent of the passive verb is God, the use of the passive form may imply the shift of focus from God, the actor in cc8–6 (v. 4), to the matter of the law. That is, the issue in v. 4 is not about what God did, but about what happened to the righteous regulation in the life of believers. Second, the following arguments in this sub-unit only deal with the role of the Spirit with regard to the status and life of believers. It implies that the topical interest of Paul is not about what God did in the past and does in the present life of believers, but about how and what the Spirit works in them. Third, the works of the Spirit are not irrelevant to God’s act, because the Holy Spirit is mentioned as God’s spirit in Rom 8:9, 14. Therefore, Rom 8:4 could be understood as this: Paul states the possibility of believers, who are in the new realm by way of God’s initiative (c8–6), pleasing God through the empowering Spirit (Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 534–38; Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 120; Schreiner, Romans, 404–408; Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 214–15).

396

chapter nine

God’s law, nor can they please God. On the contrary, those who are in the new realm (οἱ κατὰ πνεῦμα) have the mindset fixed on the Spirit, so that they experience life and peace. Paul asserts that the Roman Christians (ὑμεῖς: “you”) are in the new realm, because God’s Spirit dwells in them (cc8–21–23[v. 9]). This indwelling Spirit is also a sign of a new relationship with Christ (cc8–24–25). Moreover, such a new relationship with Jesus Christ becomes a guarantee of believers’ future resurrection (ζῳοποιήσει), because the same Spirit12 who raised Jesus from the dead, will also raise their mortal body just as he did to Jesus (v. 11). Therefore, there is no obligation for believers to live according to the flesh, since they are liberated from the tyranny of the old realm (v. 12). In spite of being in the new realm, if they live according to the flesh, they will die. If they kill the influence and deeds of the flesh, however, they will live. In relation to the life of believers in the new realm, Paul provides the sonship of God as another status of believers in v. 14. In comparison to the slavery image in the preceding argument, this indicates a closer relationship with God. This relationship is confirmed by two-fold evidence: (1) The outcry of believers in the Spirit, αββα ὁ πατήρ (“Abba! Father!”: v. 15), and (2) the Spirit himself, who works as a co-witness of believers’ sonship (v. 16). This sonship also implies believers’ status as joint heirs with Jesus, which results in future glorification of believers through the present participation in Christ’s suffering (v. 17). In sum, in contrast to Rom 7:7–25, Paul’s topical concern in this sub-unit is about believers’ status and life in the new realm. He reveals it through logical contrasts between the old and new realms, such as

12 There is a debate on the understanding of πνεῦμα in v. 10. Some regard it as the human spirit (Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 198; Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 305; Fitzmyer, Romans, 491; Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 202; RSV; NIV; NASB), and others view it as the Holy Spirit (Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 157; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 289; Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 254; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:390; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 309; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 444–45; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 550–51; Byrne, Romans, 240–41; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 492; Schreiner, Romans, 414–5; Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 216; Jewett, Romans, 492; TEV; note NRSV; TNIV). Of the two, I would opt for the latter because the immediately following verse (v. 11) speaks of the role of the Holy Spirit in relation to the resurrection. In addition, as Schreiner states, the combination of the Spirit and ζωή is an ongoing theme in this sub-unit (Schreiner, Romans, 414–15). Thus, I follow the translation of TNIV that “. . . the Spirit gives life because of righteousness.”

rom :–

397

the contrasts between the flesh and the Spirit, death and life, two kinds of mindset, and so on. Within this logical framework, Paul puts the Holy Spirit as the central factor in understanding the believers’ status and life in this sub-unit. For him, the Spirit works as an agent, who enables believers to be relocated from the old realm to the new. The indwelling Spirit is also the key factor for believers’ status as God’s children, and life in the new realm. Moreover, the Spirit appears to be the guarantee of the future state for believers. C. Focality Several devices that work to emphasize the topical issues can be found in this sub-unit. First of all, at the level beyond the sentence, two kinds of rhetorical devices are noticeable. The first one is the technique of using contrast. This method appears mainly when the comparison was made between the old and new realms. At the center of this contrast, there is an antithesis between the Spirit and the flesh. Moreover, such device also affects the structure of this sub-unit. As mentioned in the logical analysis, Rom 8:4–11 shows an alternative parallel structure according to the depiction of each realm.13 Through this device, it seems that Paul intends to highlight the preciousness of believers’ status and situation in the new salvific realm. Below is the contrast between two realms in Rom 8:1–17.14 The second device at the level beyond the sentence is a chain of explanation in vv. 5–6, 9–11, and 14–17. In vv. 5–6, the chain explanation is about contrast between the two realms. Here, the mindset (φρόνημα) appears as important factor in understanding the relationship between the flesh and death in the old realm, and between the Spirit and life 13 The old realm (cc8–10, 11 [v. 5])—the new realm (c8–12 [v. 5])—the old realm (c8–13 [v. 6])—the new realm (c8–14 [v. 6])—the old realm (vv. 7–8)—the new realm (vv. 9–11). 14 Despite various understandings of πνεῦμα in v. 15, I think that the two references of πνεῦμα mean the Holy Spirit for two reasons. First, the assumption of this verse is that believers already have the Spirit, and the indwelling Spirit works as an identity marker, as is shown in the preceding verse (v. 14). Second, as a reason statement for v. 14, the focus of v. 15 is not on the two kinds of πνεῦμα, but on the two kinds of consequence (δουλείας or υἱοθεσίας) that the Holy Spirit brings. Thus, as Fee points out (Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 565), the phrase πνεῦμα δουλείας can be regarded as Paul’s rhetorical ad hoc creation, which functions to stress the true role of the Spirit. Fee paraphrases this verse as that: “Your reception of this Spirit did not issue in your returning to slavery and fear, rather it issued in your adoption as ‘sons’ ” (Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 565).

398

chapter nine

Verses

The content of the contrast The old realm

The new realm

v. 2

Sin resulting in death

the Spirit resulting in life

v. 4

those who live according to the flesh

those who live according to the Spirit

vv. 5–6 the mindset of the flesh brings death

the mindset of the Spirit brings life and peace

v. 9

being in the flesh

being in the Spirit

v. 10

body is dead because of sin

the Spirit is life because of righteousness

v. 13

to live according to the flesh

to live according to the Spirit

v. 15

the Spirit of slavery

the Spirit of adoption

in the new realm. That is, in the old realm, those who live according to the flesh have the mindset of the flesh (cc8–10–11[v. 5]), which leads them to death (c8–13 [v. 6]). In the new realm, however, those who live according to the Spirit have the mindset of the Spirit (c8–12 [v. 5]), which leads them to life (c8–14 [v. 6]). The chain explanations in vv. 9–11 and 14–17 are about the state of believers, and these use the conditional clause with εἰ and εἴπερ as a linking bridge.15 In vv. 9–11, the Spirit of God (c8–23 [v. 9]) is used to connect believers to their relationship with Christ (cc8–24–25 [vv. 9–10]). This relationship also links believers to the Spirit of life (c8–28 [v. 10], who will give life to the mortal body of believers, just as he did in Jesus’ resurrection (cc8– 29–33 [v. 11]). Similarly, in vv. 14–17, Paul begins a chain connection with the Spirit (v. 14). The work of the Spirit of God makes believers into God’s sons (υἱοί: cc8–41–44 [vv. 14–15]). Also, the Spirit confirms the believers’ status as God’s children (τέκνα: v. 16), which links to their status as God’s heirs (κληρονόμοι: cc8–49–50 [v. 17]). The heirship is also connected to their co-heirship with Jesus (συγκληρονόμοι: c8–52 [v. 17]), leading believers to future glory (c8–54 [v. 17]). Showing a certain sequence in its explanation, this device appears to be an effective way to describe the condition of those who are in the old 15

Cc8–23, 24 (v. 9), 26 (v. 10), 29 (v. 11), 49, 53 (v. 17).

rom :–

399

and new realms. Of the two realms, Paul focuses more on the new salvific realm than the old realm, because he uses this method twice with regard to the condition of believers in the new realm (vv. 9–11 and 14–17). In addition, the appearance of three divine participants in the new realm also illustrates where Paul’s real interest lies. At the sentence level, Paul also uses various expressions to reveal his topical interest. In v. 1, he implies the significance of the following argument through ἄρα νῦν,16 and stresses the dimension of ‘no condemnation’ by putting οὐδέν in the Prime position of the primary clause.17 When Paul mentions God’s initiative in the salvific process in v. 3, he stresses God’s work by using a reversed word order τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν (ql [qualifier] + head). After explaining the situation of the old realm in vv. 7–8, Paul emphasizes the different situation of his reader in v. 9 by using the person pronoun ὑμεῖς in the T (Topic)—T (Theme)—P (Prime) position.18 In v. 11, the two embedded clauses in the apodosis (cc8–32–33) function to stress the role of the indwelling Spirit in future resurrection. As a repetition of c8–30, the former is about the work of the Spirit in Jesus’ resurrection. The latter functions to show the indwelling nature of the Spirit. In addition, the role of the Spirit in v. 11 is also stressed by the use of unusual expression, διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος ἐν ὑμῖν, which has two kinds of marked word order: a ql (αὐτοῦ) + head (πνεύματος) and a Rc (relative clause: τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος) + head term (πνεύματος). The phenomenon of marked order of ‘Rc + head term’ also appears in v. 14. Here, a relative clause, ὅσοι γὰρ πνεύματι θεοῦ ἄγονται, comes before the head term (οὗτοι), so that it would stress the role of the Spirit in leading the life of believers. An exclamation in v. 15 could be considered as a device for emphasis, in the sense that it makes the close relationship between believers and God more vivid. The pronoun αὐτό in v. 16 functions to stress the role of the Spirit in testifying to the the status of believers. Lastly, the use of εἴπερ in v. 17 is noticeable. As an emphatic marker of a condition,19 it highlights the co-suffering of believers as a result of their co-heirship with Jesus. This concern is even stressed by

16

Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 472. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 473; Jewett, Romans, 479. 18 Cf. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 489 n. 93; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 542 n. 203. 19 Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 1:785. 17

400

chapter nine

a phenomenon of secondarization, which occurs when the secondary clause comes after the primary clause in a conditional construction. Here, the εἴπερ clause (protasis) follows primary clauses (apodoses [cc5–51–52]). The same structure also appears in Rom 8:9, where the use of εἴπερ and secondarization emphasizes the indwelling Spirit as the cause of one’s condition in the new realm. In sum, according to the above observation, Paul’s overarching focal interest seems to be in the Holy Spirit. At the level beyond the sentence, the Spirit is located at the center of the devices of contrast and chain explanation. Likewise, at the sentence level, the Spirit is emphasized by several means. However, it would be misleading to think that Paul’s focus is to expound the doctrine of the Spirit per se. Instead, Paul’s techniques for emphasis throughout this sub-unit reveal that his real focus is on how the Spirit is related to the situation and the status of believers. The Spirit is relevant to believers’ transferring into the new realm, to their new status as God’s children, and even to their new life. D. Grouping 1) External evidence Unlike the preceding sub-units in Romans 6–7, where the diatribal objection works as an external evidence for grouping, Rom 8:1–17 is distinguished from Rom 7:13–25 by the use of ἄρα νῦν and the content of v. 1, such as ‘no condemnation’ and ‘in Christ.’ As mentioned in the logical analysis, Rom 8:1 signifies the continuity and discontinuity of this sub-unit with the preceding sub-units. In addition, the introduction of the Spirit as a new semantic boundary in v. 2 also works as external evidence for grouping. 2) Internal evidence As for the internal unity of this sub-unit, the major factor is the semantic chain conveyed by the contrast between the cognate of σάρξ and πνεῦμα. As a representative of each realm, their chain links determine not only the coherent structure of this sub-unit, but also the cohesive unity. Below is the chain link of two semantic domains.

rom :–

401

Rom. 8:1 οὐδέν ἄρα νῦν . . . ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ 2 ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς . . . ἠλευθέρωσέν σε . . . τῆς ἁμαρτίας . . . 3 τὸ γὰρ . . . διὰ τῆς σαρκός . . . ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέμψας ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς . . . τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί, 4 ἵνα . . . πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα 5

οἱ γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα ὄντες τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς φρονοῦσιν, εἱ δὲ κατὰ πνεῦμα τὰ τοῦ

πνεύματος 6 τὸ γὰρ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς θάνατος . . . τοῦ πνεύματος ζωὴ καὶ

εἰρήνη 7 διότι . . . τῆς σαρκὸς . . . οὐδὲ γὰρ δύναται 8 οἱ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ὄντες . . . οὐ δύνανται 9 ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἀλλὰ ἐν πνεύματι, εἴπερ πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν. εἰ δέ τις πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ . . . δικαιοσύνην 12

11

10

εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς . . . ὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωὴ διὰ

εἰ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα . . . ζῳοποιήσει . . . αὐτοῦ πνεύματος ἐν ὑμῖν

ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ὀφειλέται ἐσμὲν οὐ τῇ σαρκὶ τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆν

13

εἰ ὰρ

κατὰ σάρκα ζῆτε . . . εἰ δὲ πνεύματι . . . ζήσεσθε 14

ὅσοι γὰρ πνεύματι . . . θεοῦ εἰσιν

15

οὐ γὰρ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας πάλιν εἰς

φόβον ἀλλὰ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας ἐν ᾧ κράζομεν· αββα ὁ πατήρ

16

αὐτὸ τὸ

πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν . . .17 εἰ δὲ τέκνα . . . συνδοξασθῶμεν

E. Summary The position of Rom 8:1–17 in Paul’s argumentation is signified from the beginning of this sub-unit. Its relation to Rom 7:13–25 is shown in v. 1 through ἄρα νῦν and the counter description of those who are in the old realm. The utterance of πνεῦμα in v. 2 harks back to the statement about the new realm in Rom 7:6. In addition, the overarching antithesis between the old and new realms demonstrates that Rom 8:1–17 is derived from Paul’s explanation on two Adamic realms in Rom 5:12–21. The appearance of “no condemnation” and “in Christ” in v. 1 also supports the linkage between Rom 8:1–17 and 5:12–21. Moreover, the central role of Jesus in God’s salvific process in v. 3

402

chapter nine

is a reiteration of Paul’s previous arguments (Rom 3:21–26; 4:24–25; 5:6–8). Accordingly, the whole arguments of Rom 8:1–17 are about the situation of believers. Being transferred into the new salvific realm by the initial work of God through Jesus, believers are now experiencing a new status and condition through the Spirit. From this sub-unit several important points can be made. First, the appearance of three divine participants is noteworthy. Their works are mentioned in the context of believers’ salvific transfer from one realm to another. At the center of this process, there is a forensic disposal of sin through the sacrifice of Jesus (v. 3). In addition, these three divine participants in the salvific process also appear to have a close relationship to the believers’ status, especially their sonship and status as heirs in vv. 14–17. The second thing to note in this sub-unit is Paul’s attention to the Holy Spirit. Among the three divine participants, Paul puts more emphasis on the role of the Spirit. Yet it does not mean that the Spirit plays the most important role among the three. Instead, the stress on the Spirit indicates that Paul describes believers’ condition in the new realm from the standpoint of the Spirit. As God’s Spirit, the Holy Spirit appears as the sign and co-witness of believers’ new status. Also, he is the impetus for believers to live according to God’s will and a guarantee of their future resurrection. However, Paul is not interested in the theology of the Spirit itself, and this leads to the third important point that Paul does not lose sight of believers, particularly, of their new status and conditions in relation to the Spirit. This is shown by several semantic domains, such as 13.A, 10.B, 57.I, 35.G, and 12.A (ἀββά, πατήρ), and by several devices used for emphasis. After all, what Paul shows in this sub-unit is that Christians are now in the new salvific realm through divine initiative, and their new identity and life are confirmed and maintained by the Holy Spirit.

rom :–

403

2. Rom 8:18–30: The hope of future salvation and the present aids of the Holy Spirit and God A. Text analysis of Rom 8:18–30

404

chapter nine

rom :–

405

B. Topicality 1) Analysis of structure Rom 8:18–30 consists of fourteen primary, sixteen secondary, and sixteen embedded clauses.20 The primary clauses move Paul’s argument forward, while the secondary clauses support them by providing the content of cognitive knowledge (λογίζομαι [v. 18], οἴδαμεν [vv. 22, 28]), the protasis of a conditional structure (v. 25), and reason clauses with ὅτι (cc8–87 [v. 27], 92 [v. 29]) 21 and γάρ (c8–60 [v. 20]).

20 (1) Primary clauses: cc8–55 (v. 18), 59 (v. 19), 64 (v. 22), 67, 68 (v. 23), 71, 72, 74 (v. 24), 78 (v. 25), 79, 80, 83 (v. 26), 84 (v. 27), 88 (v. 28); (2) secondary clauses: cc8–56 (v. 18), 60 (v. 20), 63 (v. 21), 65, 66 (v. 22), 76 (v. 25), 87 (v. 27), 89 (v. 28), 92, 93 (v. 29), 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 (v. 30); and (3) embedded clauses: cc8–57, 58 (v. 18), 61, 62 (v. 20), 69, 70 (v. 23), 73, 75 (v. 24), 77 (v. 25), 81, 82 (v. 26), 85, 86 (v. 27), 90, 91 (v. 28), 94 (v. 29). 21 The ὅτι clause in v. 21 is debatable. Some MSS (P46 A B C D2 Ψ 0289 33 etc.) read ὅτι, which implies that the clause c8–63 (v. 21) is the content of hope in c8–60 (v. 20); but other MSS (‫ א‬D* F G 945 etc.) have διότι, which makes v. 21 a reason clause. Of the two, I opt for the former as original because, even though διότι is a harder reading, ὅτι has wider external support than διότι (Dunn, Romans 1–8, 471; Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 456; Fitzmyer, Romans,

406

chapter nine

As for the topical participants, three groups of participants appear in this sub-unit. One group is a divine group, consisting of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. God is mentioned as the relational counterpart of believers (c8–90 [v. 28]). He is also the one who hears the intercession of the Spirit and knows the mindset of the Spirit (cc8–81–86 [v. 27]). According to vv. 28–30, it is God who has the grand plan of salvation and takes initiative in unfolding it in history. However, the role of Jesus is relatively less mentioned compared to the use of other divine participants In the process of God’s salvation in v. 29, Jesus is both the archetype of believers’ final state (συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ: “being confirmed to the image of Son”) and the preeminent firstborn (πρωτότοκον) among believers. The Holy Spirit appears as a helper of believers in vv. 26–27. On behalf of vulnerable believers, who live in the eschatological tension between ‘already’ and ‘not yet,’ the Spirit makes intercession according to God’s will with unspeakable groans. The second category is believers. They are called “we,” “God’s sons” (v. 21), “saints” (v. 27), “those who love God” (v. 28), “those who are called by God” (v. 28), and “brothers and sisters” (ἀδελφοῖς: v. 29). As the object of God’s grand salvific plan in vv. 29–30, they have now the Spirit as the guarantee of their identity (c8–69 [v. 23]) and future restoration. On the other hand, believers’ present situation is also depicted with “groans” (στενάζομεν). Being related to believers’ present suffering with Christ (cf. Rom 8:17), such a situation makes believers wait eagerly for the future redemption of their bodies in hope (vv. 23–25). The third category is non-human creation (κτίσις). As a personified entity, the non-human creation appears as the grammatical subject in vv. 19–22. In the present time, it is also groaning, because it is subjected to futility. As a result, creation eagerly anticipates future restoration. From the above observation about the participants, two significant points can be made. One point is that the overall topical interest in this sub-unit lies in believers’ state and the role of the Spirit and God 509; Byrne, Romans, 261; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 506; Schreiner, Romans, 440; J.R. Michaels, “The Redemption of Our Body,” in Sven K. Soderlund and N.T. Wright [eds.] Romans and the People of God [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 110 n. 36; contra Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 2:155; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:415; Bryan, A Preface to Romans, 151; Jewett, Romans, 504).

rom :–

407

in the grand salvific plan. In this regard, one interesting feature is that all creation is involved in this grand plan of God as a participant who waits for future divine intervention. The other point is that each participant forms a topical division of this sub-unit. That is, the structure of Rom 8:18–30 can be discerned according to the occurrences of each participant: creation (vv. 19–22); believers (vv. 23–25); the Holy Spirit (v. 26) and God (v. 27);22 and God (vv. 28–30). In each segment, each participant appears as the grammatical subject in the Subject or as the reduced subject (e.g., God in vv. 29–30). 2) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 12.A (the Holy Spirit: x4) (2) 42.C (Make, Create: x3) (3) 25.D (Hope, Look Forward To: x2); 67 (x2): A, B (4) 53.B, 57.A, 92.B, 24.A, 27.D, 26

Predicators

(1) 28.A (Know: x4); 25.D (x4) (2) 30 (x3): E (To Decide, To Conclude: x2), A (To Think, Thought) (3) 25.L (Laugh, Cry, Groan: x2); 33.C′ (Call: x2); 34.E (δικ-word: x2); 37 (x2): A, J (4) 24.F; 21.F; 13.A; 35.A; 33.I′; 27.D; 42.B; 79.E

Complements (1) 12.A (x5): God (x2), Jesus, the Holy Spirit (x2) (2) 24.A (See: x2); 25 (x2): C (Love, Affection, Compassion), D; 65 (x2): B (Worthy, Not Worthy), C (Useful, Useless) (3) 28.C; 10.B; 74; 92.B; 33.M; 71.D; 26; 30.D; 33.C′; 13.A; 58.A; 6.M

22 Verse 27 contains both God and the Holy Spirit. However, the main participant is God, because while God is the grammatical subject in the primary clause, the Spirit appears as an implied subject in the secondary clause. It indicates that the focus of the participant is shifted from the Holy Spirit, who makes intercession on behalf of believers (v. 26), to God, who listens the intercession of the Spirit (v. 27). Probably, the conjunction δέ also signifies this shift. Nevertheless, vv. 26–27 should be regarded as one part because verses 26 and 27 are connected by the theme of the Spirit’s intercession with groaning.

408

chapter nine

(cont.) Semantic domains Adjuncts

(1) 37 (x4): A (Control, Restrain: x2), J (Release, Set Free: x2) (2) 25.D (x3); cf. 25.C, E, L, O; 10.B (x3) (3) 79.E (Glorious: x2); 11.B (Socio-Religious: x2); 92.B (x2), cf. 92.D; 12.A (God: x2); 67.B (x2), cf. 67.E (4) 28.C; 23.M; 8.A; 33.F; 13.A

Overall lists

(1) 12.A (x11): God (x4), Jesus, the Holy Spirit (x6) (2) 25.D (Hope, Look Forward To: x10) (3) 37 (x6): A (Control, Restrain: x3), J (Release, Set Free: x3) (4) 92.B (x4); 10.B (Kinship Relations Involving Successive Generations: x4), cf. υἱός as Jesus (x1); 28.A (x4) (5) 67.B (x3), cf. with regard to time: 67.A (x1), E (x1); 25.L (Laugh, Cry, Groan: x3); 24.A (See: x3); 33.C′ (Call: x3); 79.E (Glorious: x3); 13.A (x3) (6) 28.C (x2); 27.D (x2); 11.B (x2); 26 (x2); 30.E (x2); 34.E (x2)

Semantic domain 12.A is the most frequent domain in this sub-unit. Out of eleven instances, God appears four times, while Jesus and the Spirit are mentioned once and six times, respectively. The relatively high frequency of the Spirit indicates that the topical concern of this sub-unit is somewhat relevant to Rom 8:1–17. Yet the more noticeable feature is ten occurrences of 25.D. Together with the temporal references (67 [x5]), it extends the temporal horizon of Paul’s argument to the future. In relation to this semantic domain, several observations can be made. First, all the logical subjects of the five verbal forms (ἀπεκδέχομαι [vv. 19, 23, 25] and ἐλπίζω [vv. 24, 25]) are creation or believers, and two nouns (ἀποκαραδοκία and ἐλπίς) are used to describe their present way of life. This indicates that 25.D is relevant to the present situation of creation and believers. Second, in regard to domain 25.D, two kinds of semantic group appear in contrast: one is related to the present situation of creation and believers, while the other is relevant to their future state.23 Third, in v. 25, Paul encourages believers to have ὑπομονή (domain 25.O 23

(1) Present condition: 24.F (Pain, Suffering: πάθημα [v. 18] and συνωδίνω [v. 22]), 64.D (Useful, Useless: ματαιότης [v. 20]), 37.J (Release, Set Free: v. 21), 23.M (Rot, Decay: φθορά [v. 21]), and 25.L (Laugh, Cry, Groan: συστενάζω [vv. 22, 23]);

rom :–

409

[Patience, Endurance, Perseverance]) in the situation related to 25.D. According to these observations, the high frequency of domain 25 implies that the topical issue in this sub-unit is about the situation of creation and believers in the temporal contrast between the present and the future. Paul’s interest in the temporal aspect is also revealed in the semantic chain of God’s grand salvation in vv. 29–30. The first three finite verbs signify their temporal aspect with the prefix προ (προέγνω, προώρισεν [x2]; cf. πρόθεσιν in v. 28). Also, the last verb ἐδόξασεν (domain 79.E) connotes the future state in God’s plan, because the same domain is used to designate the future blessing in vv. 18 and 21. Consequently, God’s grand plan of salvation here has a temporal sequence, which begins in the past and extends into the future. In sum, the above observations lead to a conclusion that the overall topical issues in this sub-unit are closely related to the temporal aspect in God’s salvific scheme. In this scheme, particularly, the main topical concern seems to be relevant to the comparison between the present and future situations of creation and believers, as well as the role of the Spirit. The situation of creation and believers in two temporal frames can be diagrammed as below:

Present situation (67 [Time: νῦν καιρός, ἄχρι]) The creation * 24.F (πάθημα and συνωδίνω) * 64.D (ματαιότης) + 37.A (ὑποτάσσω) * 37.J (δουλεία) + 23.M (φθορά) * 25.L (συστενάζω) Believers * 24.F (πάθημα) * 25.L (συστενάζω) * cf. 74 (ἀσθένεια [v. 26])

25.D (ἀπεκδέχομαι, the cognates of ἐλπίς)

25.O (ὑπομονή)

Future situation (67.B [μέλλω]) The creation * 37.J (the cognates of ἐλευθερόω: x2) * 79.E (δόξα)

Believers * 35.G (υἱοθεσία) * 37.J (ἀπολύτρωσις) * 79.E (δόξα) * 21.F (σῴζω)

and (2) future condition: 35.G (Adopt: v. 23), 37.J (vv. 21 [x2], 23), 79.E (Glorious: v. 19), and 21.F (Save in a Religious Sense: v. 24).

410

chapter nine

3) Analysis of logical relations Paul begins Rom 8:18–30 with a comparison, which consists of two components: (1) a temporal comparison between present suffering and future glory, and (2) believers as the beneficiaries of future blessing. These components connect Rom 8:18–30 to Rom 8:17. Moreover, these two components appear as the topical sources in the following argument. Thus, v. 18 seems to function as both a transition and a topical introduction in Rom 8:18–30. In the following argument, there are two areas that suffer from the tension between the two temporal conditions. The first one is creation (vv. 19–22). Creation is now under the power of death; yet it eagerly anticipates the future restoration, which is related to the appearance of God’s children. Here, Paul’s wording reminds us of two things. Co-texually, the use of δουλεία and the cognates of ἐλευθερόω in v. 21 recalls the slavery image in Romans 6. Since the slavery image in Romans 6 is relevant to the two kinds of human condition in two realms, the use of the same image in Rom 8:20–21 probably reflects Paul’s ongoing argumentative scheme of two realms. If this is the case, the future restoration of creation can be understood as its transfer from the old Adamic realm into the new salvific realm. The appearance of the children of God can be viewed as the signal of their future restoration. This observation also leads to an intertextual correspondence of Rom 8:21–22 to the narrative of Genesis 3. In Gen 3:17–18, that creation was affected by the result of Adam’s sin according to God’s command. So the description in Rom 8:21 that creation is now obeying the power of death by the will of God implies creation’s present belonging to the old realm, where death dominates over the universe (cf. Rom 5:16). That is the reason why creation has been groaning in labor pains until now (Rom 8:22). Therefore, the situation of creation is related to the process of God’s salvation in a way that its fate is closely associated with the state of humans in two realms. Just as Adam’s sin and its result have enslaved creation by the power of death, the disposal of human sin and its result will bring the reversal of the situation of creation. The reversed situation means that the creation will be liberated from the slavery of death and belong to the new salvific realm of God, where life governs. However, even though the coming of God’s children is the sign of the inaugurated new salvific realm, the full restoration of creation is the future event. Thus, creation still waits for the future consummation with groans.

rom :–

411

In addition to creation, believers, who have the Spirit, also suffer from the tension between the two temporal conditions (vv. 23–25). Such tension is not related to the defectiveness of God’s salvation, nor the impotence of the Spirit. Instead, it is relevant to the two facts. One is the weakness of believer’s body (cc8–70 [v. 23] and 79 [v. 26]), which easily interacts with the sinful power in the old realm. The other fact is the temporal gap in God’s plan, which is between one’s entering into the new realm and the future complete redemption of the body (v. 23). Regarding this tension, Paul encourages believers to live with patience in the hope of future salvation in v. 24–25, and expounds the divine role in response to the two reasons for believers’ tension in vv. 26–30. First, as for the weakness of believers, the Holy Spirit is mentioned as a helper for them. In relation to prayer, the Spirit especially intercedes on behalf of believers. This intercessory role of the Spirit connects believers to God in two ways. First, although vulnerable believers do not know what to pray,24 they can still stand in the process of God’s salvific plan, because the Spirit pleads for them according to God’s will (κατὰ θεὸν: c8–87 [v. 27]). On the other hand, the agony of believers can also be delivered to God through the unspeakable groans (στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις) of the Spirit. Being consonant with the groans of believers, the unspeakable groans may represent the way of the Spirit’s intercession.25 Accordingly, the intercession of the Spirit

24 Even though some think that the help of the Spirit is related to the believers’ manner in prayer (“how to pray: Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 212; NEB; NASB; NRSV), τί should be regarded as the object of προσευξώμεθα. Thus, the matter is not about “how (πῶς)” but about “what” (Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:421; P.T. O’Brien, “Romans 8:26, 27: A Revolutionary Approach to Prayer?,” RTR 46 [1987], 66–67; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 477; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 575 n. 306, 579; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 523; Schreiner, Romans, 443; Jewett, Romans, 522; NIV; NLT). 25 There is a debate on the understanding of the phrase. Largely, three options have been proposed. The first one is that it indicates glossolalia. In spite of Fee’s long defense of this view (Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 575–87; E. Käsemann, “The Cry for Liberty in the Worship of the Church,” in Perspectives on Paul [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971], 122–37; Cf. Fee has changed his mind in his article, G.D. Fee, “Toward a Pauline Theology of Glossolalia,” in Wonsuk Ma and R.P. Menzies [eds.] Pentecostalism in Context: Essays in Honor of William W. Menzies [JPTS 11; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997], 24–37), the allusion of glossolalia is not likely, because it does not fit this co-text. While glossalalia is a restricted gift of the Spirit for some believers (cf. 1 Cor 12:30), as Moo points out, “the ‘groans’ here are means of intercession that

412

chapter nine

is important for believers in that it not only makes God acknowledge the situation of believers, but also facilitates fulfilling God’s will in believers’ lives despite their weaknesses. Second, with regard to the temporal gap in God’s plan, God is introduced as the one who set up the grand salvific plan, is now performing it, and will complete it in the future (vv. 28–30). In v. 28, Paul explains God’s continuing work for believers through the interactions among God, believers, and all things (πάντα). Among the interactions the main interest seems to be in the one that happens between all things and believers, since believers appear as the beneficiaries, and πάντα as the grammatical and logical subject.26 The interaction between God and believers is mentioned in the participial embedded clauses (cc8–90, 91), and its function is to provide a depiction of the state of believers. Nonetheless, the overall depiction of v. 28 is not irrelevant to

come to the aid of all believers” (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 525). The second one refers to believers’ groans (Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 135; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 312; O’Brien, “Romans 8:26, 27,” 70–73; Schlatter, Romans, 190–91; Schreiner, Romans, 446–47). However, since the grammatical and logical subject in this clause (c8–83) is the Spirit, there is no reason to think the groans as human petition, unless there is a clear indication. In this sense, the third view that it denotes the Spirit’s prayer is more plausible (Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 422–24; E.A. Obeng, “The Origin of the Spirit Intercession Motif in Romans 8:26,” NTS 32 [1986], 621–32; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 478; idem, “Spirit Speech: Reflection on Romans 8:12–27,” in Sven K. Soderlund and N.T. Wright [eds.] Romans and the People of God [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 89; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 525–26; Wright, “Romans,” 599; Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 226; Jewett, Romans, 523–24). 26 As to the subject of συνεργεῖ in v. 28, three options have been proposed. The first one is God (NIV; NASB; NRSV; TNIV; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 292 n. 45), and it is attested by P46 A B etc. However, this reading is most likely secondary, because it is hard to explain the omission of God in many MSS. In addition, their supports are narrow (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 528; Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 518; C.D. Osburn, “The Interpretation of Romans 8:28,” WTJ 44 [1982], 103–105, 109). The second option is the Spirit (NEB; REB; M. Black, “The Interpretation of Romans 8:28,” in W.C. van Unnik [ed.] Neotestamentica et Patristica: eine Freundegabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag überreicht [NovTSup 6; Leiden: Brill, 1962], 166–72; Bruce, Romans, 166; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 588–90; Jewett, Romans, 527). This view is also not likely, because οἴδαμεν in c8–88 (v. 28) probably implies a shift of participant from the Spirit to God. And even in v. 27, the subject of the primary clause is God, not the Spirit, who listens the prayer of the Spirit. The third view is that the grammatical subject is all things (πάντα). I opt for this view (Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 158–59; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 314; Fitzmyer, Romans, 523; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 528; Schreiner, Romans, 449; Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 221).

rom :–

413

God’s agency.27 In fact, its content reflects the providence of God, who does not neglect the agony of believers, but carries out his salvific plan for them through everything that has happened to believers, including their suffering itself (cf. Rom 8:17). God’s interest in the suffering of believers is also well demonstrated in God’s grand salvific plan in vv. 29–30. As the ground of the proposition in v. 28, it highly focuses on the dimension of God’s action through a series of five verbs (προέγνω, προώρισεν, ἐκάλεσεν, ἐδικαίωσεν, and ἐδόξασεν). In this depiction, Paul shows the relevance of God’s plan to suffering believers through two kinds of indicators. One is the reference of believers in this scheme of salvation. Throughout the description of God’s plan, only believers are mentioned as the beneficiaries of the process of God’s salvation. This may indicate that Paul’s real interest in this scheme is not to expound God’s plan itself, but to demonstrate the relevance of God’s grand plan to believers, who suffer from the tension between the two temporal dimensions.28 The second indicator is the temporal sequence of God’s acts. Even though all verbs have aorist tense forms, it is hard to deny that each link between preceding and following verbs connotes a temporal sequence. This temporal sequence of God’s plan may imply that, since God’s grand salvific plan consists of the temporal steps from the past to future, the tension between the present and future stages in believers’ lives is not strange. Yet the more significant implication is that God works in each temporal step of his scheme. Thus, believers can ascertain their future glorious state in spite of present suffering, because God is now fulfilling his plan and will complete it. After all, what Paul intends to explain through vv. 28–30 is the role of God as a helper for suffering believers. That is, even though the salvific plan has a time gap between present and future, God is working and fulfilling his plan for believers. In sum, according to the above observations, the topical issues of this sub-unit are related to the two factors. One factor is a temporal

27

Schreiner, Romans, 449. Jewett comments that “Paul’s aim here is not to establish an abstract doctrine of predestination or sonship, or to invite ‘reflection on the classic problems of determinism and free will,’ but to reassure the vulnerable, harried believers in Rome that their lives and work have significance in the grand plan of God for the restoration of the creation through the recovery of ‘sonship’ by conforming to the image of Christ” (Jewett, Romans, 529). 28

414

chapter nine

comparison between present and future, and the other is the participants. As for the temporal comparison, the topical issue in this sub-unit is different from the preceding sub-units, since this sub-unit does not deal with the contrast between past and present, but between present and future. Even in the case of all creation, the focus of the comparison is not on the contrast between past and present. In this sense, the topical issue in this sub-unit is only related to the temporal situation in the new salvific realm. As for the participants, the topical issues in this sub-unit are closely connected to the situation or to the role of the participants, because the argument of Rom 8:18–30 advances according to the participants. The first two participants, creation and believers, appear as those who suffer from the tension between the two temporal sequences and anticipate the future consummation. The latter two participants, God and the Spirit, are the helpers, who enable believers to endure present suffering in hope. The Spirit supports believers through intercessory prayer, and God sustains them by answering the Spirit’s plead and fulfilling his plan. Of the four, Paul’s interest seems to be in believers, because the role of the divine participants is explained only in relation to the condition of believers. Therefore, as stated in v. 18, the topical issue of this sub-unit is about the present situation of believers, who endure present suffering in anticipation of future redemption. C. Focality In relation to topicality, Paul also uses several devices in order to highlight his interest. Most of them are found with regard to the situation or the role of the participants. In v. 21, Paul emphasizes creation as the agent, which has the hope of future restoration, through the addition of καί and αὐτή (καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις: “the creation itself ”).29 As to believers, Paul stresses the shift of topical participant from creation to believers by marked expressions in v. 23.30 Here, the additional participial embedded clause and its forward position with αὐτοί probably reflect Paul’s interest in the state of believers who have the first fruit of the Spirit. In addition, the repetition of αὐτοί doubles his emphasis on

29

Jewett, Romans, 514 n. 72.

30

Αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἔχοντες, ἡμεῖς καὶ αὐτοὶ.

rom :–

415

believers.31 Similarly, in v. 26 Paul uses prominence markers in relation to the Spirit. Interestingly, as in the case of creation and believers, his focus is not on the act of the Spirit but on the Spirit as the actor: καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα and αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα. Probably it indicates that although the act of the Spirit is important, his intention is to say that it is the Spirit who helps believers through intercessory prayer. Lastly, with regard to God in vv. 28–30, Paul focuses not on God himself, but on God’s act in the salvation plan. This is because Paul describes each stage of God’s plan with a chain of double references: προέγνω → προώρισεν → προώρισεν → ἐκάλεσεν → ἐκάλεσεν → ἐδικαίωσεν → ἐδικαίωσεν → ἐδόξασεν. Yet the repetitive use of τούτους also reveals his interest in believers as the beneficiaries of God’s act.32 In sum, through various devices, Paul reveals his topical concerns for the situation of creation and believers in the temporal tension between the present and future, and the role of the divine participants with regard to them. D. Grouping 1) External evidence Rom 8:18 shows its close connection to Rom 8:17 through semantic domains 24.F (συμπάσχω [v. 17] and πάθημα [v. 18]) and 79.E (συνδοξάζω [v. 17] and δόξα [v. 18]), together with the two temporal dimensions of the present and future. These factors indicate that this sub-unit is not totally separated from the previous sub-unit. However, there are two reasons to see Rom 8:18–30 as a discrete sub-unit. The first reason is the use of the comparison between present suffering and future glory as the major argumentative framework. This is a very distinct feature, because the overall temporal scheme in Rom 8:1–17 is between past and present. The second reason is the appearance of semantic domain 25.D (Hope, Look Forward To). Since there is no occurrence of this domain after Rom 5:1–11, the recurrence of this domain makes this sub-unit distinctive. Thus, although Rom 8:18–30 is not irrelevant to the preceding sub-unit, the apparent shift of the temporal framework in Paul’s argument demonstrates that his topical interest has moved. Therefore, Rom 8:18–30 can be regarded as another sub-unit. 31 32

Jewett, Romans, 518. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 535.

416

chapter nine

2) Internal evidence The internal unity of this sub-unit is mainly delivered through a comparison between the present and future situations. This comparative scheme works as the backdrop of Paul’s argument, in which each topical participant is mentioned one by one. Moreover, this temporal scheme helps to acknowledge the cohesive aspect of the unit and its nature. Several important semantic chain links are shown according to the two temporal situations. First, as to the present situation, semantic domain 24.F connects a topical introduction (v. 18) to the case of creation (v. 22). Domain 25.L (Laugh, Cry, Groan) reveals the relatedness among the present situation of creation (v. 22), believers (v. 23), and the Spirit (v. 26). In addition, the anticipation of future situation also binds creation (vv. 19, 20) and believers (vv. 23–25). Second, regarding future situation, domain 79.E links a topical introduction (v. 18), creation (v. 21), believers, and God (v. 30). Domain 10.B is shown in relation to future restoration, and connects the creation (vv. 19, 21), believers (v. 23), and God’s plan (v. 29). Therefore, the internal unity of this sub-unit is established by the coherent temporal comparison between the present and future, and by the cohesive semantic chains. The internal unity of this sub-unit can be diagrammed as below:33 E. Summary In connection to Rom 8:17, Rom 8:18–30 deals with a comparative temporal situation between present and future. In between these two temporal sequences, creation suffers from the power of death in the old realm and looks forward to joining in the freedom of the glory of believers in the new salvific realm. Believers who have the Spirit also groan because of the tension between ‘already’ and ‘not yet.’ Even though they are transferred from the old realm to the new through their faith in Jesus, the complete redemption remains to be fulfilled in the future. Thus, it is necessary for them to live with patience in hope. However, believers do not stand alone in such temporal tension, because the Spirit and God sustain them. When believers do not know what to pray, the Spirit helps their weakness by intercessory prayer performed according to God’s will. Moreover, God even supports

33 Here, the bold and italic markers indicate the semantic domains related to the present situation. The boxed and the underlined markers denote the future situation and the semantic domain 25.D, respectively.

rom :–

417

Present situation

Future situation Rom 8:18 λογίζομαι . . . οὐκ ἄξια τὰ παθήματα τοῦ νῦν

24.F

79.E

καιροῦ πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι . . . 19

ἡ γὰρ ἀποκαραδοκία τῆς κτίσεως . . . τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ

ἀπεκδέχεται

20

τῇ γὰρ ματαιότητι . . . ἐφ᾽ἑλπίδι

21

ὅτι καὶ

αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις . . . εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ 23

25.L

22

. . . πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει καὶ συνωδίνει . . .

οὐ μόνον δέ . . . ἡμεῖς . . . ἐν ἑαυτοῖς στενάζομεν υἱοθεσίαν

ἀπεκδεχόμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν γὰρ ἐλπίδι ἐσώθημεν· ἐλπὶς . . . ἐλπίς . . . τίς ἐλπίζει

25

24

τῇ

εἰ . . .

ἐλπίζομεν, δι᾽ὑπομονῆς ἀπεκδεχόμεθα 26

28

ὡσαύτως . . . στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις

27

ὁ δὲ . . . ἁγίων

10.B

οἴδαμεν . . . κλητοῖς οὖσιν 29 . . . ἐκάλεσεν . . . τοῦ υἱοῦ

αὐτοῦ . . .30 οὓς . . . προώρισεν . . . ἐκάλεσεν . . . ἐκάλεσεν . . . ἐδικαίωσεν . . . ἐδικαίωσεν . . . ἐδόξασεν

believers by answering the intercession of the Spirit and by fulfilling his grand salvation plan. In this sub-unit, Paul extends the temporal horizon of God’s salvific process to the future. In this sense, Rom 8:18–30 seems to be connected to Rom 5:1–11, which has the futuristic aspect of salvation. However, in two respects Rom 8:18–30 is distinguished from Rom 5:1–11. First, there is no utterance of believers’ past situation in Rom 8:18–30. Second, while God and Jesus appear as the major divine participants in the salvific process in Rom 5:1–11, Rom 8:18–30 focuses on the Spirit and God. Therefore, in connection to Rom 5:1–11, Rom 8:18–30 demonstrates not only the present situation of believers and creation, who eagerly anticipate the futuristic aspect of God’s salvation, but also the role and act of the Spirit and God for them.

418

chapter nine 3. Rom 8:31–39: Assurance of God’s salvation

A. Text analysis of Rom 8:31–39

rom :–

419

B. Topicality 1) Analysis of structure Rom 8:31–39 consists of ten primary, ten secondary, and eight embedded clauses.34 The primary clauses convey a series of Paul’s rhetorical questions and responses.35 The secondary clauses deliver a protasis 34 (1) Primary clauses: cc8–101, 103 (v. 31), 107, 108 (v. 33), 110, 112 (v. 34), 117, 118 (v. 35), 122 (v. 37), 124 (v. 38); (2) secondary clauses: cc8–102 (v. 31), 104, 105, 106 (v. 32), 115, 116 (v. 34), 119, 120, 121 (v. 36), 125 (v. 38); and (3) embedded clauses: cc8–109 (v. 33), 111, 113, 114 (v. 34), 123 (v. 37), 126, 127 (v. 38), 128 (v. 39). 35 According to the punctuation in vv. 33–34, the number of total rhetorical questions varies from seven to ten: (1) seven questions (NA 26/27; most commentators; cf. NJB renders cc8–112–116 [v. 34] as a question, but it translates vv. 35–36 as one question); (2) eight questions (RSV: “Is it Jesus . . . for us?” [v. 34]); (3) nine questions (Fitzmyer, Romans, 528–33; NEB; cf. Barrett regards the clauses about God [c8–108] and Christ [cc8–112–116] in vv. 33–34 as two rhetorical questions [Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 171–74]); or (4) ten questions (Jewett even divides two participial clauses [ὁ ἀποθανών and μᾶλλον δὲ ἐγερθείς] in v. 34 as two questions [Jewett, Romans, 533]). Among them, the first and third renderings consistently reflect the syntactical parallel between the participial clauses about God (c8–108 [v. 33]) and Jesus (cc8–112–116 [v. 34]). Yet, the third rendering has a problem that it results

420

chapter nine

(c8–102), relative clauses (cc8–104–105, 115–116), a citation of the OT (v. 35), and the content of Paul’s assurance (c8–125 [v. 38–39]). The embedded clauses not only work to explain the subjects (cc8–109 [v. 33], 111, 113, 114 [v. 34]) and the verb (v. 37), but also function as an object of a verb (v. 39). Regarding the topical participants of this sub-unit, there are three participant groups. The first one is the divine group, to which God and Jesus belong. These divine participants appear as the logical subject of a process in vv. 31–35. God is mentioned as the ultimate protector of believers. He is the one who loves and justifies believers through Jesus. Jesus is also shown as a defender of believers’ state. He has made the door of God’s salvation open to believers through his sacrificial death and resurrection. Moreover, he is now at the right side of God, and makes intercession for believers. The second one is the human group, which believers and Paul belong to. Believers, who are indicated by the first person plural reference, are the relational counterpart of the divine group. They appear as the beneficiaries of divine protection. Through the love of divine participants, believers can conquer hardship (ὑπερνικῶμεν) and stand firm in their relationship with the divine participants (v. 37). Through the first person singular reference, Paul even reveals his assurance (πέπεισμαι) in v. 38 that no one can separate believers from God. The third group is the power potentially opposing the state of believers. Being introduced by the interrogative pronoun τίς, this group includes seventeen personified threats in vv. 35 and 38–39.36 In sum, Rom 8:31–39 consists of a series of rhetorical questions and responses. Within this structure, three groups are mentioned as the major participants whose relationship can be summarized as the following: the divine participants in the salvific process (God and Jesus)

in depicting God and Jesus as potential accusers (Byrne, Romans, 279). Thus, the punctuation of NA 26/27, which describes God and Jesus as guarantees of believers’ state, is the most plausible, since it fits well with the overall co-text. Consequently, the rhetorical questions are seven in the primary clause cc8–101, 103 (v. 31), 107 (v. 33), 110 (v. 34), 117, and 118 (v. 35), and in the secondary clause c8–106 (v. 32). 36 (1) In v. 35: θλῖψις (“tribulation”), στενοχωρία (“distress”), διωγμὸς (“persecution”), λιμὸς (“famine”), γυμνότης (“nakedness”), κίνδυνος (“peril”), and μάχαιρα (“sword”); and (2) in vv. 38–39: θάνατος (“death”), ζωὴ (“life”), ἄγγελοι (“angels”), ἀρχαί (“principalities”), ἐνεστῶτα (“things present”), μέλλοντα (“things future”), δυνάμεις (“powers”), ὕψωμα (“height”), βάθος (“depth”), and τις κτίσις ἑτέρα (“any other created thing”).

rom :–

421

will defend and protect the state of believers against potentially threatening opponents. 2) Analysis of semantic domains

Semantic domains Subjects

(1) 12.A (Supernatural Beings and Powers: x6): A (God: x2; angels: x2), B (Supernatural Powers: x2); 22.A (Trouble, Hardship, Distress: x2); 23.G (Live, Die: x2) (2) 1 (Geographical Objects and Features: x2): B (Regions Above the Earth), C (Regions Below the Surface of the Earth) (3) 93.A (Jesus); 39.I; 23.A; 49; 21.A; 6.G; 13.B; 67.B; 76; 42.C; 58.F

Predicators

(1) 57.H (Give: x2) (2) 33 (x4): B′ (Urge, Persuade), E (Written Language), F (Speak, Talk), V′ (Accuse, Blame) (3) 22.C; 13.A; 27.D; 63.G; 23.G; 30.A; 39.L; 74

Complements

(1) 92.B (‘we’: x4) (2) 12.A (x3): God (x2), Jesus (cf. 93.A [Jesus]: x1) (3) 57.A; 34.E; 56.E; 23.G; 63.G; 25.C

Adjuncts

(1) 92.B (x5) (2) 12.A (God: x2); 25.C (Love, Affection, Compassion: x2) (3) 30.F; 82.B; 92.C; 63.A; 67.I; 4.A; 20.D; 93.A (Jesus)

Overall lists

(1) Divine participants (x10): God (x6); Jesus (x4) (2) Believers: 92.B (x9) (3) 23.G (x4) (4) 25.C (x3)

Among the three groups discussed in the analysis of structure, the divine group (God [x6] and Jesus [x4]) and the believers (92.B [‘we’]: x9) are mentioned most frequently. This information indicates that the relationship between believers and the divine participants is the main topical concern in this sub-unit. Moreover, the position of each group in a clause provides another insight into the relationship between the two participant groups. While the divine group occurs in the Subject (x3), Complement (x4), and Adjunct (x3), believers only appears in the Complement (x4) and Adjunct (x5). This observation leads to the idea that it is the divine participants who take the initiative in sustaining their relationship with believers. Even believers’ triumph over the

422

chapter nine

earthly threatening powers in v. 37 is achieved through the help of divine participants. Semantic domains 23.G (x4) and 25.C (x3) are also relatively high frequent semantic domains. Two instances of 23.G are used to describe Jesus’ death and resurrection in v. 34, and the last two appear as the threatening power against believers in v. 38. Referring to the divine love, domain 25.C works to maintain the relationship between believers and the divine participants in vv. 35–39. In addition to the frequency of semantic domains, the repetitive patterns of several domains shed light on the structure of this sub-unit. At the outset, the three rhetorical questions in cc8–103 (v. 31), 107 (v. 33), and 110 (v. 34) have a judicial situation in common. The preposition or prefix κατά (“against”) in each question implies their situation. Domains 33.V′ (ἐγκαλέσει) in c8–107 and 56.E (κατακρινῶν) in c8–110 well demonstrate their judicial characteristics. In addition, the use of ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν in cc8–102 (v. 31) and 116 (v. 34) provide evidence to regard cc8–102–116 as a segment of this sub-unit. The rhetorical question in c8–117 (v. 35) contains different domains, such as 63.G, 23.C, and the divine participants. These domains also reappear in the last clause of this sub-unit (c8–128). So, vv. 35–39 can be one part, which mentions the matter of believers’ separation from God. Therefore, according to the semantic patterns, the overall structure of Rom 8:31–39 can be divided into three: (1) an introductory rhetorical question (c8–101 [v. 31]); (2) rhetorical questions about the judicial situation (cc8–102– 116 [vv. 31–34]); and (3) rhetorical questions about the relationship between believers and the divine group (cc8–117–128 [v. 35–39]).37 3) Analysis of logical relations Rom 8:31–39 begins with a rhetorical question: τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν πρὸς ταῦτα (“What then shall we say to these things?”). In this question, an inferential conjunction οὖν and an anaphoric reference ταῦτα (“these things”) in c8–101 (v. 31) reveal that the content of this sub-unit is based upon Paul’s preceding arguments. Particularly, the latter is the topical backdrop of this sub-unit. What, then, does ταῦτα refer to? There is no scholarly consensus on this issue.38 However, since the 37

Byrne, Romans, 275. In general, four options have been proposed: (1) it refers to the whole argument of Paul from Rom 1:16 to 8:30 (Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:434–35; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 334; Dunn, 38

rom :–

423

following rhetorical questions and responses are related to ταῦτα, they not only deliver Paul’s argument on the issue of ταῦτα, but also imply its content. The first group of rhetorical questions (cc8–102–116 [vv. 31–34]) is relevant to the forensic situation. As mentioned in the analysis of semantic domains, each question assumes an opposed or antagonistic condition against believers (‘us’). Yet, by evoking a negative answer from the readers, all rhetorical questions work to vindicate believers’ state against the opposed. Moreover, Paul’s self-responses to each question also defend believers. The first response is about God’s favor. If God stands on the believers’ side, no one can be against them. This is because God, who did not spare his own son but gave him up (παρέδωκεν) as a sacrifice for the sins of believers (cf. Rom 4:25), will give believers everything with Jesus (v. 32). The second response is related to the justification of God (c8–108 [v. 33]). Since God, who is the ultimate judge, justified and chose believers as his people (cf. Rom 8:30), no one can bring a charge against them. The third self-response of Paul to his rhetorical question is related to Jesus Christ. There is no one to accuse believers, because Christ is on their side, who died and was resurrected in order to bring God’s forgiveness and justification to believers (cf. Rom 4:25; 5:9). Moreover, he is now at the right hand of God, and intercedes for believers. Therefore, the judicial focus in cc8–102–116 (vv. 31–34) may indicate that one facet of ταῦτα is Paul’s previous argument on the forensic aspect of God’s salvation. In this regard, Paul affirms that no one can shake the state of believers, because their condition is vindicated by the ultimate judge and the heavenly intercessor. The second group of questions and responses is relevant to the stability of the relationship between believers and the divine participants: Is it possible for any power to separate believers from divine love? Here, although Paul begins with a rhetorical question in c8–117 (v. 35),

Romans 1–8, 499; Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 231); (2) it refers to the immediate preceding verses, Rom 8:28 or 29–30 (Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 279); (3) it means Romans 8 or 8:18–30 (Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 322; Fitzmyer, Romans, 530; Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 265); or (4) it refers to the whole Rom 5:1–8:30 (Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 146; Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 171; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 2:172; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 246; A.H. Snyman, “Style and the Rhetorical Situation of Romans 8:31–39,” NTS 34 [1988], 218–31; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 538; Jewett, Romans, 535).

424

chapter nine

his argument is unfolded according to the two kinds of potential threatening power. The first one is the earthly power. Paul enumerates seven items as examples in a rhetorical question (c8–118 [v. 35]), and elucidates their menace to the ordinary Christian life by the OT citation (LXX Ps 43:22) in v. 36. In this regard, Paul’s response is very positive and affirmative. These earthly powers cannot intimidate believers; rather, in all of these afflicting situations, believers can overwhelmingly conquer (ὑπερνικῶμεν) through the one who loves them (v. 37). Paul’s affirmation of divine sustaining is also applied to the spiritual or heavenly powers in vv. 38–39. He spells out ten powers including four paired enumerations, such as ‘death and life,’ ‘angels and rulers,’ ‘things present and things to come,’ and ‘height and depth.’39 These powers cover not only from present to future temporally, but also the whole universe spatially. For Paul, however, the sole purpose of the long list of spiritual or heavenly powers is to highlight the mighty power of God for believers, because no one can separate believers from the love of God in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the topical interest of Rom 8:35–39 indicates that another aspect of ταῦτα is the relational aspect of God’s salvation, which is represented by ‘love.’ Paul strongly affirms that no other power, whether it is earthly, spiritual or heavenly power, can separate the relationship between believers and the divine participants, because the love of God and Jesus maintains it. In sum, based on the above observations, two considerations could be drawn. The first one is that the logical backdrop of this sub-unit is Paul’s previous explanation about God’s salvation, which has forensic and relational aspects. In this sense, this sub-unit seems to be linked to Rom 5:1–11.40 However, since the forensic aspect of salvation is not confined to Rom 5:1–11, it would be unwise to think that the content of this sub-unit is only related to Rom 5:1–8:30. In fact, God’s initiative in justification and the centrality of Jesus’ death and resurrection 39

For a detailed word study on this list, see Jewett, Romans, 543–48, 550–54. In addition, there are other semantic or conceptual connections between Rom 5:1–11 and 8:31–39: justification (δικ-word: Rom 5:1, 9; 8:33); suffering (Rom 5:3; 8:35–37); God’s love (Rom 5:5, 8; 8:35, 39); Christ’s death (Rom 5:6, 10; 8:34);being saved from wrath (Rom 5:9; 8:33–34); Christ’s resurrection (Rom 5:10; 8:34); and “for us” (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν: Rom 5:6–8; 8:31, 32, 34). Dahl, “Appendix I: A Synopsis of Romans 5:1–11 and 8:1–39,” 88–89; Harvey, Listening to the Text, 147; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 293; Jewett, Romans, 535. Cf. Rom 8:18–30 also shows some connection to Rom 5:1–11: make right (Rom 5:1, 9; 8:30); glory, glorify (Rom 5:2, 4, 5; 8:18, 21, 30); hope (Rom 5:2, 4, 5; 8:20, 24); save, salvation (Rom 5:9, 10; 8:24); the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5; 8:26–27); and patience (Rom 5:3, 4; 8:25). 40

rom :–

425

are the major themes of Rom 3:21–4:25. Thus, the range of Paul’s retroactive argumentation should be extended to Rom 1:16, where God’s savific righteousness is mentioned for the first time. The second consideration is about the nature of God’s salvation. According to this sub-unit, the scope of God’s salvation extends to the whole universe, spatially, and to the future, temporally. At the center of God’s process of salvation stands Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection. Moreover, since God’s initial and continuing act of salvation is from his love, the whole process of salvation can be depicted as ‘love.’ Interestingly, however, there is no mention of the Holy Spirit in this sub-unit. C. Focality Rom 8:31–39 uses several devices to emphasize topical issues at the sentence level and beyond. First, at the level beyond the sentence, the most noticeable feature is a series of rhetorical questions. Consisting of seven questions and their responses, the cluster of rhetorical questions makes this sub-unit unique. It probably functions to make the conclusive nature of this sub-unit more vivid. Within this cluster of questions, the prominence markers at the sentence level are also found. Interestingly, their occurrences are relevant to the participants of this sub-unit. As for the divine participants, first, the emphasis on the act of God is delivered by a relatively weak emphatic markers γέ (c8–104)41 and an emphatic (adverbial) use of καί (“even”: c8–106) in v. 32. This signifies that, by arguing from greater to lesser,42 Paul highlights the act of God. That is, since God did not spare his own son and gave him up for believers, he will surely grant all things to believers with Jesus. In v. 39, the love of divine participants is emphasized through a long modification, ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Second, believers are also described with prominence markers. In v. 32, the state of believers as the beneficiaries of God’s salvific process is emphatically expressed through a forward positioning of ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων. This phrase even contains two more prominence features: a marked word order of ‘head term (ἡμῶν)—df (A: πάντων)’ and πάντων (“all of us”). The stative

41 Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 1:810; Jewett, Romans, 536. 42 Schreiner, Romans, 460; contra Jewett, Romans, 538.

426

chapter nine

verb πέπεισμαι in c8–124 (v. 38) stresses Paul’s strong affirmation that no power can separate believers from God’s love. Lastly, the threatening powers are introduced with emphatic features. In v. 37, the totality of earthly powers is delivered by πᾶς. Yet the more significant thing is their long enumeration in cc8–118 (v. 35) and 125–127 (v. 39), which includes four paired structures and the stative verb (ἐνεστῶτα). However, their function is to demonstrate their impotence, on one hand, and stress the power of the love of God and Jesus, on the other hand. In sum, according to the above observations, Paul’s real focus of this sub-unit is on the act of divine participants in relation to the state of believers, since all prominence markers tend to appear with respect to the significance of God and Jesus. Even the emphases on believers and the opposed powers work to clarify the power of God and Jesus in the process of salvation. D. Grouping 1) External evidence As for the external evidence of grouping, Rom 8:31–39 is distinguished from the preceding sub-unit in at least two ways, although the inferential conjunction and an anaphoric reference in v. 31 may imply their connection to the previous arguments. The first one is the reoccurrence of the vivid diatribal questions. From v. 31, Paul uses rhetorical questions and responses throughout this sub-unit. The second one is that there is no mentioning of the Holy Spirit. Considering that the role and act of the Spirit in Rom 8:1–30 are one of the major topical issues, the silence of the Holy Spirit is noteworthy. Thus, these two markers help us to see this sub-unit as a discrete discourse unit. 2) Internal evidence Internal unity of this sub-unit is mainly created by two factors. The first factor is the repetitive rhetorical questions and their responses. These rhetorical questions and responses can be divided into two according to the two facets of God’s salvation: (1) forensic dimension (cc8–102–116 [vv. 31–34]) and (2) relational dimension (cc8–117–125 [vv. 35–39]). Within this structure, the consistent pattern of the relationship between the divine participants and believers also helps to see the internal unity of this sub-unit. Throughout the whole sub-unit, the divine participants are continuously expressed as the initiators and

rom :–

427

maintainers of salvation, while believers are considered as the beneficiaries of divine favor. The second factor is the semantic links and repetitions. The forensic dimension of salvation is distinguished by a repetition of κατά and judicial sense of verbs (ἐγκαλέσει and κατακρινῶν) in rhetorical questions. In addition, a repetition of ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν works to acknowledge the unity of this part (cc8–102 [v. 31], 105 [v. 31], and 116 [v. 34]). The relational dimension of salvation shows its unity through the love of divine participants in cc8–117 (v. 35), 122 (v. 37), and 128 (v. 39). Moreover, ἡμᾶς χωρίσει is repetitive in cc8–118 (v. 35) and 128 (v. 39). Therefore, the two facets of God’s salvation illustrate their own unity through semantic links and repetitions. The unity of Rom 8:31–39 can be shown below. E. Summary As a conclusive argument, this sub-unit is based on the preceding explanations about God’s salvation. Particularly, through a series of rhetorical questions and responses, Paul deals with the firmness of God’s salvation with respect to its forensic and relational dimensions. Considering the forensic dimension, the state of believers will be guaranteed, since God, who has already justified believers, will also vindicate them. Moreover, Jesus, who brought God’s justification to believers in his death and resurrection, is now interceding for them in heaven. Regarding the relational dimension, no powers, whether they are earthly, heavenly or spiritual powers, can separate believers from God and Jesus. This is because the love of divine participants is more powerful than the threat of the opposed powers. In these descriptions of the two dimensions of salvation, Paul’s focus is on the role of the divine participants, who take an initiative in carrying out and maintaining salvation. Moreover, Paul puts Jesus at the center of God’s whole process, who is the Lord of Paul and the Roman Christians (ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν: v. 39). 4. Conclusion In opposition to the depiction of those who are in the old realm in Rom 7:7–25, Rom 8:1–39 focuses on the situation of believers, who are in the new salvific realm. At the outset, Paul expounds it mainly in connection with the role of the Spirit in Rom 8:1–17. Here, he

428

chapter nine

Participants and their interactions

Two facets of salvation Rom. 8:31 τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν πρὸς ταῦτα;

God’s favor toward

εἰ ὁ θεὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, τίς καθ᾽ἡμῶν;

forensic

believers through

32

aspect

Jesus

πάντων παρέδωκεν αὐτόν . . . ἡμῖν χαρίσεται

God’s justifying act

33

toward believers

θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν

Jesus’ role and act in

34

relation to believers

Χριστὸς ὁ ἀποθανών . . . δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ

ὅς γε τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ . . . ἀλλὰ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν

τίς ἐγκαλέσει κατὰ ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ;

τίς ὁ κατακρινῶν;

ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν

Jesus’ love to

35

believers and the

Χριστοῦ;

earthly opposed

θλῖψις ἢ στενοχωρία . . .36 καθὼς γέγραπται . . .

powers

ἕνεκεν σοῦ θανατούμεθα . . . σφαγῆς

τίς ἡμᾶς χωρίσει ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ

relational

37

ἀλλ᾽ . . .

ὑπερνικῶμεν διὰ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντος ἡμᾶς

God’s love in Jesus

38

toward believers

δυνάμεις

and the heavenly or

ἑτέρα δυνήσεται ἡμᾶς χωρίσαι ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης

spiritual opposed

τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν

powers.

πέπεισμαι γὰρ ὅτι οὔτε θάνατος . . . οὔτε 39

οὔτε ὕψωμα . . . οὔτε τις κτίσις

aspect

rom :–

429

describes the Spirit as the antithesis of the old power σάρξ, and as the controlling power in the new realm. Moreover, the Spirit is explained as a decisive factor with respect to one’s transfer into the new realm, and his/her status and life in the new realm. As for the status, on the one hand, the indwelling Spirit witnesses that believers are God’s children (vv. 14–17) and they belong to Christ (v. 9). As for life, on the other hand, the Spirit leads believers according to the will of God (vv. 4, 14). According to Rom 8:18–30, the help of the Spirit is also related to the ‘already—not yet’ situation of believers. Even though believers are in the new realm, they can suffer from the tension between the present and the future. This is because they are vulnerable to the attack of the old realm and various threatening powers (cf. 8:35–39), and because the consummation of God’s salvation belongs to the future. In the meantime, the whole creation and believers wait for the future restoration and salvation with hope. Yet the Spirit helps them by means of intercessory prayer (vv. 26–27). Furthermore, together with Jesus’ sacrificial death, resurrection, and intercessory prayer in heaven (v. 34), God’s love and faithfulness in performing his salvific plan protect the believers’ state against any threatening powers (vv. 31–39). In several ways, Rom 8:1–39 contributes to understanding Paul’s ongoing argumentation. First, this unit shows that salvation results from the works of the three divine participants. Until Rom 8:1, the process of salvation is mainly explained in relation to the role and the work of God and Jesus. Rom 8:1–39 also reiterates the significance of their role. However, the major contribution of this unit is to provide a detailed explanation about the role of the Spirit in God’s salvific process. Even though Rom 5:5 and 7:6 mention the Spirit with regard to the state of believers, it is Rom 8:1–30 that grants the full-scaled explanation of the importance of the Spirit. The role of the Spirit is relevant to believers’ transfer into the new realm and their present condition as God’s children. Moreover, the Spirit appears as a helper, who supports believers to endure present sufferings with hope. Thus, although the Spirit is not the only topic in Rom 8:1–39, the exposition of the Spirit helps us to see the whole picture of God’s salvation. The second contribution is that Rom 8:1–39 provides an understanding of the temporal and spatial scopes of God’s salvific process. Regarding the temporal scope, three temporal sequences appear in this unit. Rom 8:1–17 demonstrates two temporal dimensions of past and present through comparison between the two powers in the old and

430

chapter nine

new realms, i.e., flesh (σάρξ) vs. the Spirit (πνεῦμα). The temporal dimension is extended to the future in Rom 8:18–30 through comparison between the present and future situations of the new realm. Particularly, the grand plan of God in Rom 8:30 well demonstrates these three temporal dimensions. As for the spatial scope of God’s salvific process, on the other hand, God’s process covers not only the salvation of humans, but also the restoration of all creation (Rom 8:19–22). Particularly, the idea of the restoration of non-human creation, which is the reversal of a consequence of Adam’s sin, is a unique contribution to Paul’s argumentation about God’s salvation. These two temporal and spatial dimensions seem to reflect Paul’s argument in Romans 5, because Rom 5:1–11 presents three temporal dimensions in God’s salvific process, and Rom 5:12–21 spells out the reversal of the first Adam’s sin and its result. The third contribution is that Rom 8:1–39 uses two descriptive frameworks of God’s salvation. One is the interactional framework between human and God, to which the forensic and relational dimensions of salvation belong. The argument in Rom 8:31–39 reflects this interactional framework, although Paul mainly focuses on the divine side in this framework. The other descriptive framework is an explanation of God’s salvation through the contrast between the old and new realms. It appears as the backdrop of the argument in Rom 8:1–17. Even the restoration of the creation in vv. 19–22 reflects this framework of the two realms. These two descriptive frameworks also connect to Romans 5, in the sense that Rom 5:1–11 offers an interactional framework with forensic and relational dimensions of salvation. And Rom 5:12–21 explains God’s salvation through the contrast of the two realms. Yet, as Paul illustrates in Romans 6–7, these two frameworks in Rom 8:1–39 do not appear as totally isolated or contradictory. Instead, as complementary frameworks, they function to provide a holistic view on the state of believers in the process of God’s salvation. Therefore, Rom 8:1–39 serves an important role in Paul’s argument in a way that, by means of expounding the Spirit’s role in the status and life of believers, this section gives a supplementary view on the salvific works of the divine participants.

CHAPTER TEN

TOWARD A PEAKS OF PAUL’S GOSPEL IN ROMANS: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION I. Contour of Paul’s gospel in Rom 1:16–8:39 When Paul begins to unfold his gospel in Rom 1:16–17, he introduces his gospel as the power of God for salvation to all believers. In this statement, he reveals two important factors in understanding his gospel. One factor is that his gospel is about the salvation of humans, and the other factor is that such salvation is dependent on a certain relationship between God and humans. In order to expound the former factor, he uses two descriptive frameworks: (1) an interactive paradigm between God and humans, and (2) a contrast between the old realm and the new. The interactive paradigm appears as the main descriptive framework in Rom 1:18–5:11, and the two-realm framework is shown in Rom 5:12–8:39.1 Regarding the latter, Paul deals with the forensic and relational dimensions of the relationship between God and humans, and how these dimensions appear in each descriptive framework. 1. A description of salvation through an interactive framework The fundamental feature of this framework is a reciprocal interaction between God and humans, and its basic process is God’s initiative → the response of humans to God’s initiative → God’s response to the response of humans. This interactive process is expressed by the use of Material (a process of an action or an event), Mental (a process of cognition, perception, and affection), or Verbal natures of Predicators. According to Paul, there are two kinds of interactive paradigms: (1) an

1 Here, I divide Rom 1:16–8:39 according to the two descriptive frameworks. They are explanatory or conceptual frameworks that Paul used to demonstrate God’s salvation. But, in my actual analysis, I have treated Romans 5 as one unit, because the topical issue about Jesus, which is the crucial factor for determining discourse units, holds the two frameworks together in Romans 5.

432

chapter ten

interaction between human sinfulness and God’s wrathful judgment, and (2) an interaction between human faith and God’s salvation. A. The interactive paradigm between human sinfulness and God’s wrathful judgment This paradigm has a process that, even though God has revealed his divine nature through his creation, all humans reject God, and take a sinful behavioral (Material process) and cognitive (Mental process) stance toward God. As a result, God responds to them with his wrath and judgment (Rom 1:18–3:20). This paradigm is regarded as the fundamental problem of the human race, and Paul provides several considerations with regard to it. The first consideration is that this paradigm includes two dimensions of the relationship between God and humans. The forensic dimension, on the one hand, is expressed by semantic domains 34.E (δικ-word), 30.G (To Distinguish, To Evaluate, To Judge: κρίνω), 20.C (Destroy), 56.E (Lawsuit, Case: κρίμα), etc. In this regard, God appears as a judge, and all humans as sinners, who are expected to receive a guilty verdict and punishment. According to Paul, there is no way to overturn God’s verdict on human sinfulness, and even the Mosaic law cannot be of help. The relational dimension, on the other hand, demonstrates that all humans become the enemies (ἐχθροί) of God (Rom 5:10) on account of their rejection of God. As a result, there is no peace between God and humans (cf. Rom 5:2), and human rebellious disobedience and God’s wrath are the only way to describe the relationship between the two parties. The second consideration is that, all humans, including the Jews and Gentiles, are involved in the process of this interactive paradigm. In many places, Paul describes both the Jews and Gentiles not only as the actors of the process who oppress and reject God’s truth by their unrighteousness, but also as the recipients of the wrath of God. Interestingly, when Paul deals with the paradigm of human sinfulness and God’s judgment, he seems to advance his argument according to his focus on the human party. First, in Rom 1:18–32, he states that all people, including Jews and Gentiles, are in the interactive process between human sinfulness and God’s judgment. Then, in Rom 2:1–11, he focuses on the general moralists and all humans, and finally, he deals with the case of the Jews from Rom 2:12 and onwards. Despite his critique on their hypocrisy and sinfulness in Rom 2:12–3:20, Paul’s

toward a peak(s) of paul’s gospel in romans

433

main interest is not simply to demonstrate the negative side of the Jews. Instead, he intends to show that the Mosaic law does not pave the road to salvation. Paul also teaches that the Jews are not exempt from the interactive paradigm of human sinfulness and God’s judgment. These two facts also imply that if the Jews, who know God’s will through the Mosaic law, cannot escape God’s judgment on account of their fleshly nature (σάρξ), it is absolutely impossible for the Gentiles to be saved from God’s wrathful judgment (Rom 3:19–20). Thus, Paul’s argument in Rom 1:18–3:20 progresses according to the human party in the interactive paradigm: all humans → moralists → all humans → the Jewish people → all humans. The third consideration is that the process of this paradigm has temporal and spatial aspects. As to the former, the process of this paradigm covers three temporal sequences of past, present, and future. That is, the past and present sinfulness of humans results in the past and present judgment of God (cf. Rom 1:18–32). Moreover, their present impenitence will lead to harsher judgment from God in the future (Rom 2:3–5). As to the spatial aspect of the interactive process, the result of the interactive paradigm between human sinfulness and God’s judgment is not limited to the boundary of human beings. Rather, the consequences of such interaction apply to all of creation (cf. Rom 8:22). In sum, the interactive paradigm between human sinfulness and God’s judgment is the fundamental premise of Paul’s recognition of human problems. In this paradigm, the core process is related to human sinfulness, and it affects the forensic and relational dimensions of the relationship between God and humans. Also, God’s wrathful judgment extends spatially to all creations, and temporally, to the future. Lastly, since the law, which is the revelation of God’s will, cannot be the way to salvation, there is no human way to avoid doom in this interactive paradigm. B. The interaction between human faith and God’s salvation The second interactive paradigm is an interaction between human faith and God’s salvation. In this paradigm, God takes the initiative and begins the salvific process by establishing Jesus as the means of salvation. In response to human faith in Jesus, which is a reply to God’s initiative, God grants salvation to the believer (Rom 3:21–26). Much like the above paradigm between human sinfulness and God’s

434

chapter ten

judgment, this paradigm contains several characteristics, but the contents are different from the aforementioned paradigm. First, similar to the paradigm between human sinfulness and God’s judgment, this salvific paradigm has two dimensions: forensic and relational. As to the forensic dimension, while the result of the process in the former paradigm is condemnation and judgment, that of this salvific paradigm is forgiveness of sins and justification (δικαιοσύνη). Likewise, as to the relational dimension, the former interactive paradigm results in a hostile relationship between God and humans. However the salvific paradigm results in the establishment of a peaceful relationship through reconciliation (Rom 5:1, 10–11). Thus, the result of this salvific paradigm can be viewed as the reversal of the consequence of the interactive paradigm between human sinfulness and God’s judgment. Second, just as all humans participate in the process of the old interactive paradigm, the process of the new salvific interactive paradigm is open to all people. Unlike the old interactive paradigm, however, participation in the new salvific process is optional. As such, only those who join in this new salvific process by faith can receive salvation (Rom 5:17). In this sense, the gate of the new interactive process is opened to all people, but only believers can participate. Third, the process of this new salvific paradigm also has spatiotemporal aspects. Temporally, the act of believing brings not only the present sense of God’s salvation to believers, such as justification (Rom 5:1, 9), but also the expected future state of salvation (σωθησόμεθα: Rom 5:9, 10). Spatially, on the other hand, creation will be restored in the future as a result of the new salvific interaction between God and believers (cf. Rom 8:19–21). This restoration of all of creation is more relevant to the two-realm descriptive framework. Lastly, a very important feature in the new salvific interactive paradigm is the stress on divine initiative and human faith. With regard to the old interactive paradigm, Paul’s focus is only on the sinfulness of humans and God’s wrathful response to it. Of the two, the demonstration of the sinfulness of humans takes up much of the space. However, with respect to the new salvific paradigm, Paul tends to put more stress on divine initiative and human response. As to the stress on human belief, Paul explains its significance by the use of Abraham’s case as an example in Romans 4. For Paul, the only way to receive God’s salvation is to respond by faith to God’s initiative. As to the divine initiative, Paul makes it clear in Rom 3:21–26 that it is God who

toward a peak(s) of paul’s gospel in romans

435

initiated the salvific process by putting Jesus forward as a sacrifice. This concept that Jesus sacrificed his life for the salvation of believers in accordance with God’s will is reiterated in Rom 5:6–10. These two passages describe the same process, but their descriptive focuses differ. That is, Paul describes divine initiative with a theocentric point of view in Rom 3:26, in which God appears as the logical subject of the process. On the other hand, in Rom 5:6–10, he mentions the same process with a Christ-centered point of view, in which Jesus Christ is described as both the means and the logical subject of the salvific process. Thus, the divine initiative in the process of salvation can be summarized as following: acting out of love for sinful humans, God set up the whole salvation plan and initiated it by sending his son as an atoning sacrifice. In accordance with God’s will, Jesus abandoned his life voluntarily for the sake of the salvation of sinners. Therefore, the new paradigm emphasizes not only God’s initiative and Jesus’ central role in the salvation process, but also the human act of believing as the key to experiencing God’s salvation. In the new paradigm, God’s salvation has both forensic (e.g., righteousness) and relational (e.g., a peaceful relationship between God and believers) dimensions, and these two characteristics affect the present and future situation of all believers and creation. 2. A description of salvation through a contrast of two realms A. The relationship between interactive and two-realm frameworks In comparison to the interactive framework, the two-realm framework has at least two major discrepancies. One is that their approaches to salvation are different. In the interactive framework, salvation is explained as God’s reward given to believers. Yet, in the two-realm framework, salvation means the transition of believers from one realm, whose dominant power is sin and death, to another, whose dominant power is God’s grace and eternal life. The other discrepancy is that while the interactive framework focuses on the sequence of interactions between God and humans in the old and new paradigms, the two-realm framework pays much attention to the situation of the people in each realm. The situation in each realm is expressed by various semantic domains, such as 13 (Be, Become, Exist, Happen), 37 (Control, Rule), 23.G (Live, Die), etc.

436

chapter ten

Despite these discrepancies, the two frameworks are relevant to each other. In both frameworks, it is God who makes believers experience salvation. Also, both frameworks emphasize Jesus’ crucial role in God’s salvation. Moreover, both frameworks consist of an antithesis between the old and new paradigms or realms. According to the semantic domains, the old and new interactive paradigms are connected to the old and new realms, respectively.2 The new salvific interactive paradigm and realm have forensic (e.g., δικ-words) and relational (e.g., εἰρήνη) dimensions of salvation in common. Thus, the two frameworks are not contradictory, but complementary, in that the interactive framework aptly shows the process of salvation, and the two-realm framework is useful to describe the situation of those who are in the old and new interactive paradigms.3 B. Some characteristics of the two-realm framework 1) The use of rhetorical contrast The two-realm framework in Rom 5:12–8:39 evidences several characteristics. The first one is the use of rhetorical contrast or comparison as the main argumentative method in describing salvation. There are five parts which draw contrasts between the old and new realms, and each one deals with a different topical issue in relation to the two realms. The first contrast appears in Rom 5:12–21, and it focuses on the deeds of Adam and Christ, the originators of each realm. The old realm began with the disobedience of Adam. On account of this rebellion, sin entered into the world, and death came into being through sin (Rom 5:12). After Adam, sin and death became the ruling powers in the old realm, and no one could escape from their tyranny. Even the Mosaic law could not be of help in this miserable situation. This is because the law, which has a role of informing sin as sin, only results in the increase of sin (Rom 5:13, 20). However, the overall picture of the new realm is different. The new realm is opened by the obedient deed of Christ, and it brings justification to believers. In addition, in 2 For example, the old interactive paradigm and realm: 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt), 56.E (Judge, Condemn, Acquit), 39.A (Opposition, Hostility: Rom 5:10; 8:6–7); and the new salvific interaction and realm: 34.E (δικ-word), 88.I (Kindness, Harshness: χάρις [Rom 3:24; 4:4, 16; 5:15–21; 6:1, 14, 15, 17; 7:25]), and 22.G (Favorable Circumstances or State: εἰρήνη [Rom 2:10; 5:1; 8:6–7]). 3 Actually, the new salvific realm is related to the situation of those who receive God’s salvific response in the new interactive paradigm.

toward a peak(s) of paul’s gospel in romans

437

the new realm, it is not sin but grace that is the ruling power that leads believers to eternal life (Rom 5:21). After all, the contrastive depiction of the two realms in Rom 5:12–21 demonstrates the antithetical situation of those who participate in the old interactive paradigm and of those who receive God’s salvation in the new interactive paradigm. Moreover, this overall description in Rom 5:12–21 functions as the blue print, from which all arguments on the two realms in Romans 6–8 are derived. The second contrast is mentioned in Rom 6:1–14, and its topical issue is the relationship between believers, who are in the new realm, and sin, the ruling power of the old realm. Here, Paul suggests a concept that, as a transition for believers from the old realm to the new, salvation implies the emancipation of the old ruling power. He illustrates this concept through the imagery of baptism, stating that such a transition is a product of the believers’ participation in Jesus death and resurrection. Accordingly, Paul commands that, since believers are freed from the masterly power of sin, they should not allow sin to reign over the mortal body of believers (Rom 6:12). The third antithesis whose topical issue is related to one’s deeds in the two realms occurs in Rom 6:15–23. With the imagery of slavery, Paul states the principle that if one presents him/herself to anyone as an obedient slave, he/she becomes a slave to the one whom he/she obeys. According to this principle, he points out that, since believers are now liberated from the dominating power of sin, it is absurd for them to go back to the old status of slavery by obeying sin. Here, Paul uses a temporal contrast between ‘then’ and ‘now’ as a crucial key to depict the two situations of the believers in the two realms. The fourth contrast appears in Rom 7:1–6, and its issue is the position of the law in the two realms. This part is related to Rom 6:15–23, in that what Paul suggests in Rom 7:1–6 is the second half of his answer to the question in Rom 6:15. In order to deal with the issue of the law, he introduces a marital imagery. When the husband dies, the married woman is released from the law, and she can then remarry another man. Applying this principle, Paul informs believers that they are no longer bound by the law of the old realm. The death of their old husband—a symbol representing sin—has freed them from the law. Moreover, he introduces Jesus as believers’ new husband, and the Holy Spirit as the new binding power (Rom 7:6). The last contrast between the old and new realms is shown in Rom 7:7–8:39. The main topical issue of this part is the antithetical situation

438

chapter ten

of a person in the two realms with regard to the law and the Spirit. The person in the old realm (Rom 7:7–25) is incapable of overcoming the power of sin because of his/her fleshly nature (σάρξ). The coming of the law makes the situation even worse, because sin takes advantage of the law as a tool for attacking the person. The only way forward for the person in the old realm is to await expectantly God’s salvation through Jesus Christ. However, the situation of the one who is in the new realm (Rom 8:1–39) is different. Instead of the law, the Holy Spirit becomes the controlling power and a helper. Moreover, through the Spirit, believers become children of God, who can call God ‘father.’ In conclusion, a rhetorical contrast appears as the major argumentative means for describing God’s salvation in the two-realm framework. This contrast often includes a temporal distinction between the past and present situations of believers. A more notable feature is the use of several symbolic images, such as baptism, slavery, and marriage. These images provide useful principles with regard to various topical issues in the contrastive two realms. 2) The use of vivid diatribe The second characteristic of Paul’s two-realm framework is the use of vivid diatribal interaction. Although he uses diatribal questions and answers in the interactive framework, the more vivid use of the diatribal interactions appears in Romans 6–7. This use of diatribe is probably intended to draw the attention of his readers to his argument. More importantly, Paul uses the diatribal questions and answers as a means of unfolding his argument with regard to the various issues in the two realms. According to my previous observations, Paul’s argument in Romans 6–7 follows a consistent pattern in which the topical issue in the present argument is derived from the last part of the previous argument. This topical issue is introduced by a diatribal question or objection at the beginning of each unit of discourse.4 In addition, Paul’s main argument is delivered through his answer to the diatribal question. Thus, the vivid diatribal questions and answers appear to be 4 For example, the expression “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” in Rom 5:20 provides a topical background of the argument in Rom 6:1–14. Similarly, “you are not under law but under grace” in Rom 6:14 is used in the topical question in Rom 6:15, and the issues of the deeds of believers and the position of the law are dealt with in Rom 6:15–23 and 7:1–6 respectively. Lastly, the antithesis between the old and new realms in Rom 7:5–6 works as the topical issue in the argument of Rom 7:7–25 (the old realm) and 8:1–8:39 (the new realm), respectively.

toward a peak(s) of paul’s gospel in romans

439

a useful way for Paul not only to persuade his readers with his argument, but also to explain the various facets of salvation in the tworealm framework. 3) The role of the divine beings Another characteristic of the two-realm framework is the significant roles of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. God’s role is still important in the two-realm framework, in that God is the ultimate logical actor who transfers believers from the old realm to the new (e.g., Rom 8:3), and he is the one whom believers obey (e.g., Rom 6:13, 22). As to Jesus Christ, he is mentioned in Rom 5:12–21 as the one who opens the gate of the new realm through his obedience. As Paul explains in Rom 6:1–14, the transition of believers from the old realm to the new is only possible through their participation in Jesus’ death and resurrection. Similarly, in several places in Romans 7–8, Jesus is described as the means of salvation (Rom 7:4, 25; 8:1, 3). The Holy Spirit is briefly introduced in Rom 7:6 as the controlling power in the new realm. The full-length explanation about the role of the Holy Spirit is given in Romans 8. Here, as well as acting as the controlling power, the Holy Spirit is described as an identity marker for the new status of believers. He is also a helper, who assists the believers caught between the conflicting states of ‘already’ and ‘not-yet.’ Among the three, Paul seems to focus more on the role of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the two-realm framework. He explicitly expounds their positions and functions in relation to the entering of believers into the new realm, and to staying in the new realm. This is a different pattern shown in the interactive framework, in which God and Jesus appear as the major divine actors who lead the process of salvation. In conclusion, the two-realm framework provides explanations about several issues that occur in the interactive framework, such as the law, sin, grace, the situation of a person in the old and new interactive frameworks, etc. According to Paul, salvation in the two-realm framework means entering into the new realm, and it occurs through union of Jesus’ death and resurrection by faith. The lives of believers are described as their staying in the new realm under the new controlling power of the Holy Spirit. In order to expound this concept, Paul uses a rhetorical contrast as the main argumentative strategy, which includes several symbolic images.

440

chapter ten II. Toward the peak point(s) of Paul’s gospel in Rom 1:16–8:39

Where is the central or peak point(s) of Paul’s gospel in Rom 1:16– 8:39? Since the peak(s) is related to the overall topical structure, the above contour of Paul’s gospel provides a crucial key to detecting the peak(s). As mentioned above, the two descriptive frameworks appear as the backbone of Paul’s explanation of his gospel. According to these frameworks, the overall topical flow in Rom 1:16–8:39 begins with the sinfulness of all humans, including its behavioral and cognitive aspects, and God’s wrathful response to it in the old interactive paradigm (Rom 1:18–3:20). Then, after dealing with human faith, a response to divine initiative, and God’s salvific response to human faith in the new interactive paradigm (Rom 3:21–5:11), Paul moves his topical interest to a contrastive situation of a person in two realms (Rom 5:12–8:39). In this topical flow, there appear to be two significant logical relations. One is a relation of problem-SOLUTION with regard to the human condition: i.e., the condemned and alienated situation vs. salvation. This relation is shown in both the interactive (Rom 1:18–5:11) and the two-realm frameworks (e.g., Rom 7:7–8:39). Since the solution part is more important in this problem-SOLUTION relation, the new interactive paradigm and Romans 8 can be regarded as the salient parts. In the new interactive paradigm, Rom 3:21–26 and Rom 5:1–11 are important in that both texts show the divine solution to the human problem. The former focuses on God’s role in the process of salvation, and the latter stresses the mediatorial role of Jesus in such a process. Moreover, both mention the element of human faith as the way for receiving God’s salvation. Yet, of the two, Rom 5:1–11 seems to be more salient, because it provides a more complete depiction of salvation in the interactive framework. That is, while Rom 3:21–26 deals with the forensic dimension of salvation, Rom 5:1–11 mentions a relational dimension (e.g., reconciliation) as well as the forensic dimension. In addition, Rom 5:1–11 expands the temporal horizon of salvation to the future (Rom 5:9–10), and it implies that Rom 5:1–11 provides a complete solution to the human problem. Furthermore, unlike Rom 3:21–26, Rom 5:1–11 adds the role of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Christian life (Rom 5:5). Thus, it can be said that the topical flow in the new interactive paradigm begins in Rom 3:21–26 and moves toward the climax in Rom 5:1–11.

toward a peak(s) of paul’s gospel in romans

441

The second logical relation shown in the overall structure is HEADclarification or GENERIC-specific, and it appears as the main topical relation in the two-realm framework. The comprehensive depiction of the two realms in Rom 5:12–21 contains several topical issues, such as the ruling power of the two realms (sin and grace), the present and future situation of a person in each realm, the position of the law, and so on. These issues are consecutively dealt with in Romans 6–8 through diatribal interactions and symbolic images. Romans 8 can even be regarded as the ‘clarification’ part of Rom 5:12–21, because Romans 8 is tied into Rom 7:7–25, whose topical issue is derived from Rom 5:12–21, with a problem-SOULUTION relation. In other words, the depictions of a person in Rom 7:7–25 and 8:1–39 can be understood as illustrations of the old and new realms in Rom 5:12–21, respectively. Thus, in the two-realm framework, Rom 5:12–21 functions as a HEAD, and Romans 6–8 as a clarification. So, Rom 5:12–21 should be viewed as the salient part in the two-realm framework. In sum, from the above two observations, Rom 3:21–26, 5:1–21, and 8:1–39 appear to be important in Paul’s gospel in Rom 1:16–8:39. All are pertinent to the SOLUTION, because their topics are about the reversal of human sinfulness and its result, or that of one’s situation under the reign of sin. Also, believers appear to have a certain role in the process of God’s salvation, such as a logical actor who performs the act of believing in the salvific process, or as a logical recipient of God’s salvation. However, the more significant participants with respect to salvation are God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and each appears as the main topical participant in Rom 3:21–26, Rom 5:1–21, and 8:1– 30, respectively. Among these three parts, Romans 5 plays a central role in the overall topical flow of Paul’s gospel, because this part functions not only as the climax of the salvific interactive framework, but also as the blue print for the two-realm framework, which provides the topical issues of the following arguments. Therefore, I conclude that Paul’s gospel about God’s salvation in Rom 1:16–8:39 has one peak (Romans 5) and two sub-peaks (Rom 3:21–26 and Romans 8), and the role of Jesus and its result in salvation are at the center of his message. This coincides with the introduction of his gospel in Rom 1:1–4 which declares that the gospel of God is about Jesus. The overall topical structure of Rom 1:16–8:39 is diagrammed as below.

Rom 1:18–3:20

relational

spatial

temporal Two dimensions

Two facets of salvation

forensic

Logical relations

HEAD (Rom 5:12–21)

SOLUTION Rom 3:21–26 (beginning) Justification

Problem

Judgment

Present and future salvation in relation to the two dimensions of salvation

Present and future judgment

All humans All believers (and creation) (and creation)

Reconciliation and peaceful relation

Hostility

All believers (and creation)

Present and future salvation in relation to the two dimensions of salvation

The old realm: hostility to God (Rom 8:7–8) The new realm: a bride of Jesus (cf. Rom 7:4) a father-child relationship (Rom 8:14–17)

The old realm: condemnation The new realm: justification

clarification (Romans 6–8)

A contrast between two realms

The new interactive paradigm

Rom 5:1–11 (climax)

Romans 6–8

Two-realm framework (Rom 5:12–8:39)

Romans 5

(sub-peak: the role of the Holy Spirit)

(peak: the role of Jesus and its result)

(sub-peak: God’s role and human faith in the process of salvation)

Rom 3:21–4:25

Romans 8

Romans 5

Rom 3:21–26

Interactive framework between God and humans (Rom 1:16–5:11)

Rom 1:16–17

Descriptive framework The new The old interactive interactive paradigm paradigm

Overall division

Peak points

442 chapter ten

toward a peak(s) of paul’s gospel in romans

443

III. Conclusion Until now, we have traced Paul’s arguments in order to answer the following three questions: Where is Paul’s central point(s) or peak(s) in Rom 1:16–8:39? What is the content of the peak point(s)? And how can one identify the central point(s)? In chap. 1, after surveying various approaches to Romans, I argued that, since a linguistic reading strongly focuses on the text itself, this should be the primary method of interpretation in identifying the heart of Paul’s gospel. Yet the existing linguistic methodologies, which deal with the matter of peaks, have some limitations on defining the boundary of a peak and its topic. So, in chap. 2, I suggested an alternative methodology principally based on the Hallidayan systemic-functional model. With a premise that a discourse unit is a topical unity, I regarded the paragraph which I called ‘sub-unit’ as the basic analyzing unit, and proposed to examine the external boundary markers and internal unity in order to determine the boundary of each discourse unit. Moreover, I used the concepts of topicality and focality as a way to identify the topic of each unit. The analysis of topicality covers the areas of (1) the structure, including topical participants, (2) semantic domains, and (3) logical relations. Focality is related to the vertical emphasis of the horizontal flow in a discourse; yet, with regard to the topic of a discourse unit, I especially focused on how the emphatic expressions work to stress the topical issues in each discourse unit (sub-unit). Based on this methodology, I analyzed Rom 1:16–8:39, and grouped Paul’s arguments into various sub-units, units, and sections. I also tried to identify the topical issues and topic of each discourse unit, and to understand the topical structure and the central part(s) of Paul’s gospel. As a result, I concluded that Paul’s arguments in Rom 1:16–8:39 is delivered by two descriptive frameworks. According to these frameworks, his gospel about God’s salvation has one peak point (Romans 5), which shows the central role of Jesus and its result in God’s salvation, and two sub-peaks (Rom 3:21–26 and Romans 8), which elucidate salvation with the stress on the role of God and the Holy Spirit. For two thousand years, Paul’s gospel in Rom 1:16–8:39 has been regarded as the core of his theology. Subsequently, numerous studies have been performed using a variety of different approaches. The product of this study, then, is not the final word in the study of Paul’s gospel in Romans. Furthermore, since this study does not deal with

444

chapter ten

the rest of Romans, it has limitation. However, it is also true that a different method of approach can reveal more clearly what Paul wants to deliver in his gospel. In that sense, this study is meaningful because the suggested linguistic methodology was helpful in identifying not only the topical issues in each discourse unit, but also the overall topical structure and the peak points of Paul’s gospel. Therefore, I would expect that the approach and outcome of this study will further stimulate the on-going study of Paul’s theology.

(a) Logical process: LS (logical subject), LO (logical object), LO-G (logical object-goal), LO-B (logical object-beneficiary) (b) Relations: Projection (→ Locution and Idea); Expansion (Elaboration (+), Extension (=) and Enhancement (X) (i) Elaboration: Apposition (eXpository and exeMplifying); Clarification (Corrective, Particularising, Summative, Verifactive) (ii) Extension: Addition (Positive and Negative), adVersative and vaRriation (Replacive, Subtractive, Alternative) (iii) Enhancement: Spatio-temporal (Following, Simultaneous, Preceding, Conclusive, iMmediate, iNterrupted, Repetitive, spEcific, Durative, Terminal, pUntiliar); coMparative (Positive and Negative); Causal (Result, Purpose, rEason, Basis); and cOnditional (Positive, Negative, Concessive)

(3) Others:

(a) Nature: Material (Action and Event); Mental (Perception, Affection and Cognition); Verbal; Relational (Intensive, Circumstantial, Possessive; and Attribution, Identification); and Existential. (b) Person and number: 1, 2, 3; S, P (c) Voice: Active, Passive, Middle (d) Mood: Indicative, Subjunctive, Future, iMperative, Optative (e) Verbal aspect: Perfective, Imperfective, Stative, Future

(2) Predicator:

(a) Referential forms: Grammatical, Reduced, Implied. (b) Information structure: Primary, Secondary, Embedded – Theme, Rheme – Prime, Subsequent

(1) Subject:

** The abbreviations in this frame are like below.

ANALYSIS OF ROM 1:168:39 ACCORDING TO THE FRAME OF TOPICALITY

APPENDIX I

1:18

1:17

1–34 (P) 1–35 (P–1–34)

1:16

1–41 (E–1–40)

G

P-T-S

Mat-E

Mat-A

τῶν κατεχόντων

Mat-E

ἀποκαλύπτεται

ὀργὴ θεοῦ (LO-G)

γὰρ

1–40 (P–1–37)

S-T-P

ζήσεται

G

ὁ δίκαιος

Ver

δὲ

Mat-E

ἀποκαλύπτεται

γέγραπται

P-T-P

Rel-I-I

Men-A

Men-C

καθὼς

G

Predicator

P

3S

3S

3S

3S

S

3S

1S

A

P

A

P

P

A

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

F

S

I

I

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

πιστεύοντι

ἐστιν

ἐπαισχύνομαι

Word

1–38 (S–1–37) 1–39 (S–1–38)

δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (LO-G)

I

I.S.

γὰρ

(παντὶ τῷ)

(τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) (LS)

γὰρ

I

R.F.

Subject

(Paul)

Word

γὰρ

Conj.

1–37 (P–1–35)

1–36 (E–1–35)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

τὴν ἀλήθειαν

τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (LO) δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (LO-G) παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι, Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνι (LO-B)

Comp.

ἀπ᾽οὐρανοῦ (1) πὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν . . . (2) (LO-B) ἐν ἀδικίᾳ

ἐκ πίστεως

ἐν αὐτῷ (1) (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) ἐκ πίστεως (2) εἰς πίστιν (3)

+ (C/P)

X (C/E)

X (M/P) → (I)

X (C/E)

+ (C/P)

CAP

PSAA

SAP

P

SAPAA

P

CPAC

X (C/E)

W.O.

Others

εἰς σωτηρίαν

Rel.

APC

Add.

οὐ

Adj.

1–44 (S–1–43)

1:20

1:21

1–42 (S–1–40) 1–43 (S–1–42)

1:19

G

ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία (LO)

καὶ

1–51 (S–1–50)

I

I

I

I

(ἀνθρώπων) (LS) (ἀνθρώπων) (LS)

(ἀνθρώπων) (LS)

R

I

G

G

ἀλλ᾽

ἢ

διότι

αὐτοὺς (ἀνθρώπων)

τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ (1) ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης (2) (LO)

γὰρ

γὰρ

G

R.F.

Subject

τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ θεὸς

Word

διότι

Conj.

1–50 (S–1–49)

1–48 (E–1–47) 1–49 (S–1–47)

1–47 (S–1–44)

1–45 (E–1–44) 1–46 (E–1–44)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

S-T-S

S-T-P

S-T-P

S-T-P

I.S.

Predicator

Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

ἐσκοτίσθη

Ver

ἐματαιώθησαν

ηὐχαρίστησαν

Men-C

Rel-I-A

εἰς τὸ εἶναι

γνόντες

Men-C

νοούμενα

Ver

Men-P

καθορᾶται

ἐδόξασαν

Mat-A

Rel-I-A

3S

3P

3P

P

3P

P

3S

3S

3S

P

P

A

A

A

A

P

P

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

P

P

P

I

I

I

P

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἐφανέρωσεν

ἐστιν

Word

(τὸν θεὸν)

τὸν θεὸν

ἀναπολογήτους

τοῖς ποιήμασιν

αὐτοῖς

φανερόν

Comp.

ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν

(οὐχ)

γνόντες τὸν θεὸν (1) οὐχ (2) ὡς θεὸν (3)

ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου (1) τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα (2) εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους (3)

ἐν αὐτοῖς

Adj.

Add.

= (A/P)

= (A/N)

X (O/C) = (A/P)

X (C/E)

+ (A/X) X (C/R)

+ (A/X)

X (C/E) X (C/E)

Rel.

PS

PA

P

PC

AAAP

PSC

CP

SAAPSA

SCP

SCPA

W.O.

Others

1–52 (S–1–44) 1–53 (E–1–52)

1:22

1:25

1–56 (P–1–40)

1:24

1–58 (S–1–56) 1–59 (S–1–58) 1–60 (S–1–59) 1–61 (E–1–60) 1–62 (S–1–60)

1–57 (E–1–56)

1–55 (S–1–52)

1:23

1–54 (E–1–53)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

οἵτινες

καὶ

ὅς

R

R

τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν (LO)

(ἀνθρώπων) (LS) (ἀνθρώπων) (LS)

G

ὁ θεὸς (LS)

διὸ

καὶ

G

(ἀνθρώπων) (LS)

I

I

I

R.F.

Subject

(ἀνθρώπων) (LS)

Word

καὶ

Conj.

E-T-S

P-T-S

I.S.

Predicator

Rel-I-I

εἶναι

Mat-A

παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα ἐστιν Rel-I-A

Mat-A

Mat-A

ἐλάτρευσαν

ἐσεβάσθησαν

Mat-A

Mat-A

τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι μετήλλαξαν

Mat-A

παρέδωκεν

Mat-A

Ver

φάσκοντες

ἤλλαξαν

Rel-I-A

3S

S

3P

3P

3P

3S

3P

P

3P

A

A

A

P

A

M

A

A

A

A

P

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

P

P

I

P

P

I

I

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἐμωράνθησαν

Word

εὐλογητὸς

τῇ κτίσει

τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ

αὐτοὺς (ἀνθρώπων) (LO)

τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ (LO)

σοφοὶ

εἶναι σοφοὶ

Comp.

εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (1) ἀμήν (2)

παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα

ἐν τῷ ψεύδει

X (C/E) = (A/P) = (A/P) X (C/P) + (C/P)

X (C/R)

X (C/R)

ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν (1) εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν (2) τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς (3) ἐν αὐτοῖς

X (C/R) X (O/C)

Rel.

= (A/P)

Add.

ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου . . .

φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ

Adj.

SPCAA

P

PCA

P

SPCA

PSA

PCSAAA

PCA

PC

PC

AP

W.O.

Others

1:27

1–71 (E–1–70)

1–70 (E–1–69)

1–68 (E–1–67) 1–69 (P–1–67)

1–67 (P–1–65)

1–66 (E–1–65)

καὶ

ἣν

ἄρσενες

οἱ ἄρσενες

1–65 τε (1) (P–1–64) καὶ (2)

G

ὁ θεὸς (LS)

R

G

G

G

R.F.

Subject

Word

αἵ θήλειαι αὐτῶν (LS)

1–63 (P–1–56)

1:26

Conj.

1–64 τε (1) (P–1–63) γὰρ (2)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

P-T-P

P-T-S

P-T-P

P-T-S

I.S.

Predicator

ἔδει Rel-I-A

ἀπολαμβάνοντες Rel-P-A

Mat-A

Mat-A

ἀφέντες

κατεργαζόμενοι

Men-A

Mat-A

Mat-A

3S

P

P

P

3P

3P

3S

A

A

M

A

A

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

P

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἐξεκαύθησαν

μετήλλαξαν

παρέδωκεν

Word

τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν

τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην

τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας

αὐτοὺς (ἀνθρώπων) (LO) τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν

Comp.

τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς . . . ἐν ἑαυτοῖς

ἐν ἄρσεσιν (1) τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι (2) ἐν ἄρσεσιν

ὁμοίως (1) ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας (2) ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν (3) εἰς ἀλλήλους (4)

διὰ τοῦτο (1) εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας (2) εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν

Adj.

Add.

X (C/V)

X (C/R)

+ (A/X) = (A/P)

= (A/P)

= (A/P)

+ (A/X)

= (A/P)

Rel.

SP

CAP

A

ACP

SA

PC

ASAPAA

SPCA

APCSA

W.O.

Others

Conj.

1–83 (E–1–82)

ἀλλὰ (1) καὶ (2)

οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες

(αὐτοὺς)

1–79 (E–1–78) 1–80 (E–1–79) 1–81 (E–1–80) 1–82 (S–1–78)

ὅτι

οἵτινες

1–78 (S–1–74)

1:32

I

I

I

G

R

I

G

ὁ θεὸς (LS)

(αὐτοὺς)

I

R.F.

Subject

(ἀνθρώπων)

Word

1–77 (E–1–74)

1–75 (E–74) 1–76 (E–75)

1–72 καὶ (1) (S–1–74) καθὼς (2) 1–73 (E–1–72) 1–74 (P–69)

Clause

1:29–31

1:28

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

E-T-P

P-T-S

I.S.

Predicator

ReL-I-A Mat-A Men-C

Mat-A

εἰσίν πράσσοντες

συνευδοκοῦσιν

πράσσουσιν

Men-C

Rel-C-A

πεπληρωμένους

ἐπιγνόντες

Rel-I-A

τὰ καθήκοντα

Mat-A

Mat-A

ποιεῖν

ποιοῦσιν

Mat-A

Men-C

ἔχειν παρέδωκεν

Men-C

P

3P

P

3S

P

3P

P

P

3S

3P

A

A

A

A

A

A

P

A

A

A

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

I

S

I

I

P

I

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἐδοκίμασαν

Word

τοῖς πράσσουσιν

τὰ τοιαῦτα

τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἄξιοι θανάτου

αὐτὰ

πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ πονηρίᾳ . . .

τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα

αὐτοὺς

τὸν θεὸν

τὸν θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει

Comp.

τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ . . . (1) οὐ (2) μόνον (3)

μὴ

εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν (1) ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα . . . πεπληρωμένους πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ (2)

ἐν ἐπιγνώσει

οὐκ (1)

Adj.

Add.

X (C/P)

X (O/C) → (I) + (C/P) = (A/P)

+ (C/S)

+ (A/M)

CPA

→ (P/I)

P

APC

CP

SCP

CP

SAACP

PC

AP

PC

PCSAA

APC

W.O.

Others

X (C/E)

Rel.

2:3

2:2

2:1

Verse

2–11 (E–2–10) 2–12 (E–2–11) 2–13 (E–2–11) 2–14 (S–2–10)

2–10 (P–2–7)

2–9 (E–2–8)

2–7 (P–2–5) 2–8 (S–2–7)

2–2 (E–2–1) 2–3 (P–2–1) 2–4 (E–2–3) 2–5 (P–2–3) 2–6 (E–2–5)

2–1 (P–1–74)

Clause

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

G

S-T-P

ἐκφεύξῃ

σὺ (LS)

ὅτι

Mat-A

τοὺς πράσσοντας

Mat-A

Mat-A

Men-C

ὁ κρίνων

ποιῶν

Men-C

λογίζῃ

καὶ

δὲ

Mat-A

ἐπὶ τοὺς πράσσοντας

S-T-P

Rel-C-A

G

ἐστιν

τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ

ὅτι

Men-C

ὁ κρίνων Men-C

Mat-A

πράσσεις

οἴδαμεν

G

Men-C

κρίνεις

I

Men-C

πᾶς ὁ κρίνων Men-C

Rel-I-A

κατακρίνεις

P-T-S

Predicator

2S

S

P

S

2S

P

3S

1P

S

2S

2S

2S

S

2S

M

A

A

A

M

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

F

I

I

I

I

I

I

S

I

I

I

I

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

εἶ

Word

δὲ

ὁ κρίνων (LS)

γὰρ

I.S.

I

I

R.F.

Subject

(ὦ ἄνθρωπε)

Word

γὰρ

διὸ

Conj.

τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ

αὐτά

τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας τὰ τοιαῦτα

τοῦτο

τὰ τοιαῦτα

τὰ αὐτὰ

τὸν ἕτερον

σεαυτὸν (LO)

ἀναπολόγητος

Comp.

κατὰ ἀλήθειαν (1) ἐπὶ τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας (2)

ἐν ᾧ κρίνεις τὸν ἕτερον ἐν ᾧ

Adj.

ὦ ἄνθρωπε . . . καὶ ποιῶν αὐτά

ὦ ἄνθρωπε πᾶς ὁ κρίνων

Add.

+ (C/P) + (C/P) = (A/P) → (P/I)

= (V)

+ (C/P)

= (V) → (P/I)

X (C/V) X (C/E) + (C/P) X (C/E) + (C/P)

X (C/R)

Rel.

SPC

PC

CP

PC

PC Add

CP

SPAA

P

P

CPS

APC

ACP

P

CP Add

W.O.

Others

2–19 (S–2–18)

2–20 (S–2–19)

2:6

2:7

2:8

2–18 (P–2–15)

2:5

Predicator

ἀπειθοῦσι πειθομένοις

καὶ

δὲ

τοῖς ζητοῦσιν

(ἀποδώσει)

ἀποδώσει

θησαυρίζεις

Men-C

Men-C

Mat-A

Mat-A

Mat-E

Mat-A

Men-C

ἀγνοῶν ἄγει

Men-C

P

P

P

3S

2S

3S

S

2S

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

F

I

I

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

καταφρονεῖς

Word

2–23 (E–2–22) 2–24 (E–2–22)

R

S-T-P

I.S.

(ἀποδώσει)

ὃς

G

R.F.

Subject

τὸ χρηστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ

Word

δὲ

μὲν

δὲ

ὅτι

ἢ

Conj.

2–22 (S–2–20)

2–21 (E–2–20)

2–15 (P–2–10) 2–16 (E–2–15) 2–17 (S–2–15)

Clause

2:4

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

τοῖς ἐξ ἐριθείας . . . τῇ ἀδικίᾳ (LO-B) ὀργὴ καὶ θυμός (LO-G) τῇ ἀληθείᾳ (LO-G) τῇ ἀδικίᾳ (LO-G)

τοῖς μὲν καθ᾽ὑπομονὴν . . . ζητοῦσιν (LO-B) ζωὴν αἰώνιον (LO-G) δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν

ἑκάστῳ (LO-B)

σεαυτῷ (LO-B) ὀργὴν (LO-G)

σε

τοῦ πλούτου . . . τῆς μακροθυμίας

Comp.

καθ᾽ὑπομονὴν ἔργου

κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ

κατὰ τὴν . . . ἀμετανόητον καρδίαν (1) ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς . . . τοῦ θεοῦ (2)

εἰς μετάνοιάν

ἀγνοῶν

Adj.

Add.

= (A/P) = (A/N)

= (A/N)

+ (C/P)

+ (A/M)

+ (C/P)

= (V)

= (R/A) X (S/S) → (P/I)

Rel.

PC

PC

CC

ACP

CC

SPCA

APCCA

SACP

P

CPA

W.O.

Others

2–30 (P–2–29) 2–31 (E–2–30) 2–32 (P–2–30) 2–33 (E–2–32)

2–34 (P–2–32) 2–35 (P–2–34)

2–36 (S–2–38)

2:12

2:13

2:14

2–37 (E–2–36) 2–38 (P–2–35) 2–39 (E–2–38)

2–29 (P–2–27)

2–28 (E–2–27)

2–27 (P–2–18)

2–26 (E–2–25)

2–25 (P–2–18)

Clause

2:11

2:10

2:9

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

ὅσοι ἐν νόμῳ ἥμαρτον (LO-B) ὅσοι

οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου (LO-B) οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου (LO-B)

καὶ

γὰρ

ὅταν (1) γὰρ (2)

οὗτοι

ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα (LS)

ὅσοι . . . ἀνόμως ἥμαρτον ὅσοι

γὰρ

ἀλλ᾽

προσωπολημψία

R

G

G

G

R

G

R

G

G

G

G

θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία

δόξα καὶ τιμὴ καὶ εἰρήνη

R.F.

Subject

Word

γὰρ

δὲ

Conj.

S-P-P

P-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-S

P-T-P

P-T-P

I.S.

Predicator

Rel-P-A

ἔχοντες

Rel-P-A

τὰ ἔχοντα Rel-I-I

Mat-A

ποιῶσιν

ἐστιν

Rel-I-A

δικαιωθήσονται

Mat-A

ἥμαρτον

Mat-A

ἥμαρτον Men-C

Mat-A

ἀπολοῦνται

κριθήσονται

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

Mat-A

P

3S

P

3P

3P

3P

3P

3P

3P

3S

S

S

A

A

A

A

P

A

P

A

M

A

M

M

I

S

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

F

P

F

P

F

I

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἐστιν

παντὶ ἐργαζομένῳ

τοῦ κατεργαζομένου

Word

ἑαυτοῖς (LO-B) νόμος (LO-G) νόμον

νόμον

τὰ τοῦ νόμου (LO)

δίκαιοι (LO-G)

παντὶ τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ . . . καὶ Ἕλληνι (LO-B) τὸ ἀγαθόν (LO-G)

τὸ κακόν (LO-G)

Comp.

νόμον μὴ ἔχοντες ἑαυτοῖς μὴ

μὴ

φύσει

οὐ (1) παρὰ θεῷ (2)

ἐν νόμῳ

διὰ νόμου

ἀνόμως (1) καὶ (2) ἀνόμως

οὐ (1) παρὰ θεῷ (2)

ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν . . . καὶ Ἕλληνος (LO-B)

Adj.

Add.

+ (C/P) X (C/E) X (O/C)

X (O/P)

X (C/E) = (V)

+ (A/M) + (C/P) = (A/P) + (C/P)

X (C/E)

+ (C/P)

= (A/N)

+ (C/P)

X (S/C)

Rel.

CAP

SACPC

ACP

SPCP

SP

ASCA

SAP

SAP

SAP

SAAP

APSA

PC

SC

PC

SA

W.O.

Others

2:17

ἐπαναπαύῃ καυχᾶσαι

καὶ

καὶ

ἐπονομάζῃ

2–46 (S–2–45 2–47 (S–2–46)

S-T-P

σὺ

εἰv (1) δὲ (2)

2–45 (S–2–55)

G

κρίνει

ὁ θεὸς

ὅτε

συμμαρτυρούσης κατηγορούντων

ἐνδείκνυνται

Word

ἀπολογουμένων

E-T-S

S-T-S

I.S.

ἢ

G

G

αὐτῶν τῆς συνειδήσεως τῶν λογισμῶν

2–41 (S–2–40) 2–42 (S–2–41) 2–43 (S–2–42) 2–44 (S2–43)

καὶ

R

οἵτινες

2–40 (S–2–38)

2:15 –2:16

Subject

R.F.

Conj.

Word

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.) Predicator

Ver

Men-C

Ver

Men-C

Ver

Ver

Ver

Mat-A

2S

2S

2S

3S

P

P

S

3P

M

M

A

A

M

A

A

M

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

νόμῳ

Ἰουδαῖος

τὰ κρυπτὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων

τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν (LO)

Comp.

ἐν θεῷ

μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων καὶ (1) ἐν ἡμέρᾳ (2) κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου (1) διὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (2)

Adj.

Add.

X (C/C) (1) = V (2) = (A/P) = (A/P)

X (C/P) = (A/P) = (A/P) X (S/T)

+ (C/S)

Rel.

PA

PC

SCP

PSCAA

APA

ASP

PS

SPC

W.O.

Others

2:21

2–55 (P–2–38) 2–56 (E–2–55) 2–57 (P–2–56) 2–58 (E–2–57) 2–59 (E–2–57)

οὖν

G

G

ὁ διδάσκων

ὁ κηρύσσων μὴ κλέπτειν

(σεαυτὸν)

G

P-T-P

P-T-P

E-T-P

Mat-A Ver Mat-A

ὁ κηρύσσων κλέπτειν

Ver

ὁ διδάσκων κλέπτεις

Ver

Rel-P-A

ἔχοντα

διδάσκεις

Rel-I-I

Men-C

εἶναι

πέποιθάς

Ver

κατηχούμενος

τε

Men-C

τὰ διαφέροντα

Men-C Men-C

2–54 (E–2–52)

2–52 (S–2–49)

2:19 –2:20

Predicator

S

2S

S

2S

S

2S

2S

P

2S

2S

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

P

A

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

S

I

I

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

δοκιμάζεις

Word

καὶ

I.S. γινώσκεις

R.F.

Subject

καὶ

Word

σεαυτὸν

2–48 (S–2–47) 2–49 (S–2–48) 2–50 (E–2–49) 2–51 (E–2–49)

2:18

Conj.

2–53 (E–2–52)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

μὴ κλέπτειν

ἕτερον

σεαυτὸν

σεαυτὸν ὁδηγὸν εἶναι τυφλῶν . . . (1) ἔχοντα τὴν μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐν τῷ νόμῳ (2) ὁδηγὸν . . . διδάσκαλον νηπίων τὴν μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐν τῷ νόμῳ

τὰ διαφέροντα

τὸ θέλημα

Comp.

μὴ

οὐ

ἐκ τοῦ νόμου

κατηχούμενος ἐκ τοῦ νόμου

Adj.

Add.

X (C/R) + (C/P) = (A/P) + (C/P) → (P/I)

AP

PC

SP

PC

SCAP

PC

SCP

→ (P/I) = (A/P)

PC

PA

P

PCA

PC

W.O.

Others

= (A/P)

= (A/P) = (A/P) → (P/I) X (C/E)

Rel.

G

ὁ βδελυσσόμενος τὰ εἴδωλα

2:25

2:24

2:23

G

ὁ λέγων μὴ μοιχεύειν

2–60 (P–2–57) 2–61 (E–2–60) 2–62 (E–2–60) 2–63 (P–2–60)

2:22

καθὼς

2–68 (S–2–67)

2–72 (P–2–69)

2–69 μὲν (1) (P–2–67) γὰρ (2) 2–70 ἐὰν (S–2–69) 2–71 ἐὰν (1) (S–2–72) δὲ (2)

γὰρ

G

G

ἡ περιτομή σου

G

περιτομὴ

τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ (LO-G)

R

ὃς

2–66 (E–2–65)

2–67 (P–2–65)

G

ὃς ἐν νόμῳ καυχᾶσαι

2–65 (P–2–63)

2–64 (E–2–63)

R.F.

Subject

Word

Conj.

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

P-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-P

I.S.

Predicator

ὁ βδελυσσόμενος Men-A

Rel-I-A

ᾖς

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

πράσσῃς

γέγονεν

Rel-I-A

ὠφελεῖ

Ver

Ver

βλασφημεῖται

γέγραπται

Ver

καυχᾶσαι

Mat-A

S

Mat-A

ἱεροσυλεῖς

ἀτιμάζεις

2S

Mat-A

μοιχεύειν

3S

2S

2S

3S

3S

3S

2S

2S

S

Ver

ὁ λέγων

2S

Mat-A

A

A

A

A

P

P

M

A

M

A

A

A

A

I

S

S

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

S

I

I

I

S

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

μοιχεύεις

Word

ἀκροβυστία

παραβάτης νόμου

νόμον

τὸν θεὸν

τὰ εἴδωλα

μὴ μοιχεύειν

Comp.

δι᾽ὑμᾶς (1) ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (2)

διὰ τῆς παραβάσεως τοῦ νόμου ἐν νόμῳ

μὴ

Adj.

Add.

= (A/P)

X (C/E) X (O/P) + (C/N)

+ (M/P)

X (C/E)

+ (C/P)

= (A/P)

+ (C/P)

= (A/P) + (C/P) → (P/I) = (A/P)

Rel.

SCP

CP

CP

SP

P

SAPA

SAP

SACP

PC

SP

AP

PC

SP

W.O.

Others

3–1 (P–2–82) 3–2 (P–3–1)

2–82 (S–2–81)

2–81 (S–2–80)

2–79 (P–2–78) 2–80 (P–2–79)

2:29

2–76 (E–2–75)

2–75 (P–2–74)

2–77 (P–2–75) 2–78 (P–2–77)

3:1

Conj.

ἢ

οὖν

ἀλλ᾽

τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου ἡ ὠφέλεια τῆς περιτομῆς

περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος

καὶ

G

G

G

G

G

G

ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ

ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ

G

ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ

P-T-S

P-T-S

S-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-S

P-T-P

(ἐστιν)

(ἐστιν)

(ἐστιν)

(ἐστιν)

(ἐστιν)

ἐστιν Rel-I-I

Men-A

τελοῦσα

P-T-S

Men-C

G

κρινεῖ

ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία τὸν νόμον τελοῦσα

Mat-A Men-C

P-T-P

Predicator

3S

S

3S

3S

3S

A

A

A

P

A

I

I

F

S

I

I

I

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

λογισθήσεται

G

Word

ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ (LO-G)

I.S. φυλάσσῃ

R.F.

Subject

ἡ ἀκροβυστία

Word

ἀλλ᾽

γὰρ

καὶ

2–73 ἐὰν (1) (S–2–74) οὖν (2) 2–74 (P–2–72)

Clause

2:28

2:27

2:26

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

τίς

τί

ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ

οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων

οὐδὲ

περιτομή Ἰουδαῖος

οὐ

οὐχ

Adj.

Ἰουδαῖός

τὸν διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς παραβάτην νόμου τὸν νόμον

τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου εἰς περιτομὴν

Comp.

Add.

X (C/R) = (A/P)

= (V)

+ (C/V)

= (V) + (A/X)

X (C/E) + (A/X)

+ (C/P)

= (A/P)

X (O/P) X (C/R)

Rel.

CS

CS

A

SAA

S

SC

ASC

ASCP

CP

PSC

ASCP

SCP

W.O.

Others

3–3 (P–3–2) 3–4 (P–3–3) 3–5 (S–3–4)

3–6 (P–3–4) 3–7 (S–3–8) 3–8 (P–3–6)

3–9 (P–3–8) 3–10 (P–3–9) 3–11 (P–3–10) 3–12 (S–3–11) 3–13 (S–3–12)

3:2

3:3

3:4

3–14 (S–3–13) 3–15 (E–3–14)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

Mat-E Men-C

νικήσεις

ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί

καὶ

Rel-I-A

δικαιωθῇς

Ver

Rel-I-A

Mar-E

γένοιτο γινέσθω

Mat-A

Mat-A

Mat-A

ὅπως

P-T-P

Predicator

3S

2S

3S

3S

3S

3S

3P

3P

P

A

P

P

M

M

A

P

P

I

S

I

M

O

I

I

I

I

F

P

S

P

P

F

P

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

καταργήσει

ἠπίστησάν

ἐπιστεύθησαν

Word

γέγραπται

G

P-T-S

P-T-S

S-T-S

I.S.

καθὼς

πᾶς ἄνθρωπος

δὲ

G

G

ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν

ὁ θεὸς

G

R.F.

Subject

τινες

Word

δὲ

εἰ

γὰρ

ὅτι

[γὰρ]

Conj.

σε

ψεύστης

ἀληθής

τὴν πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ

τί

τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ

πολὺ

Comp.

ἂν (1) ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου (2) ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε

μὴ

μὴ

κατὰ πάντα τρόπον πρῶτον (1) μὲν (2)

Adj.

Add.

= (A/P) X (S/E)

→ (P/L) = (V) = (A/N) + (M/P) → (P/I)

X (C/R) X (O/P) + (C/P)

CA

→ (P/L) X (C/E) → (P/I)

PS

PA

APA

P

SC

PSC

AP

ASCP

PS

C

PC

AA

W.O.

Others Rel.

3:8

3–23 (S–3–24)

3:7

G

ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐπιφέρων τὴν ὀργήν

κἀγὼ

G

G

τὰ ἀγαθά

ὧν τὸ κρίμα

ἡμᾶς

R

G

ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ θεοῦ

εἰ (1) δὲ (2)

τινες

G

ὁ θεὸς

G

G

R.F.

Subject

ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν

Word

ἐπεὶ

εἰ (1) δὲ (2)

Conj.

3–25 καὶ (S–3–24) 3–26 καθὼς (S–3–25) 3–27 καὶ (1) (S–3–26) καθὼς (2) 3–28 (S–3–27) 3–29 ὅτι (S–3–28) 3–30 ἵνα (S–3–29) 3–31 (S–3–27)

3–24 (P–3–21)

3–21 (P–3–20) 3–22 (S–3–21)

3–19 (E–3–18) 3–20 (S–3–17)

3–16 (S–3–1 7) 3–17 (P–3–11) 3–18 (P–3–17)

Clause

3:6

3:5

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

S-T-P

S-T-S

P-T-S

S-T-P

S-T-S

P-T-S

S-T-P

I.S.

Predicator

Mat-E

γένοιτο

ἐστιν

Rel-I-A

Mat-E

Mat-A

ποιήσωμεν ἔλθῃ

Ver

Ver

Ver

Men-C

Rel-I-A

λέγειν

φασίν

βλασφημούμεθα

κρίνομαι

ἐπερίσσευσεν

Men-C

Ver

λέγω

κρινεῖ

Mat-A

Ver

ἐροῦμεν

ὁ ἐπιφέρων

Mat-A

3S

3S

1P

S

3P

1P

1S

3S

3S

3S

1S

S

1P

3S

A

A

A

A

A

P

P

A

A

M

A

A

A

A

I

S

S

I

I

I

I

I

O

I

I

I

I

P

P

I

I

I

I

P

I

P

I

I

F

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

συνίστησιν

Word

ἔνδικόν

τὰ κακά

ἡμᾶς λέγειν

τὸν κόσμον

τὴν ὀργήν

ἄδικος

τί

θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην

Comp.

μὴ

ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ ψεύσματι (1) εἰς τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ (2) τί (1) ἔτι (2) ὡς ἁμαρτωλὸς (3)

πῶς

μὴ

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον

μὴ

Adj.

Add.

= (A/P) X (M/P) = (A/P) X (M/P) → (P/I) → (P/I) X (C/P) = (R/A)

= (V)

X (O/P)

→ (P/L) X (C/R)

+ (C/P) + (C/P)

X (O/P) = (V) → (P/I)

Rel.

SCP

PS

PC

SP

PSC

AP

AASAP

SAPA

APSC

AP

AP

PC

CS

CP

SCP

W.O.

Others

3–32 (P–3–25) 3–33 (P–3–32) 3–34 (P–3–33) 3–35 (P–3–34) 3–36 (E–3–35)

3–37 (S–3–35) 3–38 (S–3–38)

3–39 (S–3–39) 3–40 (S–3–39) 3–41 (E–3–40) 3–42 (S–3–40) 3–43 (E–3–42)

3–44 (S–3–42) 3–45 (S–3–44) 3–46 (S–3–44) 3–47 (E–3–46) 3–48 (S–3–46)

3:10

3:11

3:12

Clause

3:9

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

G

G

G

G

ὁ συνίων

ὁ ἐκζητῶν τὸν θεόν

πάντες

ὁ ποιῶν χρηστότητα

G

S-T-S

S-T-P

S-T-S

S-T-S

S-T-S

Mat-A

ὁ ποιῶν [ἔστιν]

Rel-I-A

ἔστιν

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

ὁ ἐκζητῶν

ἠχρεώθησαν

Rel-I-A

ἔστιν

Men-C

Men-C

ὁ συνίων

ἐξέκλιναν

Rel-I-A

ἔστιν

Rel-I-A

Ver

Rel-I-A

εἶναι

Rel-I-A

Ver

ἔστιν

δίκαιος

Predicator

S

3S

3P

3P

S

3S

S

3S

3S

3S

3S

1P

1P

A

A

P

A

A

A

A

A

A

P

A

M

M

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

I

I

I

I

I

S

I

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

προῃτιασάμεθα

προεχόμεθα

Word

ὅτι

E-T-P

I.S.

γέγραπται

G

R.F.

Subject

Ἰουδαίους τε καὶ Ἕλληνας πάντας

Word

καθὼς

γὰρ

οὖν

Conj.

χρηστότητα

τὸν θεόν

εἷς

Ἰουδαίους τε καὶ . . . εἶναι

τί

Comp.

[οὐκ] ἕως ἑνός

οὐκ

ἅμα

οὐκ

οὐκ

οὐδὲ

οὐκ

ὑφ᾽ἁμαρτίαν

οὐ (1) πάντως (2)

Adj.

Add.

= (A/P) = (A/P) = (A/P) + (C/P) = (A/P)

= (A/P) = (A/P) + (C/P) = (A/P) + (C/P)

+ (M/P) → (P/I)

X (C/R) = (A/P) → (P/L) X (C/E) → (P/I)

Rel.

A

PC

APS

AP

SP

PC

APS

P

APS

AC

APS

P

SAP

PC

AA

P

C

W.O.

Others

Clause

3–49 (S–3–48) 3–50 (E–3–49) 3–51 (S–3–49) 3–52 (S–3–51)

3–53 (S–3–52)

3–54 (S–3–52) 3–55 (E–3–54)

3–56 (S–3–54)

3–57 (S–3–56)

3–58 (S–3–57)

3–59 (P–3–35) 3–60 (S–3–59) 3–61 (E–3–60) 3–62 (S–3–60) 3–63 (S–3–62)

Verse

3:13

3:14

3:15

3:16

3:17

3:18

3:19

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

G

G

G

G

ἰὸς ἀσπίδων

ὧν τὸ στόμα

οἱ πόδες αὐτῶν

σύντριμμα καὶ ταλαιπωρία

Predicator

πᾶς ὁ κόσμος

καὶ

G

G

S-T-S

S-T-P γένηται Rel-I-A

Ver

πᾶν στόμα

ἵνα

φραγῇ

Ver

λέγει

E-T-S

G

Ver

λαλεῖ

S-T-P

G

Men-C

Rel-I-A

Men-C

Mat-A

ὅσα ὁ νόμος λέγει ὁ νόμος

ἔστιν

ἔγνωσαν

ἐκχέαι

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

ἐδολιοῦσαν

γέμει

Rel-I-A

3S

3S

3S

3S

1P

3S

3P

3S

3P

S

M

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

P

S

S

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

I

I

I

I

P

P

I

I

S

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἀνεῳγμένος

Word

ὅτι

S-T-S

S-T-P

S-T-S

S-T-P

S-T-P

S-T-S

I.S.

οἴδαμεν

G

G

ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν

φόβος θεοῦ

R.F.

Subject

Word

δὲ

καὶ

Conj.

ὑπόδικος (1) τῷ θεῷ (2)

ὅσα

τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ

ὁδὸν εἰρήνης

αἷμα

ὀξεῖς

ἀρᾶς καὶ πικρίας

τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος

Comp.

οὐκ (1) ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτῶν (2)

οὐκ

ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτῶν

ἐκχέαι αἷμα

ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν

Adj.

Add.

= (V) → (P/I) + (C/P) X (C/P) = (A/P)

= (A/P)

= (A/P)

= (A/P)

= (A/P) + (C/P)

= (A/P)

= (A/P) + (C/P) = (A/P) = (A/P)

Rel.

CPSC

SP

CSP

SCP

P

APSA

CAP

SA

PC

CSA

SCP

SA

AP

P

CS

W.O.

Others

3:23 –24

3:22

3–71 (P–3–68) 3–72 (P–3–72) 3–73 (E–3–72)

3–69 (E–3–68) 3–70 (P–3–68)

3–68 (P–3–66)

3–67 (E–3–66)

πάντες

γὰρ

καὶ

διαστολή

δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (LO-G)

γὰρ

δὲ

δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (LO-G)

δὲ

3–66 (P–3–65)

ἐπίγνωσις ἁμ αρτίας

γὰρ

3–65 (P–3–59)

3:21

πᾶσα σὰρξ (LO-G)

διότι

R

G

G

G

G

G

R.F.

Subject

3–64 (S–3–63)

Word

3:20

Conj.

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

P-T-S

P-T-P

P-T-S

S-T-S

S-T-S

I.S.

Predicator

Rel-P-A Rel-I-A

δικαιούμενοι

Mat-A

ὑστεροῦνται

ἥμαρτον

Rel-I-A

Men-C

Ver

μαρτυρουμένη

εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας ἐστιν

Mat-A

Rel-I-A

P

3P

3P

3S

P

S

3S

3S

P

P

A

A

A

P

P

P

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

I

I

I

S

F

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

πεφανέρωται

δικαιωθήσεται

Word

τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ

Comp.

δικαιούμενοι . . . Ἰησοῦ δωρεὰν (1) τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι (2) διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (3)

οὐ

διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1) εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας (2) (LO-B)

νυνὶ (1) χωρὶς νόμου (2) μαρτυρουμένη . . . προφητῶν (3) ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν

ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (1) οὐ (2) ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ (3) διὰ νόμου

Adj.

Add.

X (C/E) = (A/P) = (V)

+ (C/P) X (C/E)

= (A/X)

+ (C/P)

= (V)

X (C/E)

X (C/E)

Rel.

PAAA

PCA

SP

APS

P

SAA

PA

AASPA

AS

AAPSA

W.O.

Others

3:27

3–74 (S–3–72)

3:25 –26

3–79 (P–3–72) 3–80 (P–3–79 3–81 (P–3–80) 3–82 (P3–81) 3–83 (P–3–82) 3–84 (P–3–83)

3–78 (E–3–76)

3–77 (E–3–76)

3–75 (E–3–74) 3–76 (S–3–74)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

ἀλλὰ

οὖν

καὶ

Conj.

ἡ καύχησις

G

R

G

ὁ θεὸς (LS)

αὐτὸν

R.F.

Subject

Word

P-T-S

S-T-S

I.S.

Predicator

ἐξεκλείσθη

δικαιοῦντα

Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

Mat-E

προγεγονότων

εἰς τὸ εἶναι

Men-C

3S

S

P

3S

P

A

A

A

M

I

I

P

I

I

S

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

προέθετο

Word

δίκαιον (1) καὶ δικαιοῦντα . . . Ἰησοῦ (2) τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ

ὃν . . . (1) ἱλαστήριον (2) (LO-G)

Comp.

διὰ νόμου πίστεως

οὐχί

τῶν ἔργων

διὰ ποίου νόμου

ποῦ

πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτου (1) ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ (2) εἰς τὸ εἶναι . . . Ἰησοῦ (3)

διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως (1) ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι (2) εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ (3) διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν . . . ἁμαρτημάτων (4) ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ (5)

Adj.

Add.

X (C/R) → (P/L) = (A/P) = (A/P) → (P/L) = (V)

= (A/P)

X (C/P)

+ (C/P) = (A/P)

+ (C/P)

Rel.

A

A

A

A

P

AS

PC

PSA

AAA

P

CPSCAAAAA

W.O.

Others

3–85 (P–3–84) 3–86 (E–3–85)

3–87 (P–3–85) 3–88 (P–3–87) 3–89 (P–3–88)

3–90 (S–3–89) 3–91 (S–3–90) 3–92 (S–3–91)

3–93 (P–3–89) 3–94 (P–3–93) 3–95 (P–3–94)

4–1 (P–3–94)

3:28

3:29

3:30

3:31

4:1

4–2 (E–4–1)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.) Predicator

Ver

Men-P

ἐροῦμεν

εὑρηκέναι

οὖν

Mat-E

γένοιτο Men-A

Men-A

Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

Men-C

1P

1P

3S

1P

3S

1P

A

A

A

M

A

A

P

M

I

I

O

I

I

I

S

F

I

P

I

F

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

καταργοῦμεν

δικαιώσει

δικαιοῦσθαι

λογιζόμεθα

Word

ἱστάνομεν

E-T-S

S-T-S

P-T-S

E-T-S

I.S.

ἀλλὰ

G Αβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα

R

ὃς (LS)

οὖν

G

ὁ θεὸς

εἴπερ

G

ὁ θεὸς

G

R.F.

Subject

ἄνθρωπον (LO-G)

Word

ἢ

γὰρ

Conj.

τί (1) εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ . . . κατὰ σάρκα (2)

νόμον

διὰ τῆς πίστεως

νόμον

μὴ

διὰ τῆς πίστεως

περιτομὴν (LO-G) ἀκροβυστίαν

εἷς ἐκ πίστεως

οὐχὶ (1) καὶ (2) ναὶ (1) καὶ (2)

ἐθνῶν ἐθνῶν

μόνον

πίστει (1) χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (2)

Adj.

Ἰουδαίων

δικαιοῦσθαι . . . νόμου

Comp.

Add.

→ (P/I)

X (C/R)

X (C/R) → (P/L) = (V)

X (C/E) + (C/P) = (A/P)

= (R/A) = (A/N) → (P/L)

X (C/E) → (P/I)

Rel.

PS

CPC

CP

AP

CPA

CA

SPCA

SC

AAC

AAC

CSA

PASA

PC

W.O.

Others

4–3 (S–4–4)

4:2

4–9 (P–4–6) 4–10 (E–4–9) 4–11 (P–4–9)

4–12 (P–4–11)

4:4

4:5

4–15 (E–4–14)

4–13 (E–4–12) 4–14 (E–4–12)

4–6 (P–4–5) 4–7 (P–4–6) 4–8 (P–4–7)

4:3

4–4 (P–4–1) 4–5 (P–4–4)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

G

P-T-S

δὲ Men-C

Rel-I-A

ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα

Mat-A

τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ πιστεύοντι

Men-C

λογίζεται

S

S

S

3S

A

A

M

P

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

I

I

P

τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ (1) πιστεύοντι . . . ἀσεβῆ (2)

τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ (LO-B)

αὐτῷ (LO-B)

τῷ θεῷ

τί

καύχημα

οὐ (1) κατὰ χάριν (2)

εἰς δικαιοσύνην

οὐ (1) πρὸς θεόν (2)

ἐξ ἔργων

τὸν ἀσεβῆ

ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ

μὴ

εἰς δικαιοσύνην

ἡ πίστις αὐτοῦ

I

I

I

I

I

I

δὲ

M

P

P

A

A

A

P

Adj.

κατὰ ὀφείλημα

S

3S

3S

3S

3S

3S

3S

Comp.

ἀλλὰ

Mat-A

τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ

Men-C

Men-C

Men-C

ἐπίστευσεν

λογίζεται

ὁ μισθὸς (LO-G)

P-T-S

Ver

Rel-P-A

ἔχει

λέγει

Rel-I-A

δὲ

G

P-T-S

Predicator Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἐδικαιώθη

Word

ἐλογίσθη

Ἀβραὰμ (LS)

δὲ

G

P-T-P

I.S.

καὶ

ἡ γραφὴ

G

R.F.

Subject

Ἀβραὰμ (LO)

Word

γὰρ

ἀλλ᾽

εἰ (1) γὰρ (2)

Conj.

Add.

+ (C/P)

+ (C/P) = (A/N)

= (A/N)

= (V) + (C/P) = (V)

X (C/E) → (P/I) X (C/R)

X (O/P) → (P/L) X (C/E) = (V)

Rel.

PC

PA

AP

CPSA

A

P

CSAPA

PCA

PSC

CSP

AA

PC

SAP

W.O.

Others

4–16 (S–4–12)

4:6

4–18 (S–4–16) 4–19 (E–4–18) 4–20 (E–4–19)

4–21 (S–4–18) 4–22 (S–4–21)

4–23 οὖν (P–4–16) 4–24 ἢ (1) (P–4–23) καὶ (2) 4–25 γὰρ (P–4–24) 4–26 (P–4–25)

4:8

4:9

καὶ

καθάπερ

Conj.

4:7

4–17 (S–4–16)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

G

G

ἡ πίστις (LO-G)

G

κύριος

ὁ μακαρισμὸς οὗτος

G

E-T-S

G

ἀνὴρ

S-T-S

G

ὧν ἀφέθησαν . . . ἁμαρτίαι ὧν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι (LO-G) ὧν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι (LO-G)

S-T-S

S-T-P

S-T-S

S-T-S

S-T-S

G

ὁ θεὸς (LS)

S-T-S

I.S.

G

R.F.

Subject

∆αυὶδ

Word

ἐλογίσθη

λέγομεν

λογίσηται

ἐπεκαλύφθησαν

ἀφέθησαν

λογίζεται

λέγει

Word

Predicator

Men-C

Ver

Men-C

Men-C

Men-C

Men-C

Ver

3S

1P

3S

3P

3P

3S

3S

P

A

M

P

P

M

A

I

I

S

I

I

I

I

P

I

P

P

P

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

τῷ Ἀβραὰμ (LO-B)

οὗ ἁμαρτίαν

μακάριος

μακάριοι

ᾧ (1) δικαιοσύνην (2)

Comp.

εἰς δικαιοσύνην

ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομὴν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκροβυστίαν

οὐ μὴ

καὶ (1) τὸν μακαρισμὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (2) χωρὶς ἔργων

Adj.

Add.

X (C/R) = (R/A) X (C/E) → (P/I)

= (A/P) + (C/P)

CS

→ (P/I) + (C/P) = (A/P)

PCSA

P

AA

SA

CAPS

CS

PS

PS

CSPCA

ASPA

W.O.

Others

+ (C/P)

X (M/P)

Rel.

4:11 –12

4–27 (P–4–25) 4–28 (P–4–27)

4:10

4–39 (E–4–38)

4–36 (E–4–35) 4–37 (E–4–35) 4–38 (E–4–34)

4–34 (P–4–31) 4–35 (E–4–34)

4–32 (E–4–31) 4–33 (E–4–32)

4–29 (E–4–28) 4–30 (E–4–29) 4–31 (P–4–28)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

ἀλλὰ (1) καὶ (2)

καὶ

[καὶ]

καὶ

ἀλλ᾽

ἢ

οὖν

Conj.

G

R

πάντων τῶν

[τὴν] δικαιοσύνην

R

R.F.

Subject

αὐτὸν

Word

E-T-S

I.S.

Predicator

Men-C

τοῖς στοιχοῦσιν Mat-A

εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι Men-C

πιστευόντων

εἰς τὸ εἶναι Rel-I-I

Rel-I-A

ὄντι

ἔλαβεν

Men-C

P

P

S

S

3S

A

P

A

A

A

P

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἐλογίσθη

Word

πατέρα περιτομῆς (1) τοῖς οὐκ . . . Ἀβραάμ (2) τοῖς ἴχνεσιν . . . ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ

αὐτοῖς

σημεῖον . . . ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ πατέρα . . . ἀκροβυστίας

Comp.

εἰς τὸ εἶναι . . . Ἀβραάμ εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι ... δικαιοσύνην δι᾽ἀκροβυστίας

ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ οὐκ ἐν περιτομῇ ἀλλ᾽ἐν ἀκροβυστία οὐκ (1) ἐν περιτομῇ (2) ἐν ἀκροβυστία

ἐν περιτομῇ ὄντι ἢ ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ ἐν περιτομῇ (1)

πῶς

Adj.

Add.

= (A/P)

+ (C/P) X (C/P) = (A/P)

+ (AP) X (C/P)

+ (C/P) = (V)

+ (C/P) = (R/A) = (A/P)

X (C/R) = (A/P)

Rel.

PC

CC

PCS

SPA

PSCA

CPA

A

AA

A

A

AP

A

AP

W.O.

Others

4:16

4:15

4:14

4–40 (P–4–34)

4:13

ἀλλὰ

γὰρ

Conj.

4–51 (E–4–50) 4–52 (S–4–50)

4–49 (P–4–47) 4–50 (S–4–49)

ἵνα

G

R

ὅς

G

E-T-S

E-T-S

S-T-S

G

τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν

νόμος

δὲ

4–48 (E–4–46)

S-T-P

G

G

ὁ νόμος (LS) παράβασις

S-T-S

G

ἡ πίστις (LO-G) ἡ ἐπαγγελία (LO-G)

γὰρ

S-T-S

G

S-T-P

S-T-S

I.S.

οἱ ἐκ νόμου

R

G

R.F.

Subject

ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῷ Ἀβραὰμ . . . εἶναι κόσμου αὐτὸν

Word

4–46 (P–4–45) 4–47 (P–4–42)

4–43 εἰ (1) (S–4–44) γὰρ (2) 4–44 (P–4–42) 4–45 καὶ (P–4–44)

4–41 (E–4–40) 4–42 (P–4–40)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.) Predicator

εἶναι

εἰς τὸ εἶναι

ἔστιν

Rel-I-I

Rel-I-A

Exi

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

κατήργηται

κατεργάζεται

Mat-A

Rel-I-I

3S

3S

3S

3S

3S

A

A

A

M

P

P

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

S

S

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

κεκένωται

εἶναι

Word

βεβαίαν (1) παντὶ τῷ . . . Ἀβραάμ (2) πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν

ὀργὴ (LO-G)

κληρονόμοι

τὸ κληρονόμον κόσμου

Comp.

X (C/P) + (C/P)

X (C/R) X (C/E)

διὰ τοῦτο (1) ἐκ πίστεως (2) κατὰ χάριν (1) εἰς τὸ εἶναι . . . Ἀβραάμ (2)

X (C/E) = (V)

X (O/P) X (C/E) = (A/P)

+ (A/X) = (V)

Rel.

X (O/N)

Add.

οὗ (1) οὐκ (2)

οὗ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος (1) οὐδὲ (2)

διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως

οὐ (1) διὰ νόμου (2)

Adj.

SPC

PCSC

AA

AA

AAPS

AAS

SCP

PS

PS

SC

A

CSP

AAS

W.O.

Others

4:19

R

αὐτὸν

4–61 (E–4–60)

4–64 (S–4–60) 4–65 (E–4–64) 4–66 (E–4–64) 4–67 (E–4–66)

4–62 (E–4–61) 4–63 (E–4–61)

R

ὅς

4–60 (S–4–55)

καὶ

τὸ σπέρμα σου

G

E-T-S

Exi

ὡς ὄντα

Ver

κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον ἔσται Men-P Rel-I-A Rel-I-A Rel-I-A

κατενόησεν ἀσθενήσας

νενεκρωμένον ὑπάρχων

Rel-I-I

Rel-I-I

εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι

Men-C

Exi

τὰ ὄντα

ἐπίστευσεν

Ver

καλοῦντος

S

τοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος Mat-A

καὶ

3S

Men-C

ἐπίστευσεν

S

S

S

3S

3S

S

3S

P

P

S

1S

3S

Exi

Ver

τέθεικά

4:18

Predicator

A

P

A

A

M

P

M

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

P

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

S

P

P

F

S

I

P

I

I

I

I

P

S

S

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ὅτι

Word γέγραπται

I.S.

καθὼς

R.F.

Subject

4–53 (S–4–52) 4–54 (S–4–53) 4–55 (S–4–54) 4–56 (E–4–55) 4–57 (E–4–55) 4–58 (E–4–57) 4–59 (E–4–58)

Word

4:17

Conj.

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

ἑκατονταετής που

τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα . . . Σάρρας τῇ πίστει

πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν

τὰ μὴ ὄντα

πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν σε οὗ (1) θεοῦ (2) τοὺς νεκροὺς

Comp.

[ἤδη]

μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει μὴ

οὕτως

παρ᾽ἐλπίδα (1) ἐπ᾽ἐλπίδι (2) εἰς τὸ . . . ὸ σπέρμα σου (3) κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον οὕτως ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου

μὴ

ὡς ὄντα

κατέναντι . . . ὡς ὄντα

Adj.

Add.

X (S/F) + (C/P) + (C/P) = (A/P)

X (M/P) → (P/I)

X (C/P)

+ (C/P)

X (M/P)) → (P/I) + (A/X) + (C/P) = (A/P) + (C/P) + (C/P)

Rel.

CP

[A]P

APC

APC

APS

P

PSCA

AAPA

P

AP

PCA

PC

ASP

CP

P

W.O.

Others

Mat-A

δοὺς

ἐγράφη

ἐλογίσθη

ὅτι

4–77 (S–4–76)

4:23

δὲ

4–75 (S–4–65)

4:22

4–76 (P–4–11)

Ver

ἐπήγγελται

Men-C

Ver

Men-C

Mat-A

ποιῆσαι

ἐλογίσθη

Rel-I-A

ἐστιν

ὅτι

Men-C

πληροφορηθεὶς

καὶ

διὸ

4–73 (E–4–72) 4–74 (E–4–68)

4–71 (E–4–68) 4–72 (E–4–71)

4–70 (E–4–69)

Rel-I-A

ἐνεδυναμώθη

Men-C

ἀλλ᾽

Predicator

3S

3S

3S

3S

3S

S

S

3S

3S

P

P

P

M

A

A

P

A

P

P

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

P

S

P

I

P

P

P

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

4–69 (S–4–68)

Word διεκρίθη

I.S.

δὲ

R.F.

Subject

4–68 (S–4–64)

Word

4:20 –21

Conj.

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

αὐτῷ (LO-B)

αὐτῷ (LO-B)

ὃ

ὃ ἐπήγγελται (1) δυνατός (2) καὶ ποιῆσαι (3) ὃ ἐπήγγελται

δόξαν (1 ) (LO-G) τῷ θεῷ (2) (LO-B)

Comp.

οὐκ (1) δι᾽αὐτὸν (2) μόνον (3)

[καὶ] (1) εἰς δικαιοσύνην (2)

καὶ

εἰς τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ θεοῦ (1) οὐ (2) τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ (3) τῇ πίστει (1) δοὺς δόξαν . . . ποιῆσαι (2)

Adj.

Add.

APAA

PC

→ (P/I)

APCA

CP

CAP

CCPC

P

PCC

PAA

AAPA

W.O.

Others

+ (C/C)

X (S/C)

= (A/P) + (C/P)

X (S/S) → (P/I)

X (S/F)

= (V)

= (V)

Rel.

5:2

5:1

4:25

5–5 (P–5–1)

5–4 (S–5–3)

5–3 (S–5–1)

5–2 (E–5–1)

5–1 (P–4–74)

4–84 (S–4–73)

καὶ Ver

Exi

ἑστήκαμεν

καυχώμεθα

Rel-I-A

ἐσχήκαμεν

Rel-I-A

δικαιωθέντες

καὶ

Rel-P-A

ἔχωμεν

οὖν

Mat-A

ἠγέρθη

Mat-A

καὶ

παρεδόθη

1P

1P

1P

P

1P

3S

3S

S

ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα Mat-A

4–83 (S–4–79)

P

Men-C

3S

τοῖς πιστεύουσιν

R

Predicator

M

A

A

P

A

P

P

A

A

P

A

S

I

I

S

I

I

I

I

S

S

I

I

P

P

P

I

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

Men-C

Word

λογίζεσθαι

I.S.

4–80 (E–4–79) 4–81 (E–4–80) 4–82 (E–4–76)

ὃς (LO-G)

R.F.

Subject

Rel-I-A

ἀλλὰ (1) καὶ (2)

Word

μέλλει

4–78 (P–4–76)

4:24

Conj.

4–79 (S–4–78)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

τὴν προσαγωγὴν

εἰρήνην

Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν

ἐπὶ τὸν . . . νεκρῶν

τοῖς . . . νεκρῶν

οἷς . . . νεκρῶν

Comp.

ἐπ᾽ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ

δι᾽οὗ (1) τῇ πίστει (2) εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην (3) ἐν ᾗ

δικαιωθέντες ἐκ πίστεως (1) πρὸς τὸν θεὸν (2) διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (3) ἐκ πίστεως

διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν

ἐκ νεκρῶν

δι᾽ἡμᾶς

Adj.

Add.

= (A/P)

+ (C/P)

+ (C/P)

X (C/E)

X (C/R)

X (S/F)

+ (C/P)

+ (C/P) + (C/P) + (C/P)

+ (C/P)

= (A/P)

Rel.

PS

AP

ACP (A)A

PA

ACPAA

PA

SPA

PCA

PA

PC

CPC

A

W.O.

Others

5–6 (P–5–5) 5–7 (P–5–6)

5:3

5:6

5–12 (S–5–11) 5–13 (S–5–12)

5:5

5–16 (S–5–15)

5–15 (P–5–7)

5–14 (E–5–13)

5–10 (S–5–9) 5–11 (S–5–10)

5:4

5–8 (E–5–7) 5–9 (S–5–7)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

G

S

ἡμῶν

ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ

ὅτι

S

G

ἡ ἐλπὶς

δὲ

S

S

Χριστὸς

ἡ δοκιμὴ

δὲ

γὰρ

ἡ ὑπομονὴ

δὲ

S

R.F.

Subject

ἡ θλῖψις

Word

ὅτι

ἀλλὰ (1) καὶ (2)

δὲ

Conj.

S-T-S

P-T-S

S-T-P

S-T-P

S-T-P

S-T-P

S-T-P

I.S.

Predicator

ὄντων Rel-I-A

Mat-E

Mat-A

τοῦ δοθέντος ἀπέθανεν

Mat-A

Men-A

ἐκκέχυται

καταισχύνει

Mat-A

Men-C

εἰδότες

κατεργάζεται

Ver

P

3S

S

3S

3S

3S

P

1P

A

A

P

P

A

M

A

M

I

I

I

I

S

I

P

P

S

I

I

S

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

καυχώμεθα

Word

ἀσθενῶν

ἡμῖν

ἐλπίδα

δοκιμήν

ὑπομονὴν

Comp.

ἔτι (1) ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν ἔτι (2) κατὰ καιρὸν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν (4) ἔτι

ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν (1) διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ δοθέντος ἡμῖν (2)

οὐ

οὐ (1) μόνον (2) ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν (1) εἰδότες (2)

Adj.

Add.

+ (C/P)

X (C/E)

+ (C/P)

X (S/F) → (P/I)

X (S/F) X (S/F)

X (C/E) → (P/I)

= (A/P) = (A/P)

Rel.

PSCA

ASAAP

PC

SPAA

SAP

SC

SC

SCP

P

PAA

AA

W.O.

Others

5:10

5:9

5:8

5:7

Verse

R

ἡμῶν

Predicator

1P

Rel-I-A Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

κατηλλάγημεν

ὄντες σωθησόμεθα

καταλλαγέντες

5–25 εἰ (1) (S–5–27) γὰρ (2)

5–28 (E–5–26)

5–26 (E–5–25) 5–27 (P–5–23)

5–23 (P–5–20)

ReL-I-A

Rel-I-A

Mat-E

Mat-A

Mat-E

Mat-E

P

1P

P

P

P

1P

P

3S

3S

3S

P

P

A

P

P

A

A

A

A

M

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

F

I

P

P

F

I

P

I

P

F

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

δικαιωθέντες

ὄντων

ἀπέθανεν

συνίστησιν

ἀποθανεῖν

ἀποθανεῖται

Word

5–24 (E–5–23)

S-T-S

P-T-S

I.S.

Rel-I-A

οὖν

G

Χριστὸς

ὅτι

G

R

ὁ θεός

τις

γὰρ

R

R.F.

Subject

δὲ

τις

Word

γὰρ

Conj.

σωθησόμεθα

5–22 (E–5–21)

5–20 (P–5–18) 5–21 (S–5–20)

5–19 (E–5–18)

5–17 (P–5–15) 5–18 (P–5–17)

Clause

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

ἐχθροὶ

τῷ θεῷ

ἁμαρτωλῶν

τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην

ἀποθανεῖν

Comp.

πολλῷ μᾶλλον (1) καταλλαγέντες (2) ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτου (3)

ἐχθροὶ ὄντες (1) διὰ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (2)

πολλῷ μᾶλλον (1) δικαιωθέντες . . . αἵματι αὐτοῦ (2) δι᾽αὐτοῦ (3) ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς (4) νῦν (1) ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ (2)

ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν (1) ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (2) ἔτι

εἰς ἡμᾶς

μόλις (1) ὑπὲρ δικαίου (2) ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ (1) τολμᾷ (2) καὶ (3)

Adj.

Add.

X (C/E)

+ (C/P) = (A/P)

X (O/P)

X (C/E)

X (C/R)

+ (C/P)

= (A) → (P/I)

X (C/E) = (R/A)

Rel.

P

AAPA

CP

APCA

PAA

AAPAA

ACPS

ASAP

PCAS

P

AASAPC

AASP

W.O.

Others

5:13

5:12

S-T-S

Predicator

5–39 (E–5–37)

5–37 (S–5–35) 5–38 (S–5–37)

5–36 (S–5–35)

καὶ

5–34 (S–5–33) 5–35 (S–5–34)

G

G

ἁμαρτία

νόμου

δὲ

G

G

πάντες (LS)

ἁμαρτία

G

ὁ θάνατος (LS)

γὰρ

καὶ

ὥσπερ

5–33 (S–5–45)

E-T-S

S-T-P

S-T-S

S-T-S

S-T-S

ὄντος

ἐλλογεῖται

ἦν

ἥμαρτον

εἰσῆλθεν

Exi

Ver

Exi

Mat-A

Mat-E

S

3S

3S

3P

3S

1P

P

A

P

A

A

A

P

M

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

P

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

Mat-A

Word

ἐλάβομεν

G

I.S.

5–32 (S–5–30)

ἡ ἁμαρτία (LS)

R.F.

Subject

Ver

ἀλλὰ (1) καὶ (2)

δὲ

Word

καυχώμενοι

5–29 (P–5–27) 5–30 (P–5–29)

5:11

Conj.

5–31 (E–5–30)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

τὴν καταλλαγὴν

Comp.

ἄχρι νόμου (1) ἐν κόσμῳ (2) οὐκ (1) μὴ ὄντος νόμου (2) μὴ

διὰ τοῦτο (1) δι᾽ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου (2) εἰς τὸν κόσμον (3) διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας οὕτως (1) εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπου (2) ἐφ᾽ᾧ

οὐ (1) μόνον (2) καυχώμενοι (1) ἐν τῷ θεῷ (2) διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (3) ἐν τῷ θεῷ (1) διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2) δι᾽οὗ (1) νῦν (2)

Adj.

Add.

X (O/P)

X (C/E) = (V)

X (C/E)

X (S/F) X (S/F)

X (M/P)

X (C/E)

X (C/R)

= (A/P) = (A/P)

Rel.

APS

SAPA

ASPA

ASP

AASP

AS

AASAP

AACP

PAA

A

AA

W.O.

Others

5:16

5:15

5–40 (S–5–38)

5:14

ἀλλ᾽

ἀλλὰ

Conj.

καὶ

5–49 (E–5–48) 5–50 μὲν (1) (P–5–48) γὰρ (2) 5–51 δὲ (P–5–50)

5–48 (P–5–47)

5–47 (P–5–45)

5–45 (P–5–30) 5–46 εἰ (1) (S–5–47) γὰρ (2)

5–44 (S–5–45)

5–41 (E–5–39) 5–42 (S–5–40) 5–43 (E–5–42)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

G

ἡ χάρις . . . ἐν χάριτι τῇ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

G

G

τὸ κρίμα

τὸ χάρισμα

G

G

οἱ πολλοὶ

τὸ δώρημα

G

R

τὸ χάρισμα

ὅς

G

R.F.

Subject

ὁ θάνατος (LS)

Word

P-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-S

P-T-S

S-T-S

P-T-S

S-T-S

I.S.

Predicator

ὡς δι᾽ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος Mat-A

Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

τοῦ μέλλοντος

ἐπερίσσευσεν

Rel-I-A

Mat-E

Mat-A

τοὺς ἁμαρτήσαντας ἐστιν

ἀπέθανον

Mat-A

S

3S

3P

S

3S

P

3S

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

I

I

I

I

P

P

P

I

I

P

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἐβασίλευσεν

Word

τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος

Comp.

ἐξ ἑνὸς (1) εἰς κατάκριμα (2) ἐκ πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων (1) εἰς δικαίωμα (2)

οὐχ (1) ὡς δι᾽ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος (2)

πολλῷ μᾶλλον (1) εἰς τοὺς πολλοὺς (2)

οὐχ (1) ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα (2) οὕτως (1) καὶ (2) τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι

ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ (1) μέχρι Μωϋσέως (2) καὶ (3) ἐπὶ . . . Ἀδὰμ (4) μὴ (1) ἐπὶ . . . Ἀδὰμ (2)

Adj.

Add.

+ (C/P) X (C/E) = (V)

= (A/P)

X (C/E)

X (M/P) X (O/P)

= (V)

= (A/P) + (C/P) + (C/P)

= (V)

Rel.

SAA

SAA

P

AAS

ASAP

ASP

AAS

AA

P

SPC

APA

PSAAAA

W.O.

Others

5:19

5:18

5:17

Verse

Conj.

5–58 (P–5–56)

5–57 (S–5–58)

5–56 (P–5–53)

ὥσπερ (1) γὰρ (2)

5–55 ἄρα (1) (S–5–56) οὖν (2) ὡς (3)

5–54 (E–5–53)

5–53 (P–5–51)

5–52 εἰ (1) (S–5–53) γὰρ (2)

Clause

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

G

G

οἱ πολλοί

G

οἱ τὴν περισσε ίαν . . . λαμβάν οντες (LS)

οἱ πολλοί

G

R.F.

Subject

ὁ θάνατος (LS)

Word

P-T-S

S-T-S

P-T-S

S-T-S

I.S.

Predicator

Mat-A

οἱ λαμβάνοντες

κατασταθήσονται Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

βασιλεύσουσιν

κατεστάθησαν

Mat-A

3P

3P

P

3S

3S

P

P

A

A

A

I

I

I

I

P

P

I

P

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἐβασίλευσεν

Word

δίκαιοι

ἁμαρτωλοὶ

τὴν περισσείαν τῆς χάριτος καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης

Comp.

διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου οὕτως (1) καὶ (2) διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς (3)

δι᾽ἑνὸς παραπτώματος (1) εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους (2) εἰς κατάκριμα (3) οὕτως (1) καὶ (2) δι᾽ἑνὸς δικαιώματος (3) εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους (4) εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς (5)

τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι (1) διὰ τοῦ ἑνός (2) πολλῷ μᾶλλον (1) ἐν ζωῇ (2) διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστου (3)

Adj.

Add.

X (C/E)

AAACPS

ACPS

AAAAA

+ (C/S)

X (M/P)

AAA

CP

ASAPA

ASPA

W.O.

Others

X (M/P)

+ (C/P)

X (C/E)

X (O/P)

Rel.

5–59 (P–5–58) 5–60 (S–5–59) 5–61 (P–5–59) 5–62 (E–5–61)

5–63 (S–5–64)

5:20

5:21

6–4 (P–6–3) 6–5 (P–6–4)

6:2

6–6 (E–6–5)

6–1 (P–5–60) 6–2 (P–6–1) 6–3 (S–6–2)

6:1

5–64 (S–5–61)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

G

G

ἡ ἁμαρτί (LS)

ἡ χάρις (LS)

ἵνα

οὖν

οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ οἵτινες

ἡ χάρις

G

ἡ ἁμαρτί

ἵνα (1) ὥσπερ (2)

G

ἡ χάρις

δὲ

R

G

G

G

G

R.F.

Subject

ἵνα

Word

νόμος (LS) τὸ παράπτωμα

δὲ

Conj.

R-T-P

P-T-P

S-T-P

S-T-S

S-T-S

E-T-S

P-T-S

S-T-S

P-T-P

I.S.

Predicator

Mat-A Mat-E Mat-A

Mat-E

γένοιτο ζήσομεν

ἀπεθάνομεν

Mat-A

ἐπιμένωμεν πλεονάσῃ

Ver

Mat-A

Mat-A

Mat-E

Mat-E

Mat-E

Mat-E

1P

1P

3S

3S

1P

1P

3S

3S

3S

3S

3S

3S

A

A

M

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

P

A

I

I

O

S

S

I

S

I

I

I

S

I

P

F

P

P

I

F

P

P

P

P

P

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἐροῦμεν

βασιλεύσῃ

ἐβασίλευσεν

πλεονάσῃ (LO) ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἐπλεόνασεν

παρεισῆλθεν

Word

τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ

τί

Comp.

πῶς (1) ἔτι (2) ἐν αὐτῇ (3)

μὴ

τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ

οὕτως (1) καὶ (2) διὰ δικαιοσύνης (3) εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον (4) διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (5)

ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ

οὗ

οὗ ἐπλεόνασεν

Adj.

Add.

+ (C/P)

→ (P/L) = (A/P)

X (C/R) = (A/P) → (P/I)

X (C/E)

X (M/P)

= (V) X (C/P) = (V) + (C/P)

Rel.

SPC

SAAPA

AP

SP

PA

CP

AASPAAA

PSA

APS

APS

PS

SP

W.O.

Others

6:5–6

6:4

6–7 (P–6–5) 6–8 (S–6–7)

6:3

ἵνα (1) ὥσπερ (2)

6–11 (S–6–12)

6–18 (E–6–17)

ἵνα

ὅτι

ἡμᾶς

ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας

G

G

G

E-T-S

S-T-S

S-T-P

τοῦ δουλεύειν

καταργηθῇ

συνεσταυρώθη

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

Mat-A

Men-C

γινώσκοντες

6–15 (E–6–14) 6–16 (S–6–15) 6–17 (S–6–16)

6–14 (S–6–12)

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

ἐσόμεθα

περιπατήσωμεν

Mat-E

ἀλλὰ (1) καὶ (2)

S-T-S

ἠγέρθη

Rel-I-A

G

ἡμεῖς

S-T-S

Mat-A

γεγόναμεν

G

Χριστὸς

συνετάφημεν

6–13 εἰ (1) (S–6–14) γὰρ (2)

6–12 (S–6–10)

οὖν

Mat-A

E-T-P

ἐβαπτίσθημεν

R

S-T-P

Mat-A

G

Predicator

3S

3S

P

1P

1P

1P

3S

1P

1P

1P

2P

A

P

P

A

M

A

A

P

P

P

P

A

S

I

I

I

S

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

I

F

S

P

P

P

P

P

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἐβαπτίσθημεν

ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ὅσοι

Word

ὅτι

I.S. Men-C

R.F.

Subject

ἀγνοεῖτε

Word

ἢ

Conj.

6–10 (P–6–7)

6–9 (E–6–8)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ

τοῦτο

σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ τῆς ἀναστάσεως

αὐτῷ

Comp.

τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ μηκέτι

τοῦτο γινώσκοντες

διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος (1) εἰς τὸν θάνατον (2) ἐκ νεκρῶν (1) διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός (2) οὕτως (1) καὶ (2) ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς (3)

εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν

εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ

Adj.

Add.

+ (C/P)

X (C/E) → (P/I) X (C/P)

X (C/E)

X (O/P)

X (C/E)

X (M/P)

X (C/R)

+ (C/P)

= (A/P) → (P/I)

Rel.

APSC

PSA

SP

CP

CPA

CP

AASAP

PSAA

PCAA

SPA

SAP

P

W.O.

Others

6:10

6–21 (S–6–22) 6–22 (S–6–14) 6–23 (S–6–22)

6:8–9

6–28 (S–6–27) 6–29 (E–6–28) 6–30 (S–6–28) 6–31 (E–6–30)

6–26 (E–6–25) 6–27 (S–6–25)

6–24 (S–6–23) 6–25 (S–6–24)

6–19 (S–6–16) 6–20 (E–6–19)

Clause

6:7

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

δὲ

γὰρ

ὅτι

ὅτι

εἰ (1) δὲ (2)

γὰρ

Conj.

θάνατος (LS)

Χριστὸς (LS)

G

G

G

R.F.

Subject

ὁ ἀποθανὼν

Word

S-T-P

S-T-P

S-T-P

I.S.

Predicator

Mat-E Mat-E

ζῇ ζῇ

Mat-E

ἀπέθανεν

Mat-A

κυριεύει Mat-E

Mat-E

ἐγερθεὶς

ἀπέθανεν

Mat-E

Men-C

εἰδότες ἀποθνῄσκει

Mat-E

Men-C

πιστεύομεν συζήσομεν

Mat-E

Mat-E

ὁ ἀποθανὼν ἀπεθάνομεν

Rel-I-A

3S

3S

3S

3S

3S

S

3S

P

1P

1P

1P

P

2S

A

A

A

A

A

P

A

A

A

A

A

A

P

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

P

P

I

P

I

S

F

I

P

P

S

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

δεδικαίωται

Word

ὃ ζῇ (1) τῷ θεῷ (2)

ὃ ἀπέθανεν (1) τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ (2)

αὐτοῦ (LO-G)

Comp.

ἐφάπαξ

οὐκέτι

ἐγερθεὶς ἐκ νεκρῶν (1) οὐκέτι (2) ἐκ νεκρῶν

καὶ (1) αὐτῷ (2) εἰδότες (3)

σὺν Χριστῷ

ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας

Adj.

Add.

X (C/E) + (C/P) = (A/N) + (C/P)

X (C/E) = (A/P)

X (C/E) → (P/I)

X (O/P) = (V) → (P/I)

X (C/E) + (C/P)

Rel.

P

CPC

CP

CCPA

SCAP

PA

SAAP

P

APAAA

P

PA

P

SPA

W.O.

Others

6:14

6:13

6:12

6–32 (P–6–30)

6:11

6–41 (P–6–40) 6–42 (P–6–42) 6–43 (P–6–43)

6–38 (P–6–37) 6–39 (E–6–38) 6–40 (P–6–38)

6–37 (P–6–35)

6–36 (E–6–35)

6–35 (P–6–32)

6–33 (E–6–32) 6–34 (E–6–33)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

P-T-P

ἀλλὰ

γὰρ

ἐστε

κυριεύσει

G

γὰρ

ἁμαρτία

(παριστάνετε)

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

Mat-E

ὡσεὶ ζῶντας

καὶ

Mat-A

παριστάνετε

Mat-A

παριστάνετε

ἀλλὰ

Mat-A

εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν

Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

Men-C

Mat-A

P-T-S

Predicator

2P

3S

P

2P

2P

3S

P

2P

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

P

I

I

M

M

M

M

I

I

I

P

I

I

I

I

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

βασιλευέτω

G

εἶναι

λογίζεσθε

Word

οὖν

ἡ ἁμαρτία

P-T-S

I.S.

ζῶντας

R

G

ὑμεῖς

ἑαυτοὺς

R.F.

Subject

Word

δὲ

μὲν

Conj.

ὑμῶν

τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν (1) ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης (2) τῷ θεῷ (3)

τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν (1) ὅπλα ἀδικίας (2) τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ (3) ἑαυτοὺς (1) τῷ θεῷ (2)

ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτοῦ

ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ νεκροὺς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ τῷ θεῷ

Comp.

οὐ (1) ὑπὸ νόμον (2) ὑπὸ χάριν

οὐ

ὡσεὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας ἐκ νεκρῶν

μηδὲ

μὴ (1) ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι (2) εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτοῦ (3)

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

οὕτως (1) καὶ (2)

Adj.

Add.

X (C/E) X (C/E) = (A/N)

= (V) X (O/P) = (A/P)

= (A/N)

X (C/P)

X (C/R)

SPC

→ (P/I) = (A/N)

A

APA

SCAP

CCC

AP

PCCA

APCCC

APSAA

PC

ASPC

W.O.

Others

X (S/C)

Rel.

6:17

6–53 (P–6–49) 6–54 (S–6–53) 6–55 (S–6–54) 6–56 (S–6–55)

P-T-P

Mat-A Mat-A

ὑπηκούσατε παρεδόθητε

δὲ

Rel-I-A

ἦτε

ὅτι

δὲ

Mat-A

Men-C

οἴδατε

ὑπακούετε

Mat-E

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

6–52 (E–6–51)

G

Predicator

2P

2P

2P

2P

2P

2P

2P

3S

1P

1P

P

A

A

A

A

A

A

M

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

O

I

S

P

P

I

I

I

I

S

P

I

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

γένοιτο

ἐσμὲν

ἁμαρτήσωμεν

Word

Rel-I-A

χάρις

I.S.

ἐστε

ὅτι

R.F.

Subject

6–51 (S–6–51)

6–49 (P–6–48) 6–50 (S–6–50)

6:16

ἀλλὰ

ὅτι

οὖν

Word

Mat-A

6–44 (P–6–44) 6–45 (P–6–44) 6–46 (S–6–45) 6–47 (S–6–46) 6–48 (S–6–45)

6:15

Conj.

παριστάνετε

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας τύπον διδαχῆς

τῷ θεῷ

ᾧ (1) ἑαυτοὺς δούλους (2) δοῦλοί ᾧ ὑπακούετε ἤτοι ἁμαρτίας εἰς θάνατον ἢ ὑπακοῆς εἰς δικαιοσύνην ᾧ

τί

Comp.

εἰς ὃν

ἐκ καρδίας

εἰς ὑπακοήν

οὐκ

μὴ

οὐκ (1) ὑπὸ νόμον (2) ὑπὸ χάριν

Adj.

Add.

= (V) → (P/I) = (V) + (C/P)

+ (C/P)

+ (A/X)

= (A/P) → (P/I)

X (C/R) = (A/P) → (P/I) = (A/N) → (P/L)

Rel.

AP

PAC

PC

SC

CP

CP

CPCA

AP

AP

A

APA

P

C

W.O.

Others

6–59 (P–6–53)

6:19

6:21

6:20

6–57 (S–6–55) 6–58 (E–6–57)

6:18

6–64 (P–6–63) 6–65 (S–6–64) 6–66 (P–6–64)

6–63 (P–6–61)

6–62 (S–6–63)

6–61 (P–6–59)

6–60 (S–6–61)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

γὰρ

οὖν

ὅτε (1) γὰρ (2)

ὥσπερ (1) γὰρ (2)

δὲ

Conj.

R.F.

Subject

τὸ τέλος ἐκείνων G

Word

P-T-P

I.S.

Predicator

Mat-A

Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

παρεστήσατε

ἦτε

ἦτε

Men-A

Mat-A

παρεστήσατε

ἐπαισχύνεσθε

Ver

λέγω

Rel-P-A

Rel-I-A

ἐλευθερωθέντες

εἴχετε

Rel-I-A

2P

2P

2P

2P

2P

2P

1S

P

2P

M

A

A

A

A

A

A

P

P

I

I

I

I

M

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

I

I

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἐδουλώθητε

Word

θάνατος

τίνα καρπὸν

ἐλεύθεροι τῇ δικαιοσύνη

δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας

τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν (1) δοῦλα (2) τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀνομίᾳ (3) τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν (1) δοῦλα (2) τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ (3)

τῇ δικαιοσύνη

Comp.

ἐφ᾽οἷς (1) νῦν (2)

τότε

οὕτως (1) νῦν (2) εἰς ἁγιασμόν (3)

εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν

ἀνθρώπινον (1) διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν (2)

ἐλευθερωθέντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας

Adj.

Add.

X (C/R) + (C/P) X (C/E)

X (C/E)

X (S/P)

X (C/E)

X (M/P)

+ (A/M)

X (C/R) X (C/B)

Rel.

SC

AAP

CPA

CP

CP

AAPCCCA

PCCCA

APA

PA

APC

W.O.

Others

6–67 (P–6–66)

6:22

6–71 (P–6–70) 6–72 (P–6–71)

7–1 (P–6–72) 7–2 (S–7–1) 7–3 (E–7–3) 7–4 (S–7–1) 7–5 (E–7–4)

7–6 (S–7–4) 7–7 (E–7–6) 7–8 (S–7–9) 7–9 (S–7–6)

6:23

7:1

7:2

6–68 (E–6–67) 6–69 (E–6–68) 6–70 (P–6–67)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

ὁ νόμος (LS)

ἡ ὕπανδρος γυνὴ

ὁ ἀνήρ

γὰρ

ἐὰν (1) δὲ (2)

G

G

G

S-T-S

S-T-P

S-T-P

Rel-I-A Rel-I-A Mat-E Rel-I-A

ζῶντι ἀποθάνῃ κατήργηται

Rel-I-A

ζῇ δέδεται

Mat-A

κυριεύει

Men-C

γινώσκουσιν

ὅτι

Ver

λαλῶ

Men-C

Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

ἐλευθερωθέντες δουλωθέντες

Rel-P-A

γὰρ

P-T-P

P-T-P

Predicator

3S

3S

S

3S

3S

3S

P

1S

2P

P

P

2P

P

A

A

P

A

A

A

A

A

P

P

A

I

S

I

I

I

I

I

I

S

P

I

S

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἔχετε

Word

ἀγνοεῖτε

G

G

P-T-P

I.S.

ἢ

δὲ

τὰ ὀψώνια τῆς ἁμαρτίας τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ

γὰρ

G

R.F.

Subject

τὸ τέλος

Word

δὲ

δὲ

δὲ

Conj.

τῷ ζῶντι ἀνδρὶ

τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (LO)

νόμον

γινώσκουσιν νόμον

ζωὴ αἰώνιος

θάνατος

ζωὴν αἰώνιον

τῷ θεῷ

τὸν καρπὸν ὑμῶν

Comp.

ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός

νόμῳ

ἐφ᾽ὅσον χρόνον

ἐφ᾽ὅσον χρόνον ζῇ

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν

νυνὶ (1) ἐλευθερωθέντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας δουλωθέντες δὲ τῷ θεῷ (2) εἰς ἁγιασμόν (3) ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας

Adj.

ἀδελφοί

Add.

X (C/E) X (S/D) X (O/P) = (V)

+ (R/A) X (C/E) + (C/P) → (P/I) X (S/D)

X (C/E) = (V)

X (C/E) = (A/P) = (A/P)

= (V)

Rel.

PA

PS

P

SCPA

AP

SPCA

PC

CP

P

SCA

SC

SC

PC

PA

AAPCA

W.O.

Others

7:4

7–19 (E–7–18) 7–20 (S–7–17)

7–18 (E–7–17)

7–17 (P–7–1)

7–16 (E–7–15)

7–15 (E–7–14)

ἵνα

ὥστε

7–12 ἐὰν (S–7–11) 7–13 ἐὰν (1) (S–7–14) δὲ (2) 7–14 (S–7–11)

7–10 ἄρα (1) (S–7–11) οὖν (2) 7–11 (S–7–9)

7:3

Conj.

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

G

G

ὑμᾶς

R

αὐτὴν

ὑμεῖς

G

ὁ ἀνήρ

G

R.F.

Subject

τοῦ ἀνδρὸς

Word

E-T-S

P-T-P

S-T-S

S-T-S

I.S.

Predicator

Mat-A

Mat-E

τῷ ἐγερθέντι καρποφορήσωμεν

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι

ἐθανατώθητε

γενομένην Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

ἐστὶν

τοῦ εἶναι

Mat-E

ἀποθάνῃ

Rel-I-A

Ver

χρηματίσει

γένηται

Mat-E

1P

S

2P

S

3S

3S

3S

3S

S

A

P

M

P

M

A

A

A

A

A

S

I

I

S

S

I

F

P

P

P

P

I

P

P

F

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ζῶντος

Word

τῷ θεῷ (LO-B)

τῷ νόμῳ

μοιχαλίδα

ἐλευθέρα

μοιχαλὶς

Comp.

καὶ (1) διὰ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστου (2) εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ, τῷ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθέντι (3) ἑτέρῳ τῷ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγερθέντι ἐκ νεκρῶν

ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου (1) τοῦ μὴ εἶναι αὐτὴν . . . ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ (2) μὴ (1) γενομένην ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ (2) ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ

ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ

Adj.

ἀδελφοί μου

Add.

+ (C/P)

X (C/R)

X (C/R)

X (O/C)

X (C/R)

X (O/P) X (O/P) = (V)

X (S/D) X (C/R)

Rel.

AP

PSA

AddASPCAA

PA

PSCA

CPAA

PS

PA

CP

PS

W.O.

Others

7:6

7–21 (S–7–22)

7:5

7–25 (E–7–24) 7–26 (E–7–25) 7–27 (S–7–24)

7–24 (P–7–22)

7–23 (E–7–22)

7–22 (P–7–17)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

ὥστε

δὲ

ὅτε (1) γὰρ (2)

Conj.

ἡμᾶς

G

G

R.F.

Subject

τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τὰ διὰ τοῦ νόμου (LS)

Word

S-T-S

P-T-P

I.S.

Mat-A

κατειχόμεθα Mat-A

Mat-E

ἀποθανόντες

δουλεύειν

Mat-A

κατηργήθημεν

Mat-A

1P

P

1P

A

P

A

P

A

M

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

P

I

I

εἰς τὸ καρποφορῆσαι

3S

I

Mat-A

A

ἐνηργεῖτο

1P

Rel-I-I

ἦμεν

Predicator Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

Word

ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα

τῷ θανάτῳ

Comp.

ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος καὶ οὐ παλαιότητι γράμματος

ἐν ᾧ

νυνὶ (1) ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου (2) ἀποθανόντες ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα (3) ὥστε δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος καὶ οὐ παλαιότητι γράμματος (4)

ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν ἡμῶν (1) εἰς τὸ καρποφορῆσαι τῷ θανάτῳ (2)

ἐν τῇ σαρκί

Adj.

Add.

X (C/B) + (C/P) X (C/R)

= (V)

X (C/R)

X (C/E)

X (S/D)

Rel.

PSA

AP

PC

PC

SPAA

PC

W.O.

Others

7:9

7:8

7:7

Verse

Conj.

7–39 (P–7–38) 7–40 (S–7–41) 7–41 (P–7–39)

7–37 (E–7–36) 7–38 (P–7–36)

7–36 (P–7–33)

G

τῆς ἐντολῆς

ἡ ἁμαρτία

G

ἐγὼ

δὲ

δὲ

G

ἁμαρτία

G

G

G

ὁ νόμος

ἡ ἁμαρτία

G

R.F.

Subject

ὁ νόμος

Word

γὰρ

δὲ

7–28 οὖν (P–7–24) 7–29 (P–7–28) 7–30 (P–7–28) 7–31 ἀλλὰ (P–7–30) 7–32 εἰ (S–7–31) 7–33 τε (1) (P–7–31) γὰρ (2) 7–34 εἰ (S–7–33) 7–35 (S–7–34)

Clause

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

P-T-S

S-T-S

P-T-P

P-T-S

P-T-S

S-T-S

P-T-P

I.S.

Predicator

ἀνέζησεν

ἐλθούσης Mat-E

Mat-E

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

λαβοῦσα

ἔζων

Mat-A

κατειργάσατο

Mat-A

ἐπιθυμήσεις

Men-C

ᾔδειν Ver

Men-C

ἔγνων

ἔλεγεν

Mat-E

Ver

3S

S

1S

S

3S

2S

3S

1S

1S

3S

1P

A

A

A

A

M

A

A

A

A

M

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

O

I

P

P

I

P

P

F

I

S

P

P

F

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

γένοιτο

ἐροῦμεν

Word

νεκρά

ἀφορμὴν

πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν

τήν ἐπιθυμίαν

τὴν ἁμαρτίαν

ἁμαρτία

τί

Comp.

χωρὶς νόμου (1) ποτέ (2)

χωρὶς νόμου

ἀφορμὴν λαβοῦσα (1) διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς (2) ἐν ἐμοὶ (3) διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς

οὐκ

μὴ

μὴ (1) διὰ νόμου (2) οὐκ

οὐκ

μὴ

Adj.

Add.

= (V) X (S/S) = (V)

X (S/P) X (C/E)

= (V)

X (C/R) → (P/I) → (P/L) = (V) X (O/P) = (A/N) X (O/P) → (P/I)

Rel.

SP

PS

SPAA

ASC

CPA

ASAPAC

AP

ASP

CAP

AA

CAP

AP

SC

CP

W.O.

Others

7–44 (P–7–43)

7:11

7:13

7:12

7–42 (P–7–41) 7–43 (P–7–42)

7:10

7–53 (E–7–52) 7–54 (S–7–54)

7–49 (P–7–48) 7–50 (P–7–549 7–51 (P–7–50) 7–52 (S–7–51)

7–48 (P–7–47)

7–47 (P–7–46)

7–45 (E–7–44) 7–46 (P–7–44)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

ἡ ἁμαρτία (LS)

γὰρ

ἡ ἁμαρτία

ἁμαρτία

ἀλλὰ

ἵνα

ἡ ἁμαρτία

τὸ ἀγαθὸν

οὖν

ἵνα

G

ἡ ἐντολὴ

G

G

G

G

G

ὁ νόμος

G

G

ὥστε (1) μὲν (2) καὶ

καὶ

ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωήν

καὶ

G

R.F.

Subject

ἐγὼ

Word

δὲ

Conj.

S-T-S

S-T-S

P-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-S

P-T-S

P-T-P

P-T-S

P-T-P

I.S.

Predicator

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

κατεργαζομένη γένηται

Mat-E

Mat-E

γένοιτο

φανῇ

Rel-I-A

ἐγένετο

Mat-A

Mat-A

λαβοῦσα ἀπέκτεινεν

Mat-A

Men-P

Mat-E

S

3S

3S

3S

3S

S

3S

3S

1S

M

P

M

M

A

A

A

P

A

S

O

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἐξηπάτησέν

εὑρέθη

ἀπέθανον

Word

μοι (1) θάνατον (2) ἁμαρτωλὸς

ἐμοὶ (1) θάνατος (2)

ἁγία καὶ δικαία καὶ ἀγαθή

ἅγιος

(με)

ἀφορμὴν

με

μοι

Comp.

καθ᾽ὑπερβολὴν (1) διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς (2)

διὰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ μοι κατεργαζομένη θάνατον διὰ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ

μὴ

δι᾽αὐτῆς

ἀφορμὴν λαβοῦσα διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς

εἰς θάνατον

Adj.

Add.

X (C/B) X (C/P)

X (C/R) → (P/L) = (V) X (C/P)

= (A/P)

X (C/R)

X (S/P) = (A/P)

= (V) = (A/P)

Rel.

PASA

ACPC

PSA

S

AP

SCPC

SC

SC

AP

CPA

PCSA

SP

W.O.

Others

7–55 (P–7–51) 7–56 (S–7–55) 7–57 (S–7–56)

7:14

7–59 (P–7–55) 7–60 (E–7–59) 7–61 (P–7–59) 7–62 (E–7–61) 7–63 (P–7–61) 7–64 (E–7–63)

7–65 (S–7–67) 7–66 (E–7–67) 7–67 (P–7–63) 7–68 (P–7–67)

7:15

7:16

7–58 (E–7–57)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

ὅτι

εἰ (1) δὲ (2)

ἀλλ᾽

γὰρ

γὰρ

G

S-T-P

Predicator

Mat-A Men-A Men-C

θέλω σύμφημι

Men-A

μισῶ ποιῶ

Mat-A

Men-A

θέλω ποιῶ

Mat-A

Mat-A

κατεργάζομαι πράσσω

Men-C

Mat-A

πεπραμένος γινώσκω

Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

Men-C

1S

1S

1S

1S

1S

1S

1S

1S

1S

S

1S

3S

1P

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

M

A

P

A

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

S

I

I

S

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

εἰμι

ἐγὼ

δὲ

S-T-P

ἐστιν

G

Word

ὁ νόμος

I.S.

ὅτι

R.F.

Subject

οἴδαμεν

Word

γὰρ

Conj.

καλός

τῷ νόμῳ

ὃ οὐ θέλω (1) τοῦτο (2) ὃ

ὃ μισῶ (1) τοῦτο (2) ὃ

ὃ θέλω (1) τοῦτο (2) ὃ

ὃ

ὃ κατεργάζομαι

σάρκινός

πνευματικός

Comp.

οὐ

οὐ

οὐ

πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν

Adj.

Add.

X (O/P) + (C/P) = (V) → (P/I)

X (C/E) + (C/P) X (C/E) + (C/P) = (A/N) + (C/P)

+ (C/P)

X (C/E) → (P/I) = (A/N)

Rel.

C

PC

CAP

CCP

CP

CCP

CP

ACCP

CP

CAP

PA

ACPA

SCP

P

W.O.

Others

7–72 (P–7–70) 7–73 (S–7–72)

7:18

7:19

7–69 (P–7–67) 7–70 (P–7–69) 7–71 (E–7–70)

7:17

7–82 (E–7–81)

7–79 (P–7–77) 7–80 (E–7–79) 7–81 (P–7–79)

7–78 (E–7–77)

7–74 (S–7–73) 7–75 (P–7–73) 7–76 (E–7–75) 7–77 (P–7–75)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

τὸ κατεργάζεσθαι τὸ καλὸν

δὲ

ἀλλὰ

γὰρ

τὸ θέλειν

γὰρ

G

G

R

τοῦτ᾽

P-T-P

P-T-P

Predicator

Men-A

τὸ θέλειν

Mat-A

Men-A

θέλω

Men-A

θέλω πράσσω

Mat-A

ποιῶ

τὸ κατεργάζεσθαι Mat-A

Exi

Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

Men-C

Mat-A

Mat-A

1S

1S

1S

1S

3S

3S

1S

S

1S

A

A

A

A

M

A

P

A

A

A

M

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

S

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

παράκειταί

ἔστιν

οὐκέτι

G

ἀγαθόν

S-T-S

οἰκοῦσα

ὅτι

P-T-P

κατεργάζομαι

Word

οἶδα

G

I.S.

γὰρ

ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία

ἀλλὰ

G

R.F.

Subject

ἐγὼ

Word

δὲ

Conj.

ὃ οὐ θέλω κακὸν (1) τοῦτο (2) ὃ θέλω

ὃ ἀγαθόν

ὃ θέλω ἀγαθόν

τὸ καλὸν

μοι

αὐτὸ

Comp.

οὐ

οὐ

οὐ

οὐκ (1) ἐν ἐμοί (2) τοῦτ᾽ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου (3) ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου

ἐν ἐμοὶ

νυνὶ (1) οὐκέτι (2)

Adj.

Add.

+ (C/P)

X (C/E) + (C/P) = (V)

+ (C/P)

+ (C/P) X (C/E) + (C/P) = (V)

X (C/E) → (P/I)

= (A/P) = (V) + (C/P)

Rel.

APC

CCP

CP

ACP

PC

SA

P

SPC

SPA

APAS

P

PA

S

AASPC

W.O.

Others

7–83 (S–7–85) 7–84 (E–7–83) 7–85 (P–7–81) 7–86 (P–7–85) 7–87 (E–7–86)

7–88 (P–7–86)

7:20

7:21

7–93 (P–7–92) 7–94 (E–7–93) 7–95 (E–7–93)

7:23

7–96 (E–7–95)

7–92 (P–7–88)

7:22

7–89 (E–7–88) 7–90 (E–7–88) 7–91 (S–7–88)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

Mat-A

ποιεῖν

Men-P Mat-A Mat-A

Rel-I-A

ἀντιστρατευόμενον αἰχμαλωτίζοντά

τῷ ὄντι

καὶ

Men-A

Exi

Men-A

τῷ θέλοντι

παράκειται

Men-P

Mat-A

εὑρίσκω

οἰκοῦσα

Mat-A

Met-A

θέλω

κατεργάζομαι

Man-A

βλέπω

S-T-S

Predicator

S

S

S

1S

3S

S

S

1S

1S

1S

A

A

M

M

P

A

A

A

M

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ποιῶ

Word

δὲ

G

P-T-P

P-T-S

S-T-S

I.S.

συνήδομαι

τὸ καλόν

G

G

ἐγὼ

ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία

G

R.F.

Subject

[ἐγὼ]

Word

γὰρ

ὅτι

ἄρα

ἀλλὰ

εἰ (1) δὲ (2)

Conj.

ἕτερον νόμον . . . μέλεσίν μου τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ νοός μου με

τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ

ἐμοὶ

τὸ καλόν

τὸν νόμον (1) τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν (2) ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν

αὐτὸ

ὃ οὐ θέλω (1) τοῦτο (2) ὃ

Comp.

ἐν τῷ νόμῳ . . . ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου

ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου

κατὰ τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον

ἐν ἐμοὶ

οὐκέτι

οὐ

Adj.

Add.

+ (C/P)

= (V) + (C/P) = (A/P)

X (C/E)

+ (C/P) → (P/I) → (P/I)

X (C/R)

X (O/P) + (C/P) = (A/P) = (V) + (C/P)

Rel.

PA

PCA

PC

PSC

PCA

CSP

PC

PC

PCC

PA

S

ASPC

CC [S]P [S]CP

W.O.

Others

7–97 (P–7–93) 7–98 (P–7–97)

7:24

δὲ

Conj.

8–2 (P–8–1)

8–3 (P–8–2)

8:2

8:3

8–6 (E–8–5)

8–5 (P–8–3)

8–4 (E–8–4)

8–1 (P–7–101)

8:1

ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς

γὰρ

γὰρ

γὰρ

ὁ θεὸς

οὐδὲν κατάκριμα

G

G

G

G

G

αὐτὸς ἐγὼ

R

τίς

G

G

ἐγὼ

χάρις

R.F.

Subject

Word

ἄρα

7–100 ἄρα (1) (P–7–99) οὖν (2) μὲν (3) 7–101 δὲ (P–7–100)

7–99 (P–7–98)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

P-T-S

P-T-S

P-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-S

I.S.

Predicator

Mat-A

Mat-A

πέμψας

Mat-A

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

Mat-A

S

3S

3S

3S

1S

3S

A

A

A

A

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

P

P

I

F

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

κατέκρινεν

ἠσθένει

ἠλευθέρωσέν

δουλεύω

ῥύσεται

Word

τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν

τὴν ἁμαρτίαν

τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου . . . διὰ τῆς σαρκός

σε

τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας

νόμῳ θεοῦ

τῷ θεῷ

ταλαίπωρος ἄνθρωπος με

Comp.

ἐν ᾧ (1) διὰ τῆς σαρκός (2) τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέμψας . . . περὶ ἁμαρτίας (1) ἐν τῇ σαρκί, (2) ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς . . . περὶ ἁμαρτίας

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (1) ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου (2)

νῦν

τῇ σαρκὶ

ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν τῷ νοῒ

Adj.

Add.

X (C/B)

+ (A/X)

+ (C/P)

X (C/E)

X (C/E)

X (C/R)

= (A/N)

X (C/R)

= (V)

X (C/R) = (A/P)

Rel.

CPA

SAPCA

APA

CS

SACA

SAC

AC

SAPC

SCP

SCPA

CS

W.O.

Others

8–7 (S–8–5)

8:4

8–10 (P–8–5) 8–11 (E–8–10) 8–12 (P–8–10)

8–13 (P–8–12) 8–14 (P–8–13)

8–15 (S–8–13) 8–16 (S–8–15) 8–17 (S–8–16)

8–18 (S–8–17) 8–19 (E–8–18) 8–20 (E–8–18)

8:5

8:6

8:7

8:8

8–8 (E–8–7) 8–9 (E–8–8)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος

τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς

γὰρ

διότι

Mat-A Rel-I-A Men-A

δύνανται οἱ ὄντες ἀρέσαι

Mat-A

δὲ

S-T-P

Rel-I-A

οἱ ὄντες

Mat-A

Men-C

φρονοῦσιν

Mat-E

δύναται

G

Predicator

P

3S

3S

3S

P

3P

3S

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

P

I

I

I

I

S

P

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

γὰρ

S-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-P

τοῖς μὴ περιπατοῦσιν

πληρωθῇ

Word

ὑποτάσσεται

G

G

G

G

G

S-T-P

I.S.

γὰρ

οἱ ἐν σαρκὶ ὄντες

οἱ κατὰ πνεῦμα

δὲ

δὲ

οἱ κατὰ σάρκα ὄντες

G

R.F.

Subject

τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου

Word

γὰρ

ἀλλὰ

ἵνα

Conj.

θεῷ

θεῷ ἀρέσαι

τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ

ἔχθρα

ζωὴ καὶ εἰρήνη

θάνατος

τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος

τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς

Comp.

ἐν σαρκὶ

οὐ

οὐδὲ

οὐχ

εἰς θεόν

κατὰ σάρκα

ἐν ἡμῖν τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα μὴ (1) κατὰ σάρκα (2) κατὰ πνεῦμα

Adj.

Add.

= (A/N) + (C/P) + (C/P)

X (C/E) X (C/E) X (C/E)

X (C/E) = (V)

X (C/E) + (C/P) = (V)

+ (C/P) = (V)

X (C/P)

Rel.

CP

AP

SCAP

AP

CAP

SCA

SC

SC

SC

AP

SCP

A

AAPA

SPA

W.O.

Others

8–26 (S–8–27) 8–27 (P–8–25) 8–28 (P–8–27)

8–29 (S–8–31)

8:10

8:11

8–32 (E–8–31) 8–33 (E–8–31)

8–30 (E–8–29) 8–31 (P–8–28)

8–21 (P–8–14) 8–22 (P–8–21) 8–23 (S–8–22) 8–24 (S–8–25) 8–25 (P–8–22)

Clause

8:9

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

G

τὸ πνεῦμα

τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐγείραντος τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ νεκρῶν

δὲ

εἰ (1) δὲ (2)

ὁ ἐγείρας Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν

G

τὸ σῶμα

G

G

G

Χριστὸς

R

οὗτος

εἰ (1) δὲ (2) μὲν

R

τις

εἰ (1) δὲ (2)

G

G

R.F.

Subject

πνεῦμα θεοῦ

ὑμεῖς

Word

εἴπερ

ἀλλὰ

δὲ

Conj.

P-T-P

S-T-P

P-T-P

P-T-P

S-T-P

S-T-P

P-T-P

I.S.

Predicator

Rel-I-A

Mat-A Mat-A

Mat-A Rel-I-A

τοῦ ἐγείραντος ζῳοποιήσει

ὁ ἐγείρας ἐνοικοῦντος

Rel-I-A

Rel-P-A

Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

S

S

3S

S

3S

3S

3S

3S

2P

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

F

P

I

I

I

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

οἰκεῖ

ἔστιν

ἔχει

οἰκεῖ

ἐστὲ

Word

Χριστὸν

τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν

τὸν Ἰησοῦν

ζωὴ

νεκρὸν

πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ

Comp.

ἐν ὑμῖν

καὶ (1) διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος ἐν ὑμῖν (2) ἐκ νεκρῶν

ἐκ νεκρῶν

ἐν ὑμῖν

διὰ δικαιοσύνην

διὰ ἁμαρτίαν

ἐν ὑμῖν

οὐχ (1) αὐτοῦ (2)

οὐχ

ἐν ὑμῖν

οὐχ (1) ἐν σαρκὶ (2) ἐν πνεύματι

Adj.

Add.

+ (C/P) + (C/P)

+ (CP) = (A/X)

X (O/P)

X (O/P) = (V) = (A/N)

= (V) = (A/P) X (C/E) X (O/P) = (V)

Rel.

PA

PCA

SPACA

PCA

SPA

SCA

SCP

SA

SAPA

SPA

SPA

A

SAPA

W.O.

Others

Predicator

Rel-I-A Mat-A Rel-I-A

ἀποθνῄσκειν θανατοῦτε ζήσεσθε

Mat-A Mat-A

ἐλάβετε

ἐλάβετε κράζομεν

ἀλλὰ

8–44 (P–8–43) 8–45 (S–8–44) 8–46 (S–8–45)

Mat-A

Rel-I-A

γὰρ

εἰσιν

8–43 (P–8–42)

Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

μέλλετε

ἄγονται

Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

1P

2P

2P

3S

3P

2P

2P

2P

2P

1P

A

A

A

A

P

M

A

A

A

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

I

I

F

I

I

I

I

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ζῆτε

τοῦ ζῆν

ἐσμὲν

Word

8:15

R

οὗτοι

P-T-P

I.S.

8–41 (P–8–41) 8–42 (P–8–40)

R

G

R.F.

Subject

ὅσοι

Word

8:14

γὰρ

8–36 εἰ (1) (S–8–37) γὰρ (2) 8–37 (P–8–35) 8–38 (E–8–37) 8–39 εἰ (1) (S–8–40) δὲ (2) 8–40 (P–8–37)

8:13

Conj.

8–34 ἄρα (1) (P–8–31) οὖν (2) 8–35 (E–8–34)

Clause

8:12

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας

πνεῦμα δουλείας

υἱοὶ θεοῦ

τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώματος

ἀποθνῄσκειν

ὀφειλέται (1) οὐ τῇ σαρκὶ (2)

Comp.

ἐν ᾧ

οὐ (1) πάλιν (2) εἰς φόβον (3)

= (V) + (C/P) → (P/I)

X (C/E)

+ (C/P) X (C/E)

πνεύματι

πνεύματι θεοῦ

X (C/R) X (C/P)

Rel.

X (O/P) X (C/E) + (C/P) X (O/P) = (V)

αββα ὁ πατήρ

ἀδελφοί

Add.

κατὰ σάρκα

τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆν κατὰ σάρκα

Adj.

Add

AP

PC

APCAA

SCP

SAP

P

ACP

P

PC

AP

AP

AddCPCA

W.O.

Others

8–49 (S–8–50) 8–50 (P–8–47) 8–51 (P–8–50) 8–52 (P–8–51) 8–53 (S–8–52) 8–54 (S–8–53)

8–55 (P–8–52) 8–56 (S–8–55)

8:17

8:18

8:19

8–47 (P–8–44) 8–48 (S–8–47)

8:16

8–59 (P–8–55)

8–57 (E–8–56) 8–58 (E–8–57)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.) Predicator

γὰρ

ἡ ἀποκαραδοκία G τῆς κτίσεως

P-T-P

ἀπεκδέχεται Mat-A

Mat-E

ἀποκαλυφθῆναι

Men-C

Mat-E

λογίζομαι

γὰρ

Rel-I-A

μέλλουσαν

συνδοξασθῶμεν

ἵνα

ὅτι

συμπάσχομεν

εἴπερ Mat-A

3S

S

1S

1P

1P

A

P

A

A

P

A

A

A

I

I

S

I

I

I

P

P

P

I

P

I

I

I

τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεου

ἀποκαλυφθῆναι

ἄξια

τέκνα

τέκνα θεοῦ

τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν

συγκληρονόμοι Χριστοῦ

1P

3S

Comp.

δὲ

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

κληρονόμοι θεοῦ

ἐσμὲν

συμμαρτυρεῖ

Word

μὲν

S-T-S

P-T-P

I.S.

κληρονόμοι

G

G

αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα

τὰ παθήματα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ

R.F.

Subject

Word

εἰ (1) δὲ (2) καὶ

ὅτι

Conj.

οὐκ (1) τὰ παθήματα . . . δόξαν εἰς ἡμᾶς (2) εἰς ἡμᾶς

καὶ

Adj.

Add.

X (C/E)

+ (C/P) + (C/P)

X (C/E) → (P/I)

X (O/P) = (A/P) + (A/X) = (A/P) X (O/P) X (C/P)

= (A/P) → (P/I)

Rel.

SCP

P

PCA

ACSA

P

AP

P

C

C

C

C

PC

SPC

W.O.

Others

8–60 (S–8–59)

8:20

8–64 (P–8–59) 8–65 (S–8–64) 8–66 (S–8–65)

8–67 (P–8–64) 8–68 (P–8–67)

8:22

8:23

8–69 (E–8–68) 8–70 (E–8–68)

8–63 (S–8–60)

8:21

8–61 (E–8–60) 8–62 (E–8–61)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

ἀλλὰ (1) καὶ (2)

δὲ

αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἔχοντες, ἡμεῖς καὶ αὐτοὶ

G

P-T-S

Men-A

Rel-P-A Mat-A

στενάζομεν

ἔχοντες

ἀπεκδεχόμενοι

Men-A

συνωδίνει

καὶ

Men-A

S-T-P

συστενάζει

G

ὅτι

Men-C

Rel-I-A

Mat-A

οἴδαμεν

πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις

Predicator

P

P

1P

3S

3S

1P

3S

S

M

A

A

A

A

A

P

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

S

F

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

γὰρ

ἐλευθερωθήσεται

S-T-S

ἑκοῦσα

ὑπετάγη

Word

ὅτι

G

S-T-S

I.S.

διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα

αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις

S

R.F.

Subject

ἡ κτίσις

Word

ἀλλὰ

γὰρ

Conj.

τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος υἱοθεσίαν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν

τῇ ματαιότητι

Comp.

οὐ (1) μόνον (2) ἐν ἑαυτοῖς (1) υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν (2)

ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν

καὶ (1) ἀπὸ . . . φθορᾶς (2) εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ (3)

οὐχ ἑκοῦσα (1) διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα (2) ἐφ᾽ἑλπίδι (3) οὐχ

Adj.

Add.

X (C/E) X (S/S)

= (A/P) = (A/P)

= (A/N)

X (C/E) c

→ (P/I)

+ (C/P) = (V)

X (C/E)

Rel.

CP

CP

SAPA

AA

PA

SP

P

ASPAA

P

AP

CSPAAA

W.O.

Others

8–71 (P–8–68) 8–72 (P–8–71) 8–73 (E–8–71) 8–74 (P–8–72) 8–75 (E–8–74)

8–76 (S–7–78) 8–77 (E–8–76) 8–78 (P–8–74)

8–79 (P–8–78) 8–80 (P–8–79)

8:24

8:25

8:26

8–81 (E–8–80) 8–82 (E–8–81) 8–83 (P–8–80)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

ἀλλὰ

γὰρ

δὲ

εἰ (1) δὲ (2)

αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα

τὸ πνεῦμα

G

G

P-T-S

P-T-S

Rel-I-A

δεῖ Mat-A

Mat-A

προσευξώμεθα

ὑπερεντυγχάνει

Men-C

Mat-A

ἀπεκδεχόμεθα Mat-A

Men-P

βλέπομεν

συναντιλαμβάνεται οἴδαμεν

Men-C

Men-P

βλέπει

ἐλπίζομεν

Men-C

ἐλπίζει

τίς

γὰρ

R

Men-P

βλεπομένη

Rel-I-A Rel-I-I

P-T-P

Predicator

3S

3S

1P

1P

3S

P

1P

1P

3S

3S

S

1P

A

A

M

A

A

M

A

A

A

A

P

P

I

I

S

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

S

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ἔστιν

G

Word

ἐλπὶς βλεπομένη

I.S.

δὲ

R.F.

Subject

ἐσώθημεν

Word

γὰρ

Conj.

τὸ τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ δεῖ τί

τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν

ὃ

ὃ οὐ βλέπομεν

ὃ

ὃ βλέπει

ἐλπίς

Comp.

στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις

καθὸ δεῖ

ὡσαύτως (1) καὶ (2) οὐκ

δι᾽ὑπομονῆς

οὐ

οὐκ

τῇ ἐλπίδι

Adj.

Add.

+ (C/P) + (C/P) + (A/N)

X (M/P) X (C/E)

X (O/P) + (C/P) = (V)

X (C/E) = (A/N) + (C/P) X (C/E) + (C/P)

Rel.

SPA

P

CPA

CAP

AASPC

AP

CAP

CP

P

CSP

P

SAPC

AP

W.O.

Others

8–88 (P–8–84) 8–89 (S–8–88)

8:28

8:29

8–84 (P–8–84) 8–85 (E–8–84) 8–86 (E–8–84) 8–87 (S–8–84)

8:27

8–94 (E–8–93)

8–92 (S–89) 8–93 (S–8–92)

8–90 (E–8–89) 8–91 (E–8–89)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

Rel-I-A

τοῖς οὖσιν

αὐτὸν

(God)

Men-A

τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν

ὅτι

Mat-A

συνεργεῖ

εἰς τὸ εἶναι Rel-I-A

Mat-A

προώρισεν

I

R

Men-C

προέγνω

I

R

Men-C

ὅτι

πάντα

Men-C

ὁ ἐραυνῶν

Mat-A

Men-C

οἴδαμεν

E-T-S

Predicator

3S

3S

3P

P

3S

1P

3S

S

3S

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

P

I

I

I

S

I

I

S

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

οἶδεν

Word

δὲ

G

τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος

P-T-S

I.S.

ἐντυγχάνει

G

R.F.

Subject

ὁ ἐραυνῶν τὰς καρδίας

Word

ὅτι

δὲ

Conj.

συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ πρωτότοκον

οὓς

κλητοῖς

τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν (1) τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν (2) τὸν θεὸν

τί

τί τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος τὰς καρδίας

Comp.

καὶ (1) εἰς τὸ εἶναι . . . ἀδελφοῖς (2) ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς

κατὰ πρόθεσιν

εἰς ἀγαθόν

κατὰ θεὸν (1) ὑπὲρ ἁγίων (2)

Adj.

Add.

X (C/P)

+ (A/X) X (S/F)

+ (C/P) + (C/P)

= (A/P) → (P/I)

= (A/P) + (C/P) + (C/P) X (C/E)

Rel.

PSCA

APCA

CP

ACP

PC

CSPAC

P

APA

CS

PC

SPC

W.O.

Others

Clause

8–95 (S–8–93) 8–96 (S–8–95) 8–97 (S–8–96) 8–98 (S–8–97) 8–99 (S–8–98) 8–100 (S–8–99)

8–101 (P–8–88) 8–102 (S–8–102) 8–103 (P–8–101)

8–104 (S–8–103) 8–105 (S–8–104) 8–106 (S–8–105)

8–107 (P–8–103) 8–108 (P–8–107) 8–109 (E–8–108)

Verse

8:30

8:31

8:32

8:33

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

ἀλλὰ

εἰ

οὖν

καὶ

καὶ

δὲ

Conj.

G

θεὸς

R

ὅς

R

R

τίς

τίς

G

I

(God)

ὁ θεὸς

I

I

(God)

(God)

I

I

R.F.

Subject

(God)

(God)

Word

P-T-S

S-T-P

I.S.

Predicator

ὁ δικαιῶν Rel-I-A

Ver

Mat-A

χαρίσεται

ἐγκαλέσει

Mat-A

Mat-A

παρέδωκεν

ἐφείσατο

Ver

Mat-A

ἐδόξασεν

ἐροῦμεν

Rel-I-A

Rel-I-A

ἐδικαίωσεν ἐδικαίωσεν

Ver

Ver

ἐκάλεσεν ἐκάλεσεν

Mat-A

S

3S

3S

3S

3S

1P

3S

3S

3S

3S

3S

3S

A

A

M

A

M

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

F

F

P

P

F

P

P

P

P

P

P

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

προώρισεν

Word

ὁ δικαιῶν

τὰ πάντα (1) ἡμῖν (2)

αὐτόν

τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ

τί

τούτους

οὓς

τούτους

τούτους

οὓς

Comp.

κατὰ ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ

γε (1) οὐκ (2) ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων πῶς (1) οὐχὶ (2) καὶ (3) σὺν αὐτῷ (4)

καθ᾽ἡμῶν

ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν

πρὸς ταῦτα

καὶ

καὶ

καὶ

Adj.

Add.

= (A/P) X (C/E) + (C/P)

X (C/E) = (A/P) X (C/R)

X (C/R) X (O/P) → (P/I)

= (A/P) X (S/F) = (A/P) X (S/F) = (A/P) X (S/F)

Rel.

P

SC

SPA

AAAACCP

APC

SACAP

SA

SA

CPA

CAP

CP

CAP

CP

CAP

CP

W.O.

Others

8:36

8:35

8–110 (P–8–107) 8–111 (E–8–110) 8–112 (P–8–110)

8:34

R

G

τίς

θλῖψις ἢ στενοχωρία ἢ διωγμὸς ἢ λιμὸς ἢ γυμνότης ἢ κίνδυνος ἢ μάχαιρα

8–118 (P–8–117)

8–121 (S–8–120)

8–119 καθὼς (S–8–118) 8–120 ὅτι (S–8–119)

8–116 (S–8–115)

8–117 (P–8–110)

G

Χριστὸς [Ἰησοῦς]

R

R

τίς

ὅς

R.F.

Subject

Word

R

δὲ

Conj.

ὅς

8–113 (E–8–112) 8–114 (E–8–113) 8–115 (S–8–112)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

P-T-P

P-T-P

I.S.

Predicator

Ver Mat-A

Men-C

θανατούμεθα

ἐλογίσθημεν

Mat-A

Ver

Rel-I-A

Mat-E

Mat-E

Men-C

1P

1P

3S

3S

3S

3S

S

S

S

P

P

P

A

A

A

P

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

S

F

I

I

P

P

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

γέγραπται

χωρίσει

ἐντυγχάνει

ἐστιν

ἐγερθείς

ὁ ἀποθανών

ὁ κατακρινῶν

Word

ἡμᾶς

ὁ ἀποθανών (1) μᾶλλον δὲ ἐγερθείς (2)

ὁ κατακρινῶν

Comp.

ἕνεκεν σοῦ (1) ὅλην τὴν ἡμέρα (2) ὡς πρόβατα σφαγῆς

ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ Χριστοῦ

καὶ (1) ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ (2) καὶ (1) ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (2)

μᾶλλον

Adj.

Add.

= (A/P)

X (O/P) → (P/I)

= (A/P)

= (A/P)

= (A/P)

+ (C/P) = (V) + (C/P)

= (A/P) + (C/P) X (C/E)

Rel.

PA

APA

P

S

SCPA

SAPA

SAPA

AP

P

SC

P

SC

W.O.

Others

8:38– 39

8–122 (P–8–101)

8:37

Predicator

Exi Mat-E Mat-A

ἐνεστῶτα μέλλοντα χωρίσαι

8–126 (E–8–125) 8–127 (E–8–125) 8–128 (E–8–125)

Mat-A

δυνήσεται

ὅτι

Men-A

διὰ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντος

8–125 (S–8–124)

Rel-I-A

P

P

3S

1P

S

1P

A

A

A

M

P

A

A

I

I

I

I

I

S

F

S

P

I

Nature Person Voice Mood V.A.

ὑπερνικῶμεν

Word

Ver

S-T-P

I.S.

πέπεισμαι

G

R.F.

Subject

οὔτε θάνατος οὔτε ζωὴ οὔτε ἄγγελοι οὔτε ἀρχαὶ οὔτε ἐνεστῶτα οὔτε μέλλοντα οὔτε δυνάμεις οὔτε ὕψωμα οὔτε βάθος οὔτε τις κτίσις ἑτέρα

Word

γὰρ

ἀλλ᾽

Conj.

8–124 (P–8–122)

8–123 (E–8–122)

Clause

Verse

Verse/clause

Appendix I (cont.)

ἡμᾶς

ἡμᾶς χωρίσαι ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν

Comp.

ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν

ἐν τούτοις πᾶσιν (1) διὰ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντος ἡμᾶς (2) ἡμᾶς

Adj.

Add.

= (C/P) = (C/P) + (C/P)

→ (P/I)

+ (C/P)

= (V)

Rel.

CPA

P

P

SPC

PC

APA

W.O.

Others

1–34 1–35

1–37

1:16

1:17

1–38 1–39

C.

V.

Verse/clause

δίκαιος

δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ

Word

Subject

34.E

88.B 12.A

S.D. 25.R 13.A

S.D.

γέγραπται ζήσεται 33.E 23.G

ἀποκαλύπ-τεται 28.C

ἐπαισχύνομαι ἐστιν

Word

Predicator

εὐαγγέλιον δύναμις θεοῦ πιστεύοντι Ἰουδαίῳ Ἕλληνι

Word

Comp.

33.O 76 12.A 31.I 93.A 11.B

S.D.

πίστεως

πίστεως πίστιν

σωτηρίαν

Word

Adj.

31.I

31.I 31.I

25.F

S.D.

Word

Add.

ANALYSIS OF ROM 1:168:39 ACCORDING TO SEMANTIC DOMAINS

APPENDIX II

S.D.

(4) Adjuncts i. 25.F (Save in a Religious Sense) ii. 31.I (x3)

(3) Complements i. 33.O (Inform, Announce) ii. 76 (Power, Force) iii. 12.A iv. 31.I (Trust, Rely: πιστ—words)

(2) Predicators i. 25.R (Shame, Disgrace, Humiliation) ii. 13.A (State) iii. 28.C (Know) iv. 23.G (Live, Die) v. 33.E (Written Language)

(1) Subjects: i. 34.E (Establish or Confirm a Relation: x2) ii. 12.A (Supernatural Being and Power)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

1–40

1–42

1:18

1:19

1:22

32.E

32.E 26

ἐμωράνθησαν

1–52

ἀσύνετος καρδία

33.J´ 65.D 32.E

ηὐχαρίστησαν ἐματαιώθησαν ἐσκοτίσθη

1:21

1–49 1–50 1–51

ἀόρατα ἀΐδιος δύναμις θειότης

28.C

ἐφανέρωσεν

87.B

1–44

1:20

ἐδόξασαν

24.A 67.E 76 12.A

13.A

ἐστιν

28.C

S.D.

1–47

28.B 12.A 12.A

γνωστὸν θεοῦ θεὸς

ἀποκαλύπτεται

Word

Predicator

καθορᾶται

88.X 12.A

S.D.

ὀργὴ θεοῦ

Word

Subject

27.A

1–43

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

φανερόν

Word

Comp.

28.C

S.D.

φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ

διαλογισμοῖς

γνόντες θεὸν

κτίσεως κόσμου ποιήμασιν νοούμενα εἶναι ἀναπολογήτους

οὐρανοῦ ἀσέβειαν ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων ἀλήθειαν κατεχόντων

Word

Adj.

32.P 13.A 32.D

30.A

28.A 12.A x2

42.C 1.A 42.C 32.A 13.A 33.W´

1.B 53.A 88.B (x2) 9.A 72.A 13.D

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(3) Complements i. 28.C ii. with regard to God:

(2) Predicators i. 28.C (x2): vv. 18–19 ii. 32.E (x2): vv. 21–22 iii. with regard to God: 87.B, (Honor or Respect in Relation to Status) 33.J´ (Thanks); 57.J (Exchange) iv. with regard to humanity: 27.A (Learn); 65.D (Useful, Useless) v. 13.A (State—εἰμί)

(1) Subjects i. 12.A (God: x4) ii. about God’s attribute: 88.X; 28.B; 24.A; 67.E; 76 (vv. 18–20) iii. about human nature: (vv. 21–23) 32.E (Lack of Capacity for Understanding) 26 (Psychological Faculties)

(5) Overall lists i. 31 (x4): I ii. 34.E (x2): (δικ—word) iii. 12 (x2)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

C.

1–55

V.

1:23

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

Word

Subject

S.D.

ἤλλαξαν

Word

Predicator

57.J

S.D. δόξαν ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ

Word

Comp.

87.B 23.G 12.A

S.D. ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου πετεινῶν τετραπόδων ἑρπετῶν

Word

Adj.

64 6.M 23.G 9.A 4.B 4.A 4.D

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(5) Overall lists i. with regard to cognitive process: 32 (x6); 28 (x5); 31.A; 27.A; cf. 72.A ii. 12.A (God: x7) iii. actions or attitudes toward God: 87.B (x2); 33.J´; 57.J; 53.A vi. 88 (x3)

(4) Adjuncts i. 4 (Animals): A, B, D ii. 13 (Be, Become, Exist, Happen): A (x2), D (Happen) iii. 88.B (x2) iv. 12.A (God: x2) v. 42.C (Make, Create: x2) vi. 32 (Understand): P, D vii. 9.A (Human Beings: x2) viii. 1 (Geographical Objects and Features): A, B xi. others: 53.A; 72.A; 33.W´; 64; 6.M; 23G; 30.A (Think).

87.B; 23.G (Live, Die); 12.A

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

1:27

1:26

79.V

79.V

79.V

θήλειαι

ἄρσενες

ἄρσενες

1–64

1–65

1–67

1–69

12.A

θεὸς

ἐξεκαύθησαν

μετήλλαξαν

παρέδωκεν

25.B

57.J

57.H

53.G 53.A 13.A

ἐσεβάσθησαν ἐλάτρευσαν ἐστιν

1–59 1–60 1–62

1–63

57.J

S.D.

μετήλλαξαν

12.A

Word

1–58

1:25

θεὸς

S.D.

Predicator

57.H

1–56

1:24

Word

Subject

παρέδωκεν

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

φυσικὴν χρῆσιν

κτίσει εὐλογητὸς

ἀλήθειαν θεοῦ

Word

Comp.

58.A 23.D

42.C 33.k´

72.A 12.A

S.D.

ὁμοίως ἀφέντες φυσικὴν χρῆσιν θηλείας ὀρέξει ἄρσεσιν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι ἀντιμισθίαν ἔδει πλάνης ἀπολαμβάνοντες

πάθη ἀτιμίας φύσιν

κτίσαντα αἰῶνας ἀμήν

ψεύδει

ἐπιθυμίαις καρδιῶν ἀκαθαρσίαν ἀτιμάζεσθαι σώματα

Word

Adj.

64 15.D 58.A 23.D 79.V 25.B 79.V 88.T 90.K 38.B 71.E 88.I´ 90.M

25.B 87.D 58.A

42.C 67.E 72.A

33.R

25.B 26 88.H´ 87.D 8.A

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(4) Adjuncts i. 88 (Moral and Ethical Qualities and Related Behavior: x3): H´, T, I´ ii. 58.A (x2) iii. 25.B (x3) iv. 90 (Case: x2): K, M. (Experiencer) v. 87.D (Low Status or Rank: x2) vi. 79.V (Male, Female: x2)

(3) Complements i. about God: 72.A (Truth); 12.A; 33. K´ (Praise) ii. about humankind: 42.C (Make, Create) 58.A (Nature, Character) 23.D (Sexual Relations)

(2) Predicators i. 57 (Possess, Transfer, Exchange: x4): H (Give: x 2), J (Exchange: x2) ii. 53 (Religious activities: x2): G, A iii. 25.B (Desire Strongly)

(1) Subjects i. 12.A (God: x2) ii. 79.V (Male, Female: x3)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

1–72

1:28– 31

1–74

C.

V.

Verse/clause

θεὸς

Appendix II (cont.)

Word

S.D.

12.A

Subject

παρέδωκεν

ἐδοκίμασαν

Word

S.D.

57.H

30.G

Predicator

θεὸν ἔχειν ἐπιγνώσει

Word

S.D.

12.A 57.A 28.A

Comp.

ἀδόκιμον νοῦν ποιεῖν καθήκοντα πεπληρωμένους ἀδικίᾳ πονηρίᾳ πλεονεξίᾳ κακίᾳ μεστοὺς φθόνου φόνου ἔριδος δόλου κακοηθείας ψιθυριστάς καταλάλους θεοστυγεῖς ὑβριστὰς ὑπερηφάνους ἀλαζόνας ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν γονεῦσιν

Word

Adj.

88.O 26 42.B 66 59.D 88.B 88.O 25.B 88.O 59.D 88.V 20.D 39.E 88.U 88.O 33.Q´ 33.P´ 88.Z 88.P 88.A´ 88.A´ 30.D 88.O 10.B

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(4) Adjuncts i. 88 (Moral and Ethical Qualities and Related Behavior: x13): O (x5), A´ (x2), B, Z, V, P, J, U ii. 33 (Communication: x3): G´, Q´, P´ iii. 25 (Attitudes and Emotions: x2): B, C iv. others 27; 42.B; 66; 59.D; 20.D;

(3) Complements i. 12.A ii. 28.A (Know) iii. 57.A (Have, Possess, Property, Owner) iv. 42.B

(2) Predicators i. 30.G (To Distinguish, To Evaluate, To Judge) ii. 57.H (Give) iii. 42.B (Do, Perform:x2) iv. 31.C (Agree, Consent)

(1) Subject 12.A (God)

(5) Overall lists i. 57 (x4): H (x2), J (x2) ii. 25.B (x4) iii. 12.A (x3) iv. 79.V (x3) v. 88 (x3): H´, T, I´

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

2–10

2:3

2–14

2–7 2–8

2:2

σὺ

κρίμα θεοῦ

92.C

56.E 12.A 30.A

λογίζῃ

21.D

28.A 13.A

οἴδαμεν ἐστιν

ἐκφεύξῃ

42.B

πράσσεις

56.E

κατακρίνεις

2–3

30.G

13.A

εἶ

2–5

31.C

συνευδοκοῦσιν

2–1

κρίνων

1–82

2:1

42.B

S.D.

ποιοῦσιν

Word

1–78

S.D.

1:32

Word

Predicator

C.

Subject

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

κρίμα θεοῦ

ἀναπολόγητος σεαυτὸν

πράσσουσιν

Word

Comp.

56.E 12.A

92.C

33.W´

42.B

S.D.

ἀλήθειαν πράσσοντας

κρίνεις ἕτερον

δικαίωμα θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες πράσσον ες εἰσίν ἄξιοι θανάτου

ἀπειθεῖς ἀσυνέτους ἀσυνθέτους ἀστόργους ἀνελεήμονας

Word

Adj.

70 42.B

30.G 58.F

33.G´ 12.A 28.A 42.B 13.A 65.B 23.G

36.C 32.E 34.E 25.C 88.J

S.D.

ἄνθρωπε κρίνων πράσσοντας ποιῶν

ἄνθρωπε κρίνων

Word

Add.

42.B

9.A 30.G 42.B

9.A 30.G

S.D.

(2) Predicators i. With regard to ‘you’: 13.A; 13.D (Happen), 56.E; 42.B; 30.A; 21.D; 88.Y; 28.A ii. With regard to God: 13.A; 36.A

(1) Subject i. Human (you): 92.C you) cf. Human act: 30.G (To Distinguish, To Evaluate, To Judge) ii. God’s attribute: 56.E (Judge, Condemn, Acquit); 88.I

(5) Overall lists i. 88 (x13) ii. Cognitive sense: 28 (x2), 30; 31; 26 iii. Humans action: 42.B (x4) iv. 33 (x3)

39.E; 30.D; 10.B; 36.C; 32.E; 34.E; 12.A; 28.A; 42.C; 13.A; 65.B; 23.G

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

2–15

2:4

2–18

2–19

2–20

2:5

2:6

2:7

2–17

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Word

Subject

χρηστὸν θεοῦ

Appendix II (cont.)

88.I 12.A

S.D.

36.A 13.D

57.L

θησαυρίζεις

ἀποδώσει

88.Y

S.D.

ἄγει

καταφρονεῖς

Word

Predicator

59.C 25.O 42.B 88.A 87.B 87.B

ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ δόξαν τιμὴν

92.C 88.X

57.C 88.I 25.O 25.O 92.C

S.D.

ἑκάστῳ

σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν

πλούτου χρηστότητος ἀνοχῆς μακροθυμίας σε

Word

Comp.

ἔργα

σκληρότητά σου ἀμετανόητον καρδίαν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας θεοῦ

μετάνοιάν

ἀγνοῶν

Word

Adj.

42.B

88.B´ 92.C 41.E 26 67.I 88.X 28.C 56.E 12.A

41.E

28.A

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(1) Subjects i. God ii. 22.A (Trouble, Hardship, Distress: x2) iii. 87.B (Honor or Respect in Relation to Status: x2)

(6) Overall lists i. You: 92.C (x5) ii. Human judgment: 30.G (x4) iii. God’s judgment: 56.E (x3) iv. Human act: 42.B (x4)

(5) Addressees 9.A (x2); 30.G (x2); 42.B (x2)

(4) Adjuncts i. 88 (x2): B´, X ii. 41.E (x2) iii. 28: A, C iv. 42.B; 56.E; 92.C; 30.G

(3) Complements i. 25.O (Patience, Endurance, Perseverance: x2) ii. 92.C (x3) iii. 88 (x2):I, X iv. 33.W´ (Defend, Excuse)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

C.

2–22

2–25

2–27

2–29

V.

2:8

2:9

2:10

2:11

Verse/clause

87.B 87.B 22.G

88.D´

δόξα τιμὴ εἰρήνη

προσωπολημψία

S.D.

22.A 22.A

Word

Subject

θλῖψις στενοχωρία

Appendix II (cont.)

ἐστιν

Word

Predicator

13.A

S.D.

59.C 90.K 88.A 93.A 11.B

88.W 36.C 72.A 36.C 88.B 88.X 88.X

ἐριθείας ἀπειθοῦσι ἀληθείᾳ πειθομένοις ἀδικίᾳ ὀργὴ θυμό

παντὶ ἐργαζομένῳ ἀγαθόν Ἰουδαίῳ Ἕλληνι

23.G 25.A 23.G 67.E

S.D.

ἀφθαρσίαν ζητοῦσιν ζωὴν αἰώνιον

Word

Comp.

θεῷ

πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου κατεργαζομένου κακόν Ἰουδαίου Ἕλληνος

Word

Adj.

12.A

59.C 9.A 9.A 90.K 88.O 93.A 11.B

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(5) Overall lists i. 88 (x8) ii. human act: 36.C (x2), 42.B (x2); 90.K (x2); 25.A iii. God’s positive reward: 87.B (x4), 22.G iv. God’s negative reward: 88.X (x2); 22.A (x2) v. Jews and Gentiles (x2)

(4) Adjuncts i. Human: 93.A (Jews and Gentiles: x4) ii. Human act: 42.B; 90.K (x2) iii. 88 (x2): 88.O, A iv. 59.C (all: x2)

(3) Complements i. 88 (x6):A, B (x2), W, X (x2) ii. 23.G (Live, Die: x2) iii. 36.C (Obey, Disobey: x2)

(2) Predicators i. 57.L (Pay, Price, Cost) ii. 13.A

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

2:15 –16

2:14

2:13

2–30

2:12

11.B 33.E 57.A

ἔθνη νόμον ἔχοντα

2–44

2–43

θεὸς

12.A

30.A

λογισμῶν

24.B 33.E 42.B 33.E

ἀκροαταὶ νόμου ποιηταὶ νόμου

2–42

33.E 88.L´ 33.E 88.L´

ἀνόμως ἥμαρτον νόμῳ ἥμαρτον

συνειδήσεως 26

S.D.

Word

Subject

2–41

2–40

2–38

2–36

2–35

2–34

2–32

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

28.C

ἐνδείκνυνται

ἀπολογουμένων κρίνει 30.G

33.W´

33.V´

33.T

13.A

εἰσιν

συμμαρτυρούσης κατηγορούντων

42.B

ποιῶσιν

34.E

30.G

κριθήσονται

δικαιωθήσονται

20.C

S.D.

ἀπολοῦνται

Word

Predicator

κρυπτὰ ἀνθρώπων

ἔργον νόμου γραπτὸν καρδίαις

ἑαυτοῖς νόμος

νόμου

δίκαιοι

Word

Comp.

28.E 9.A

42.B 33.E 33.E 26

92.D 33.E

33.E

34.E

S.D.

ἡμέρᾳ

εὐαγγέλιόν μου Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ

νόμον ἔχοντες

φύσει

θεῷ

νόμου

ἀνόμως

Word

Adj.

67.I

33.O 92.A 53.I 93.A

33.E 57.A

58.A

12.A

33.E

33.E

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(4) Adjuncts i. 33 (x4): E (x3), O ii. 50.A; 57.A; 67.I; 92.A; 53.I; 93.A

(3) Complements i. 33.E (x4) ii. 34.E; 42.B; 26; 92.D; 28.E; 9.A

(2) Predicators i. 33 (x3): T, V´, W ii. 13.A (x2); 30.G (x2) iii. 34.E (Establish or Confirm a Relation); 42.B; 28.C (Well Known, Clearly Shown, Revealed)

(1) Subjects i. Human: cf. 11.B ii. 33.E (Written Language: x5) iii. Human act: 42.B; 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt: x2); 24.B (Hear) iv. 26 (Psychological Faculties); 30.A (To Think, Thought); 12.A; 57.A

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

2–45 2–46 2–47

2–48 2–49

2–52

2–55

2:17

2:18

2:19 –20

2:21

2–57

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Word

Subject

διδάσκων ἕτερον κηρύσσων κλέπτειν

σὺ

Appendix II (cont.)

33.Q 58.F 33.O 57.U

92.C

S.D.

57.U

κλέπτεις

33.B´

πέποιθάς

33.Q

28.A 30.G

γινώσκεις δοκιμάζεις

διδάσκεις

33.I 31.I 33.M

S.D.

ἐπονομάζῃ ἐπαναπαύῃ καυχᾶσαι

Word

Predicator

σεαυτὸν

σεαυτὸν ὁδηγὸν εἶναι τυφλῶν φῶς σκότει παιδευτὴν ἀφρόνων διδάσκαλον νηπίων ἔχοντα μόρφωσιν γνώσεως ἀληθείας νόμῳ

θέλημα διαφέροντα

Ἰουδαῖος νόμῳ

Word

Comp.

92.C

92.C 15.W 13.A 24.A 14.F 14.G 33.Q 32.E 33.Q 9.D 57.A 58.A 28.B 72.A 33.E

30.D 65.A

93.A 33.E

S.D.

κατηχούμενος νόμου

θεῷ

Word

Adj.

33.Q 33.E

12.A

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(4) Adjuncts i. 33 (x3): E (x2), Q (x1) ii. 12.A; 36.C; 92.C; 11.C

(3) Complements i. 33 (x4): 33.Q (x2), 33.E (x2) ii. 14 (Physical Event and States: x2): F, G iii. 92.C (x2) iv. 93.A; 30.D; 65.A; 15.W; 13.A; 24.A; 32.E; 9.D; 57.A; 58.A; 23.B; 72.A; 12.A

(2) Predicators i. 33 (x6): I, M, B´, Q, P´, E ii. 30.G; 28.A; 31.I (Trust, Rely); 88.J´

(1) Subjects i. 92.C (you) ii. 33 (x6): O, Q (Teach), F, E, I, M´

(5) Overall lists i. 33.E (about law: x 12) ii. 42.B (x3) iii. 57.A (Have: x2); 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt: x2); 34.E (x2)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

2–60

2:22

24.A

24.A 8.A

φανερῷ σαρκὶ

2–78

58.A 11.B 33.E 36.C

φύσεως ἀκροβυστία νόμον τελοῦσα

φύσεως

11.B

ἀκροβυστία

2–74

2–77

11.B

ἀκροβυστία

2–73

2:28

53.F 92.C

περιτομή σου

2–72

2–75

53.F

περιτομὴ

33.I 12.A

ὄνομα θεοῦ

2–69 2–70 2–71

6.M

33.E 33.M´

νόμῳ καυχᾶσαι

33.F 88.J´ 25.Q

S.D.

λέγων μοιχεύειν βδελυσσόμενος εἴδωλα

Word

Subject

2:27

2:26

2:25

2–67

2:24

2–68

2–65

2:23

2–63

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

ἐστιν

κρινεῖ

λογισθήσεται

φυλάσσῃ

γέγονεν

13.A

30.G

30.A

36.C

13.B

35.A 42.B 13.B

33.E

γέγραπτα

ὠφελεῖ πράσσῃς ᾖς

33.P´

βλασφημεῖται

87.D

53.L

ἱεροσυλεῖς

ἀτιμάζεις

88.J´

S.D.

μοιχεύεις

Word

Predicator

περιτομή

Ἰουδαῖός

γράμματος περιτομῆς παραβάτην νόμου

δικαιώματα νόμου περιτομὴν

νόμον παραβάτης νόμου ἀκροβυστία

θεὸν

Word

Comp.

53.F

93.A

33.E 53.F 36.C 33.E

33.G´ 33.E 53.F

33.E 36.C 33.E 11.B

12.A

S.D.

ὑμᾶς ἔθνεσιν

παραβάτης νόμου

Word

Adj.

92.C 11.C

36.C 33.E

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(3) Complements i. 33.E (x5)

(2) Predicators i. 13 (x3): B (Change of State: x2), A ii. 30 (Think: x2): A, G iii. 42.B

(1) Subjects i. 92.C (you) ii. 53.F (Dedicate, Consecrate: x3) (circumcision), cf. 11.B (Socio-Religious) (uncircumcised: x2) iii. 33.E (x2) iv. 24.A (See: x2) v. 26 (x2)

(5) Overall lists i. 33 (x19): cf. E (x6), Q (x5), I (x2), M´ (Boast: x2) ii. 92.C (x4) iii. 12.A (x3) iv. 57.U (x2)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

39.L

33.E

γέγραπται

νικήσεις

13.D 13.A

γένοιτο γινέσθω

3–14

12.A 9.A

ἀληθή ψεύστης

88.E 33.R

31.I 12.A

88.B

θεὸς ἄνθρωπος

πίστιν θεοῦ

δικαιωθῇς

31.I 76

ἠπίστησάν καταργήσει

33.D 12.A

3–9 3–10 3–11 3–12 3–13

31.I

λόγια θεοῦ

S.D.

3:4

ἀπιστία

35.Ε

ἐπιστεύθησαν

Word

3–7 3–8

65.E 93.A 65.E 53.F

περισσὸν Ἰουδαίου ὠφέλεια περιτομῆς

S.D.

Comp.

3:3

26 60.B 26 12.A 33.E 33.K´

κρυπτῷ περιτομὴ καρδίας πνεύματι γράμματι ἔπαινος

Word

Predicator

3–5

3–2

3–1

S.D.

Word

Subject

3:2

3:1

2–79 2–80

2:29

2–81 2–81

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

λόγοις σου κρίνεσθαί σε

ἀνθρώπων θεοῦ

Word

Adj.

33.F 92.C 56.E 92.C

9.A 12.A

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(2) Predicators i. 33 (Communication: x6): F (Speak, Talk: x4), P´ (Insult, Slander), E

(1) Subjects i. 12.A (God: x4) ii. 88 (x3): A, B, X iii. 92 (Discourse Referentials: x2): A (Speaker), B (Speaker and Those Associated with the Speaker) iv. 65.E (Advantageous, Not Advantageous: x2) v. 93.A; 53.F; 31.I; 9.A; 90.N; 70; 56.E

(5) Overall lists i. 53.F (x6) (cf. 11.B [x3]) ii. 33.E (x7) iii. 36.C (x4) iv. 13 (x3) v. 24 (x2); 26 (x2); 30 (x2); 42.B

(4) Adjuncts 9.A; 12.A

ii. 53.F (x3) (cf. 11.B) iii. 36.C (Obey, Disobey: x2) iv. 12.A; 33.G; 93.A

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

3–16

3:5

3:8

33.F 42.D 13.D 13.A

λέγειν ποιήσωμεν ἔλθῃ ἐστιν

3–27

3–28 3–29 3–30 3–31

88.A 56.E

33.F

βλασφημούμεθα φασίν

ἀγαθά κρίμα

56.E

3–26

33.P´

92.A

κἀγὼ

3–24

59.F

13.D 56.E

γένοιτο κρινεῖ

ἐπερίσσευσεν

33.F

33.F

ἐροῦμεν

λέγω

28.C

S.D.

συνίστησιν

Word

Predicator

κρίνομαι

70 12.A

ἀλήθεια θεοῦ

3–23

3:7

12.A 90.N 88.X

88.B 92.B

S.D.

12.A

θεὸς ἐπιφέρων ὀργήν

ἀδικία ἡμῶν

Word

Subject

θεὸς

3–21 3–22

3:6

3–20

3–17 3–18

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

ἔνδικόν

κακά

ἡμᾶς λέγειν

κόσμον

ἄδικος

θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην

Word

Comp.

88.B

88.O

92.B 33.F

9.A

88.B

12.A 88.B

S.D.

ἐμῷ ψεύσματι δόξαν ἁμαρτωλὸς

ἄνθρωπον

Word

Adj.

92.A 33.R 87.B 88.L´

9.A

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(5) Overall lists i. 33 (x11): F (x6), R (Speak Truth, Speak Falsehood: x2), etc. ii. 88 (x10): B (x5), L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt), etc. iii. 12.A (x7) iv. 13 (x5): A (x2), D (x3)

(4) Adjuncts i. 92 (x3): A, C (Receptor, Receptors: x2) ii. 33 (x2): F, R iii. 56.E; 9.A; 87.B; 88.L´

(3) Complements i. 88 (x6): B (Just, Righteous: x4), E, O ii. 12.A (God: x3) iii. 33 (x3): D, R, F iv. 31.I; 39.L; 9.A; 92.B

ii. 13 (x5): A (State: x2), D (Happen: x3) iii. 56.E (Judge, Condemn, Acquit: x2) iv. 31.I (Trust, Rely), 35.E (Entrust To the Care Of ); 76; 28.C; 59.F; 42.D

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

3–37 3–38 3–39

3–40 3–42

3–44 3–45 3–46

3:10

3:11

3:12

3:14

3–53

3–51 3–52

3–49

3–48

3–33 3–35

3:9

3:13

C.

V.

Verse/clause

8.C 4.D

8.B

στόμα

8.B

42.D 88.A

ἰὸς ἀσπίδων

λάρυγξ

ποιῶν χρηστότητα

32.A 27.D 12.A

συνίων κζητῶν θεόν

S.D.

88.B

Word

Subject

δίκαιος

Appendix II (cont.)

γέμει 59.D

88.U

32.I 65.D 13.A

ἐξέκλιναν ἠχρεώθησαν ἐστιν

ἐδολιοῦσαν

13.A 13.A

33.E 13.A

γέγραπται ἐστιν

ἐστιν ἐστιν

65.E 33.V´

S.D.

προεχόμεθα προῃτιασάμεθα

Word

Predicator

ἀρᾶς πικρίας

τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος

εἷς

Ἰουδαίους Ἕλληνας ἁμαρτίαν εἶναι

Word

Comp.

33. C´´ 88.Z

7.G 79.X

60.B

93.A 11.B 88.L´ 13.A

S.D.

γλώσσαις χείλη

ἑνός

ἅμα

Word

Adj.

8.B 8.B

60.B

89.T

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(3) Complements i. 88 (x2): L´, Z ii. 33 (x2): C´´, E

(2) Predicators i. 13 (x6): A (State: x5), D (Happen) ii. 33 (x3): V´, E, F iii. 28.A (Know: x2) iv. 65 (Value: x2): E, D v. 88.U; 59.D; 68.D; 34.E

(1) Subjects i. 8 (Body, Body Parts, and Body Products: x5): B (Body Parts: x4), C ii. 88 (x4): B (Just, Righteous: x2), A, L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt) iii. 12.A (x2) iv. 33 (x2): E (Written Language), F v. 9.A (Human Beings: x2) vi. 27.D; 32.A; 42.D; 4.D; 20.C; 22.A; 25.V; 28.A

v. 92 (x6): A (x2), B (x2), C (x2) vi. 56.E (x4) vii. 31.I (x3). Cf. ἐπιστεύθησαν (35.E)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

28.A 88.L´

ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας

3–62 3–63

3–65

25.V 12.A

9.A

3–59 3–60

3:19

φόβος θεοῦ

σὰρξ

3–58

3:18

20.C 22.A

σύντριμμα ταλαιπωρία

3–64

3–57

3:17

3:20

3–56

3:16

8.B

πόδες

S.D.

33.E 33.F 8.B 9.A

3–54

3:15

Word

Subject

νόμος λέγει στόμα κόσμος

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

68.D 13.D

φραγῇ γένηται

34.E

28.A 33.F

οἴδαμεν λαλεῖ

δικαιωθήσεται

13.A

28.A

S.D.

ἐστιν

ἔγνωσαν

Word

Predicator

ὑπόδικος θεῷ

νόμῳ

ὁδὸν εἰρήνης

ὀξεῖς

Word

Comp.

56.D 12.A

33.E

41.A 22.G

67.E

S.D.

ἔργων νόμου νόμου

ὀφθαλμῶν

ὁδοῖς

ἐκχέαι αἷμα

Word

Adj.

42.D 33.E 33.E

8.B

41.A

47.A 8.B

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(5) Overall lists i. 33 (x9): E (Written Language: the law: x5), F (Speak, Talk: x2), V´, C´´ ii. 8 (x9): B (Parts of the Body: x8), C iii. 13 (x7): A (x6), D iv. 88 (x7): B (Just, Righteous: x2), A, L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt: x2), U, Z v. 12.A (x3) vi. 28.A (Know: x3)

(4) Adjuncts i. 8.B (Parts of the Body: x4) ii. 33.E (x2) iii. 89.T; 60.B; 47.A; 42.D

iii. 93.A; 11.B; 13.A; 60.B; 7.G; 79.X; 67.E; 41.A; 22.G; 56.D; 12.A

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

3–74

3:25 –26

3–76

3–71 3–72

θεὸς

12.A

58.F

διαστολή

3–70

3:23 –24

34.E 12.A

δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ

3–68

3:22

S.D.

34.E 12.A

3–66

3:21

Word

Subject

δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

30.D

88.L´ 13.A

ἥμαρτον ὑστεροῦνται

προέθετο

13.A

28.C

S.D.

ἐστιν

πεφανέρωται

Word

Predicator

ἱλαστήριον

δόξης θεοῦ

Word

Comp.

40.B

79.E 12.A

S.D.

πίστεως αἵματι ἔνδειξιν δικαιοσύνης πάρεσιν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων ἀνοχῇ θεου ἔνδειξιν δικαιοσύνης νῦν καιρῷ εἶναι δίκαιον δικαιοῦντα πίστεως Ἰησοῦ

δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν χάριτι ἀπολυτρώσεως Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πιστεύοντας

νυνί νόμου μαρτυρουμένη νόμου προφητῶν

Word

Adj.

31.I 8.B 28.C 88.B 30.B 13.D 88. L´ 25.O 12.A 28.C 88.B 67.E 13.A 88.B 34.E 31.I 93.A

34.E 57.H 88.I 37.J 93.A

31.I 93.A 31.I

67.E 33.E 33.T 33.E 53.I

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(4) Adjuncts i. 31.I (Believe To Be True: x4) ii. 88 (x5): B (Just, Righteous: x3), L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt), I. iii. 93.A (Persons: Jesus Christ: x3) iv. 33 (x3): E (Written Language: the law: x2), T v. 34.E (x2) vi. 28.C (Well Known, Clearly Shown, Revealed: x2); 13 (x2): A, D; 67.E (x2) vii. 53.I; 57.H; 37.J; 8.B; 30.B; 25.O; 12.A; 28.C

(3) Complements 79.E; 12.A; 40.B

(2) Predicators i. 13.A (x2) ii. 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt); 30.D; 28.C

(1) Subjects i. 12.A (x3) ii. 34.E (Establish or Confirm a Relation: Justification: x2) iii. 58.F

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

3–79 3–80 3–81

3:27

3–85

3–87 3–88 3–89

3–90 3–91 3–92

3:28

3:29

3:30

3–82 3–84

C.

V.

Verse/clause

12.A

12.A

θεὸς

33.M´

καύχησις

θεὸς

S.D.

Subject

Word

Appendix II (cont.)

δικαιώσει

λογιζόμεθα

ἐξεκλείσθη

Word

Predicator

34.E

30.A

13.D

S.D.

εἷς περιτομὴν ἀκροβυστίαν

Ἰουδαίων ἐθνῶν ἐθνῶν

δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον ἔργων νόμου

Word

Comp.

60.B 53.F 11.B

93.A 11.B 11.B

34.E 31.I 9.A 42.D 33.E

S.D.

πίστεως πίστεως

ποίου νόμου ἔργων νόμου πίστεως

Word

Adj.

31.I 31.I

92.G 33.E 42.D 33.G´ 31.I

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(4) Adjuncts i. 31.I (Be A Believer, Christian Faith: πιστ– words: x4)

(3) Complements i. 33.E (Written Language: the law: x3) ii. 11.B (Socio-Religious: Gentiles: x3) iii. 9.A; 42.D; 60.B; 53.F; 34.E; 31.I

(2) Predicators i. 13.D (Happen: x2) ii. 76 (Power, Force: x2) iii. 30.A; 34.E

(1) Subjects i. 12.A (x2) ii. 33.M´

(5) Overall lists i. δικ-words (x7): 88.B (x3); 34.E (x4) ii. 12.A (x4), 31.I (x4); 13 (x4): A (x3), D, iii. 93.A (x3); 28.C (x3) vi. 33.E (x2); 67.E (x2); 88.L´ (x2)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

C.

3–93 3–94 3–95

4–1

4–3 4–4 4–5

4–6 4–7 4–8

4–9 4–11

4–12

V.

3:31

4:1

4:2

4:3

4:4

4:5

Verse/clause

33.E 93.A

57.M

31.I

γραφὴ Ἀβραὰμ

μισθὸς

πίστις

S.D.

93.A

Word

Subject

Ἀβραὰμ

Appendix II (cont.)

λογίζεται

λογίζεται

λέγει ἐπίστευσεν ἐλογίσθη

30.A

30.A

33.F 31.I 30.A

34.E 57.A

33.F

ἐροῦμεν

ἐδικαιώθη ἔχει

76 13.D 76

S.D.

καταργοῦμεν γένοιτο ἱστάνομεν

Word

Predicator

ἐργαζομένῳ πιστεύοντι δικαιοῦντα ἀσεβη

ἐργαζομένῳ

θεῷ

καύχημα

42.D 31.I 34.E 53.A

42.D

12.A

33.M´

27.B 93.A 10.B 92.B 8.B

33.E

νόμον

εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ προπάτορα ἡμῶν σάρκα

33.E

S.D.

νόμον

Word

Comp.

δικαιοσύνην

χάριν ὀφείλημα

δικαιοσύνην

θεόν

ἔργων

πίστεως

Word

Adj.

34.E

88.I 57.R

34.E

12.A

42.D

31.I

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(2) Predicators i. 30.A (To Think, Thought: λογίζομαι: x5) ii. 33.F (Speak, Talk: x3) iii. 31.I (Trust, Rely: πιστ—words) iv. 34.E (δικ—word); 57.A

(1) Subjects i. 93.A (Persons: x3): Abraham (x2), David ii. 12.A (God: x2) iii. 40.B (Forgiveness: x2) iv. 88 (x2): R (Act Lawlessly), L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt) v. 33.E; 57.M; 31.I; 9.A

(5) Overall lists i. 31.I (x5) ii. 33.E (x4) (cf. 33.G´) iii. 42.D (Work, Toil: x2) iv. 11.B (x3) v. 12.A (x2) vi. 34.E (Establish or Confirm a Relation: Justification: x2)

ii. 33.E; 42.D (Work, Toil); 92.G; 33.G´

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

25.K

31.I

μακαρισμὸς

πίστις

4–23 4–24 4–25 4–26

4:9

9.A 12.A

ἀνὴρ κύριος

4–21 4–22

88.L´

4:8

12.A

40.B 88.R 40.B

θεὸς

ἀφέθησαν ἀνομίαι καὶ ἐπεκαλύφθησαν ἁμαρτίαι

4–17

4–18

4:7

93.A

∆αυὶδ

4–16

S.D.

4:6

Word

C.

Subject

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

λέγομεν ἐλογίσθη

λογίσηται

λογίζεται

λέγει

Word

Predicator

33.F 30.A

30.A

30.A

33.F

S.D.

Ἀβραὰμ

μακάριος ἁμαρτίαν

μακάριοι

δικαιοσύνην

Word

Comp.

93.A

25.K 88.L´

25.K

34.E

S.D.

δικαιοσύνην

περιτομὴν ἀκροβυστίαν

μακαρισμὸν ἀνθρώπου ἔργων

Word

Adj.

34.E

53.F 11.B

25.K 9.A 42.D

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(1) Subjects 25.K, 31.I (πιστ—words)

(5) Overall lists i. 34.E (δικ—words: x5) ii. 30.A (x5) iii. 42.D (x4) iv. 31.I (πιστ—words: x3) v. 93.A (x3): Abraham (x2), David vi. 33.F (x3) vii. 88 (x3): L´(x2), R, I viii. 25.K (x3) ix. 40.B (x2); 9.A (x2)

(4) Adjuncts i. 34.E (x2) ii. 42.D (x2) iii. 88. I (Kindness, Harshness); 12.A; 9.A; 57.R; 25.K

(3) Complements i. 42.D (Work, Toil: x2) ii. 34.E (x2) iii. 25.K (x2) iv. 88: L´; 33.M´; 31.I; 53.A

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

4:11 –12

4–27 4–28

4:10

4–34

4–31

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

Word

Subject

S.D.

ἔλαβεν

ἐλογίσθη

Word

Predicator

57.I

30.A

S.D.

σημεῖον περιτομῆς σφραγῖδα δικαιοσύνης πίστεως ἀκροβυστίᾳ

Word

Comp.

33.D´ 53.F 6.J 34.E 31.I 11.B

S.D.

εἶναι πατέρα πιστευόντων ἀκροβυστίας λογισθῆναι δικαιοσύνην πατέρα περιτομῆς περιτομῆς στοιχοῦσιν ἴχνεσιν ἀκροβυστίᾳ πίστεως πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ

ὄντι περιτομῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ περιτομῇ ἀκροβυστία

Word

Adj.

13.A 10.B 31.I 11.B 30.A 34.E 10.B 53.F 53.F 41.D 41.D 11.B 31.I 10.B 93.A

13.A 53.F 11.B 53.F 11.B

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(5) Overall lists i. 53.F (x6); 11.B (x6) ii. 31.I (x4) iii. 34.E (x3); 10.B (x3) iv. 41.D (x2); 93.A (x2); 30.A (x2); 13.A (x2)

(4) Adjuncts i. 53.F (x5) ii. 11.B (x5) iii. 10.B (Father: x3) iv. 34.E (x2); 13.A (x2); 41.D (Imitate Behavior: x2); 31.I (x2) v. 93.A; 30.A

(3) Complements 93.A (Abraham); 33.D´ (Non-Verbal communication); 53.F (Dedicate, Consecrate: περιτομή); 6.J (Instruments Used in Marking or Writing); 11.B (Socio-Religious: ἀκροβυστία); 34.E (δικ—words); 31.I

(2) Predicators i. 30.A (x2) ii. 33.F; 57.I (Receive)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

4–40

4:13

4–52

4–49 4–50

4:16

4:15

4–43 4–44 4–45 4–42 4–44

4:14

4–42

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Word

Subject

νόμου πίστις ἐπαγγελία νόμος παράβασις

ἐπαγγελία Ἀβραὰμ σπέρματι κληρονόμον εἶναι κόσμου δικαιοσύνης πίστεως

Appendix II (cont.)

33.E 31.I 33.Y 33.E 36.C

33.Y 93.A 10.B 57.I 13.A 9.A 88.B 31.I

S.D.

ἐστιν

κεκένωται κατήργηται κατεργάζεται

Word

Predicator

13.A

76 76 13.A

S.D.

πάντων ἡμῶν

ὀργὴν

κληρονόμοι

Word

Comp.

10.B 92.B

88.X

57.I

S.D.

13.A 33.E 31.I 88.I 13.A 71.C 33.Y 10.B 33.E 31.I 93.A

πίστεως χάριν εἶναι βεβαίαν ἐπαγγελίαν σπέρματι νόμου πίστεως Ἀβραὰμ

88.B 31.I

δικαιοσύνης πίστεως

ἔστιν νόμος

33.E

S.D.

νόμου

Word

Adj. Word

Add. S.D.

(3) Complements i. 23.G (x4) ii.10.B (Kinship Relations Involving Successive Generations: x3) iii. 92 (x3): B (Speaker and Those Associated with the Speaker: x2), C (Receptor, Receptors) iv. 93.A (x2) v. 57.I; 88.X; 8.A; 13.A; 11.B; 30.A; 31.I; 37.D

(2) Predicators i. 30.A (x2) ii. 13.A (x2) iii. 76 (Power, Force: x2) iv. 33.E (x2) v. 85.B; 31.I; 34.A; 30.G; 74; 67.B; 57.H; 23.G

(1) Subjects i. 33.Y (Promise: x2) ii. 31.I (x2) iii. 33.E (the law: x2) iv. 93.A; 10.B; 57.I; 13.A; 9.A; 88.B; 36.C

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

4–53 4–54

4:17

4–60

4–64

4:18

4:19

4–55

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

Word

Subject

S.D.

31.I

34.A

κατενόησεν

33.E 85.B

S.D.

ἐπίστευσεν

γέγραπται τέθεικά

Word

Predicator

σῶμα νενεκρωμένον, ὑπάρχων νέκρωσιν μήτρας Σάρρας

πατέρα ἐθνῶν σε

Word

Comp.

13.A 23.G 10.B 93.A

8.A 23.G

10.B 11.B 92.C

S.D.

ἀσθενήσας πίστει

ἐλπίδα ἐλπίδι γενέσθαι πατέρα ἐθνῶν εἰρημένον ἔσται σπέρμα σου

ἐπίστευσεν θεοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος νεκροὺς καλοῦντος ὄντα

Word

Adj.

74 31.F

25.D 25.D 13.B 10.B 11.B 33.F 13.A 10.B 92.C

31.I 12.A 23.G 23.G 33.I 13.A (x2)

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(5) Overall lists i. 13 (x12): A (x10), B, D ii. 31.I (πιστ—words: x9) iii. 23.G (x7); 33.E (x7) iv. 10.B (x6); 88 (x6): B (δικ—words: x3), X, I, L´ v. 33.Y (x5); 92.B (x5) vi. 30.A (x3); 74 (x3)

(4) Adjuncts i. 13 (x8): A (εἰμί: x6), B (Change of State), D (Happen) ii. 31.I (πιστ—words: x5) iii. 92 (x4): B (x3), C; 88 (x4): B (x2), I, L´ iv. 33.E (the law: x3); 33.Y (x3); 12.A (x3); 10.B (x3) v. 25.D (Hope, Look Forward To: x2); 23.G (Live, Die: x2); 74 (x2) vi. 34.E; 42.D; 87.B; 57.H; 31.F; 11.B; 33.I; 93.A; 71.C; 88

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

57.H 23.G

παρεδόθη

ἠγέρθη

4–83

4–84

4:25

67.B

μέλλει

4–78 4–79

4:24

30.A 33.E 30.A

ἐλογίσθη

ἐγράφη ἐλογίσθη

4–75

4–76 4–77

4:22

74

ἐνεδυναμώθη

4–69

4:23

30.G

S.D.

διεκρίθη

Word

4–68

S.D.

4:20 –21

Word

Predicator

C.

Subject

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

λογίζεσθαι πιστεύουσιν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν κύριον ἡμῶν νεκρῶν

Word

Comp.

30.A 31.I 23.G 93.A 37.D 92.B 23.G

S.D.

παραπτώματα ἡμῶν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν

ἡμᾶς

δικαιοσύνην

ἐπαγγελίαν θεοῦ ἀπιστίᾳ πίστει δοὺς δόξαν θεῷ πληροφορηθεὶς ἐπήγγελται δυνατός ἐστιν καὶ ποιῆσαι

Word

Adj.

88.L´ 92.B 34.E 92.B

92.B

88.B

33.Y 12.A 33.F 31.I 57.H 87.B 12.A 13.D 33.Y 74 13.A 42.D

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

93.A

92.B

Χριστὸς

ἡμῶν

5–15

5–16

5:6

25.D 25.C 12.A

ἐλπὶς ἀγάπη θεοῦ

5–12 5–13

25.O 27.D

ὑπομονὴ δοκιμὴ

5:5

22.A

5–10 5–11

5–9

θλῖψις

ὄντων

ἀπέθανεν

καταισχύνει ἐκκέχυται

13.A

23.G

25.R 90.N

33.M´

καυχώμεθα

5–7

85.B 33.M´

ἑστήκαμεν καυχώμεθα

5–4 5–5

5:4

5:3

57.A

S.D.

ἐσχήκαμεν

Word

5–3

5:2

S.D.

Predicator

57.A

5–1

5:1

Word

Subject

ἔχωμεν

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

δοκιμήν ἐλπίδα

ὑπομονὴν

προσαγωγὴν

εἰρήνην

Word

Comp.

27.D 25.D

25.O

33.F

22.G

S.D.

ἀσθενῶν ἀσεβῶν

καρδίαις ἡμῶν πνεύματος ἁγίου δοθέντος ἡμῖν

θλίψεσιν εἰδότες

ἐλπίδι δόξης θεοῦ

πίστει χάριν

δικαιωθέντες πίστεως θεὸν κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

Word

Adj.

88.O 53.A

57.H 92.B

26 92.B 12.A

22.A 28.A

25.D 79.E 12.A

31.I 88.I

34.E 31.I 12.A 12.A 92.B 93.A

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(3) Complements i. 25 (x3): D, O, C

(2) Predicators i. 57 (Possess, Transfer, Exchange: x3): A (x2) (Have), I (Receive) ii. 23.G (Live, Die: x3) iii. 33.M´ (Boast: x2); 21.F (Save in a Religious Sense: x2); 25 (x2): R (Shame, Disgrace, Humiliation); N (Courage, Boldness) iv. 85.B (Put, Place); 90.N (To Cause To Experience); 40.A (Reconciliation)

(1) Subjects i. 25 (Attitudes and Emotion: x3): O (Patience), D (Hope), C (Love) ii. 12.A (God: x2); 93.A (Jesus: x2) iii. 22.A (Trouble, Hardship, Distress); 27.D (Try To Learn); 13.A; 92.B

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

5:11

5–32

ἐλάβομεν 57.I

21.F

σωθησόμεθα

5–27

5–30

40.A

κατηλλάγημεν

5–25

5:10

12.A 93.A

23.G 25.N

S.D.

21.F

5–23

5:9

θεός Χριστὸς

ἀποθανεῖται τολμᾷ

Word

σωθησόμεθα

5–20 5–21

5:8

S.D.

Predicator

28.C 23.G

5–17 5–18

5:7

Word

Subject

συνίστησιν ἀπέθανεν

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

καταλλαγὴν

θεῷ

ἀγάπην

ἀποθανεῖν

Word

Comp.

40.A

12.A

25.C

23.G

S.D.

39.A 13.A 23.G 10.B 40.A 23.G 33.M´12. A 12.A 92.B 93.A

καυχώμενοι θεῷ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

34.E 8.B 88.X

92.B 88.L´ 13.A 92.B (x2)

88.B 88.A

S.D.

ἐχθροὶ ὄντες θανάτου υἱοῦ καταλλαγέντες ζωῇ

δικαιωθέντες αἵματι ὀργῆς

ἡμᾶς ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν

δικαίου ἀγαθοῦ

Word

Adj. Word

Add. S.D.

(4) Adjuncts i. Human beings: 92.B (You: x7) ii. Divine beings Jesus: 93.A (x2); 12.A (x2) God: 12.A (x3)The Holy Spirit: 12.A iii. 88 (x6): O, B, A, L´, X, I iv. 13.A (Be: x2); 34.E (δικ—words: x2); 23.G (x2) vi. 31.I; 25.D; 79.E; 22.A; 28.A; 26; 57.H; 33.M´; 10.B; 40.A; 8.B; 53.A (5) Overall lists i. Divine beings: God (x6), Jesus (x6), the Holy Spirit ii. Human beings: 92.B (x8) iii. 25 (x9) iv. 23.G (x6) (cf. 8.B [αἷμα] x1); 88 (x6) v. 57 (x4): A (x2), H (Give), I (Receive) vi. 40.A (x3); 33. M´ (x3); 34.E (δικ—word: x2); 31.I (faith: x2)

ii. 23.G; 12.A; 40.A; 27.D; 22.G; 33.F (Speak, Talk)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

5:15

5:14

5:13

33.E

23.G

νόμου

θάνατος

5–40

5–42

5–47

88.I 12.A 57.H 88.I 60.B 9.B 93.A

88.L´

ἁμαρτία

5–38

χάρις θεοῦ δωρεὰ χάριτι ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου Ἰησοῦ Χριστου

88.L´

ἁμαρτία

5–37

57.H 59.C

59.C

πάντες

5–36

χάρισμα πολλοὶ

23.G

θάνατος

5–34 5–35

5–44 5–45 5–46

88.L´

ἁμαρτία

5–33

5:12

S.D.

Subject

Word

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

ἐπερίσσευσεν

ἀπέθανον

ἐστιν

ἐβασίλευσεν

ἐλλογεῖται

ἦν

ἥμαρτον

εἰσῆλθεν

Word

Predicator

59.F

23.G

13.A

37.A

57.T

13.A

88.L´

15.H

S.D.

τύπος μέλλοντος

Word

Comp.

58.J 67.B

S.D.

88.L´

93.A 93.A 88.L´ 64 36.C 93.A

33.E 1.A 13.A 33.E

60.B 9.B 1.A 88.L´ 59.C 9.A

S.D.

ἑνὸς παραπτώματι 60.B 88.L´ πολλοὺς 59.C

παράπτωμα

Ἀδὰμ Μωϋσέως ἁμαρτήσαντας ὁμοιώματι παραβάσεως Ἀδὰμ

νόμου κόσμῳ ὄντος νόμου

ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου κόσμον ἁμαρτίας πάντας ἀνθρώπους

Word

Adj. Word

Add. S.D.

(4) Adjuncts i. 60.B (One, Two, Three, Etc: x11)

(3) Complements 58.J (Archetype, Corresponding Type (Antitype); 88.L´; 34.E (δικ—word); 67.B

(2) Predicators i. 37.A (Control, Restrain: βασιλεύω: x5) ii. 13.A (State: x4) iii. 59 (Quantity: x3): F (x2), G iv. 88.L´; 23.G; 15.H; 34.B; 57.T

(1) Subjects i. the cognates of χάρις: (x7): 88.I or 57.H (cf. 57.H [x3]) ii. 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt: x4) iii. 59 (Quantity: x5): C (All, Any, Each, Every: x2), F (Abundance, Excess, Sparing), A (Many, Few: x2) iv. 23.G (Live, Die: x3) v. 33.E (law: x2) vi. 34.E (δικ—word); 56.E; 9.B; 93.A; 60.B; 12.A

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

57.H

23.G

59.F 57.H 57.H 34.E 57.I

χάρισμα

θάνατος

περισσείαν χάριτος δωρεᾶς δικαιοσύνης λαμβάνοντες

5–51

5–52

5–53

5:19

5:18

59.A

59.A

πολλοί

πολλοί

5–57

5–58

5–56

5–55

56.E

κρίμα

5–50

5:17

57.H

δώρημα

5–48

S.D.

5:16

Word

C.

Subject

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

κατασταθήσονται

κατεστάθησαν

βασιλεύσουσιν

ἐβασίλευσεν

Word

Predicator

13.A

13.A

37.A

37.A

S.D.

δίκαιοι

ἁμαρτωλοὶ

Word

Comp.

34.E

88.L´

S.D.

36.C 60.B 9.B 36.C 60.B

60.B 88.L´ 59.C 9.A 56.E 60.B 88.B 59.C 9.A 34.E 23.G

ἑνὸς παραπτώματος πάντας ἀνθρώπους κατάκριμα ἑνὸς δικαιώματος πάντας ἀνθρώπους δικαίωσιν ζωῆς παρακοῆς ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ὑπακοῆς ἑνὸς

60.B 88.L´ 60.B 23.G 60.B 93.A

60.B 88.L´ 60.B 56.E 59.C 88.L´ 34.E

S.D.

ἑνὸς παραπτώματι ἑνὸς ζωῇ ἑνὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος ἑνὸς κατάκριμα πολλῶν παραπτωμάτων δικαίωμα

Word

Adj. Word

Add. S.D.

(5) Overall lists i. the sin of Adam and humans: 88.L´ (x17), 36.C (Disobey:x2) ii. Jesus’ action: 34.E (δικ—word: x1), 36.C (Obey: x1) iii. “one man” of Adam and Jesus: 60.B (One: x12), 93.A (Adam x2; Jesus x3), 9.B (Male: x3) iv. human beings: 59.C (x7), 59.A (x3), 9.A v. result of Adam and Jesus’ act: a) Adam: 23.G (Death: x5), 56.E (x3), 88.L´ (x8) b) Jesus: the cognates

ii. 88.L´ (x9) iii. 59 (x6): C (x5), G (x1) iv. 9 (People: x5): A (Human Beings: x3), B (Male: x2) v. 23.G (x4); 93.A (Persons: x4) vi. 34.E (x3); 36.C (Obey, Disobey: x3) viii. 1.A (Universe, Creation: x2); 33.E (x2); 56.E (x2)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

6–10

6:4

ἐβαπτίσθημεν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν

93.A

53.E

23.G 88.L´

88.I

92.B

6–7 6–8

6:3

ἀπεθάνομεν ἁμαρτίᾳ

χάρις

ἡμεῖς

6–4 6–5

6:2

6–12

6–1 6–2 6–3

6:1

88.L´ 88.I

ἁμαρτία χάρις

93.A

5–63 5–64

5:21

33.E 88.L´ 88.I

νόμος παράπτωμα χάρις

S.D.

Χριστὸς

5–59 5–60 5–61

5:20

Word

Subject

6–11

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

13.D 23.G 28.A 53.E

γένοιτο ζήσομεν

ἀγνοεῖτε ἐβαπτίσθημεν

περιπατήσωμεν

ἠγέρθη 41.A

23.G

23.G

33.F 85.C 59.G

ἐροῦμεν ἐπιμένωμεν πλεονάσῃ

συνετάφημεν

37.A 37.A

34.B 59.G 59.F

S.D.

ἐβασίλευσεν βασιλεύσῃ

παρεισῆλθεν πλεονάσῃ ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν

Word

Predicator Word

Comp. S.D.

βαπτίσματος θάνατον νεκρῶν δόξης πατρός καινότητι ζωῆς

θάνατον

ἁμαρτίᾳ

θανάτῳ δικαιοσύνης ζωὴν αἰώνιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν

ἐπλεόνασεν ἁμαρτία

Word

Adj.

53.E 23.G 23.G 79.E 12.A 67.E 23.G

23.G

88.L´

92.B

23.G 34.E 23.G 93.A

59.G 88.L´

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

2) Predicators i. 23.G (x8)

(1) Subjects i. 88.L´ (Sin, Wrongdoing, Guilt: x4) ii. 23.G (Live, Die: x3); 93.A (Persons: x3); 92 (x3): B (Speaker and Those Associated with the Speaker: x2), C (Receptor, Receptors: x1) iii. 9.A (Human Beings: x2) iv. 53.E (Baptize); 67.E (Duration of Time without Reference to Points or Units of Time); 88.I (Kindness, Harshness)

of χάρις (x7), 57.H (x3), 34.E (x4), 23.G (Live: x3) c) 37.A (βασιλεύω: x5): with sin (x1), death (x2), grace (x1), and believers (x1)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

6:11

92.C

λογίζεσθε 31.A

23.G

ζῇ

6–30

ὑμεῖς

23.G

ἀπέθανεν

6–32

37.A

κυριεύει

23.G

θάνατος

28.A 23.G

εἰδότες ἀποθνῄσκει

37.J

δεδικαίωται 23.G 31.F 23.G

13.C

καταργηθῇ

ἀπεθάνομεν πιστεύομεν συζήσομεν

20.D

συνεσταυρώθη

6–28

6–27

6:10

93.A

Χριστὸς

6–24 6–25

23.G

6:9

ἀποθανὼν

6–19

6–21 6–22 6–23

6:7

6:8

6–17

67.E 92.B 9.A 9.A 88.L´

13.A

παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος σῶμα ἁμαρτίας

ἐσόμεθα

6–16

6–14

6:6

13.A

S.D.

γεγόναμεν

Word

6–13

S.D.

6:5

Word

Predicator

C.

Subject

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι νεκροὺς ἁμαρτίᾳ ζῶντας θεῷ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

ἀπέθανεν ἁμαρτίᾳ ζῇ θεῷ

σύμφυτοι ὁμοιώματι θανάτου ἀναστάσεως

Word

Comp.

92.D 13.A 23.G 88.L´ 23.G 12.A 93.A

23.G 88.L´ 23.G 12.A

89.T 64 23.G 23.G

S.D.

ἐφάπαξ

60.E

23.G 23.G

28.A

εἰδότες ἐγερθεὶς νεκρῶν

93.A

88.L´

37.A 92.B 88.L´

28.A

S.D.

Χριστῷ

ἁμαρτίας

δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς ἁμαρτίᾳ

γινώσκοντες

Word

Adj. Word

Add. S.D.

(4) Adjuncts i. 23.G (x9) ii. 88.L´ (x3)

(3) Complements i. 23.G (x6) ii. 92 (x5): C (x3), D(x2) iii. 12.A (God: x4) iv. 88.L´ (x3) v. 8.B (Parts of the Body: x2);88.B (Just, Righteous: x2); 6.A (Artifacts: x2) vi. 89.T (Association); 13.A; 64 (Comparison); 93.A

ii. 13 (x5): A (State: x3), D (Happen: x1), C (Exist: x1), iii. 37 (x4): A (Control, Restrain: x3), J (Release: x1) iv. 28.A (Know: x2); 57.H (Give: x2); 31 (x2): F (Believe To Be True), A (Have an Opinion, Hold a View) v. 33.F; 85.C (Remain, Stay); 59.G (Increase, Decrease); 53.E; 20.D (Kill); 41.A (Behavior, Conduct)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

6–41 6–42

6–45 6–46 6–47 6–48

6:14

6:15

ἁμαρτία

88.L´

37.A 13.A

88.L´ 13.A 13.D

κυριεύσει ἐστε

ἁμαρτήσωμεν ἐσμὲν

γένοιτο

57.H

παριστάνετε

6–38

6–40

57.H

παριστάνετε

S.D.

6–37

6:13

88.L´

ἁμαρτία

Word

Predicator

37.A

6–35

6:12

S.D.

Word

Subject

βασιλευέτω

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

ὑμῶν

μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα ἀδικίας ἁμαρτίᾳ ἑαυτοὺς θεῷ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης θεῶ

Word

Comp.

92.C

8.B 92.C 6.A 88.B 88.L´ 92.D 12.A 8.B 92.C 6.A 88.B 12.A

S.D.

νόμον χάριν

νόμον

νεκρῶν ζῶντας

θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι ὑπακούειν ἐπιθυμίαις

Word

Adj.

33.E 88.I

33.E

23.G 23.G

23.G 92.C 9.A 36.C 25.B

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(1) Subjects i. 89.H (Result: x3), 33.E (νόμος: x3) ii. 10.D (Kinship Relations Based upon Marriage: x2)

(5) Overall lists i. 23.G (x26) ii. 88.L´ (none in the Predicators: x10) iii. 92 (x10): B (‘we’: x3), C (‘you’: x5), D (‘oneself ’: x2) iv. 12.A (God: x5) 13 (Be, Become, Exist, Happen: x6): A (εἰμί: x4), D, C v. 28.A (x4); 93.A (Jesus: x4); 37.A (x4) vi. 9.A (Jesus: x3); 53.E (x3)

iii. 28.A (x2); 92 (x2): B, C iv. 53.E; 79.E (Glorious), 12.A; 37.A (Control, Restrain); 93.A;60.E (Once, Twice, Three Times, Etc); 9.A; 36.C (Obey, Disobey); 25.B (Desire Strongly); 33.E; 67.E

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

33.F

57.H

57.H

λέγω

παριστάνετε

παριστάνετε

6–59

6–60

6–61

6:19

37.A

ἐδουλώθητε

6–57

36.C

ὑπηκούσατε

6–55

6:18

13.A

ἦτε

88.I

6–53 6–54

χάρις

13.A

ἐστε

6–51

6:17

28.A 57.H

S.D.

οἴδατε παριστάνετε

Word

6–49 6–50

S.D.

6:16

Word

Predicator

C.

Subject

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

μέλη ὑμῶν δοῦλα ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀνομίᾳ μέλη ὑμῶν δοῦλα δικαιοσύνῃ

δικαιοσύνῃ

θεῷ δοῦλοι ἁμαρτίας τύπον διδαχῆς

ἑαυτοὺς δούλους δοῦλοί ἐστε ὑπακούετε ἁμαρτίας θάνατον ὑπακοῆς δικαιοσύνην

Word

Comp.

8.B 92.C 37.A 88.H´ 88.R 8.B 92.C 37.A 88.B

88.B

12.A 37.A 88.L´ 58.I 33.Q

92.D 37.A 37.A 36.C 88.L´ 23.G 36.C 88.B

S.D.

ἁγιασμόν

ἀνθρώπινον ἀσθένειαν σαρκὸς ὑμῶν νῦν ἀνομίαν

ἐλευθερωθέντες ἁμαρτίας

καρδίας παρεδόθητε

ὑπακοήν

Word

Adj.

53.F

9.A 74 9.A 92.C 67.B 88.R

37.J 88.L´

26 57.H

36.C

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(3) Complements i. 37.A (Slave, Free: x7) ii. 23.G (x6) iii. 88.B (Just, Righteous: x4) iv. 88.L´ (x3); 92.C (Receptor, Receptors: x3) v. 36.C (Obey, Disobey: x2); 8.B (Parts of the

(2) Predicators i. 13 (x8): A (State: x6), C (Exist), D ii. 57.H (x3); 33 (x3): F (Speak, Talk: x2), I (Give a Name to), iii. 23.G (Live, Die: x2) (cf. 20.D [Kill] x1); 57.A (Possess: x2); 37 (Control, Rule: x2): A (Control, Restrain), D (Rule, Govern); 34.J (x2) iv. 88.L´; 36.C; 28.A; 25.R; 23.L; 28.A; 18.B; 92.B

iii. 88.I (Kindness, Harshness); 12.A; 57.H (Give); 34.J (Marriage, Divorce); 9.C; 25.B; 88.L´; 92.B; 92.C (Receptor, Receptors)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

7:2

7:1

6:23

7–8 7–9

7–6

7–4

7–1 7–2

6–72

6–71

6–70

6–67

6:22

33.E

34.J 9.C 10.D

ὕπανδρος γυνὴ ἀνήρ

89.H 88.L´ 57.H 12.A

ὀψώνια ἁμαρτίας χάρισμα θεοῦ

νόμος

89.H

89.H

τέλος

τέλος

18.B 23.G 13.C

ἀποθάνῃ κατήργηται

37.D

28.A 33.F

57.A

δέδεται

κυριεύει

ἀγνοεῖτε λαλῶ

εἴχετε

57.A 25.R

εἴχετε ἐπαισχύνεσθε

6–64 6–65 6–66

13.A

ἦτε

6–63

6:21

13.A

S.D.

ἦτε

Word

6–62

S.D.

6:20

Word

Predicator

C.

Subject

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

ζῶντι ἀνδρὶ

23.G 10.D

28.A 33.E 9.A

23.G 67.A

ζωὴ αἰώνιος

γινώσκουσιν νόμον ἀνθρώπου

23.G

23.G 67.A

42.D 92.C

23.G

42.D

37.A 88.L´ 37.J 88.B

S.D.

θάνατος

ζωὴν αἰώνιον

καρπὸν ὑμῶν

θάνατος

καρπὸν

δοῦλοι ἁμαρτίας ἐλεύθεροι δικαιοσύνῃ

Word

Comp.

νόμου ἀνδρός

νόμῳ

χρόνον ζῇ

Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν

νυνὶ ἐλευθερωθέντες ἁμαρτίας δουλωθέντες θεῷ ἁγιασμόν

τότε νῦν

Word

Adj.

33.E 9.B

33.E

67.E 23.G

92.B

93.A

67.B 37.J 88.L´ 37.A 12.A 53.F

67.B 67.B

S.D.

ἀδελφοί

Word

Add.

11.B

S.D.

(4) Adjuncts i. 37 (Control, Rule: x6): A (x2), J (x4); 23.G (x6); 33.E (x6) ii. 67.B (A Point of Time with Reference to Other Points of Time: x5), cf. 67.E (Time: x3) iii. 92 (x4): B (x2), C (x2) iv. 10.D (x3); 58.F (Different Kind or Class: x3) v. 53.F (Dedicate, Consecrate: x2); 88.L´ (x2); 9.A (Human beings: x2); 8 (x2): A, B; 93.A (x2); 12.A (x2); 34.J (x2); 26 (x2) vi. 33.E; 88.I; 36.C; 74; 88.R; 9.B; 13.A; 88.J´; 23.L; 57.H

Body: x2); 42.D (Do, Perform: x2); 67.A (A Point of Time without Reference to Other Points of Time: x2); 12.A (x2); 37.J (Release, Set Free: x2); 33.E (νόμος: x2) vi. 92.D; 58.I; 33.Q; 88.H´; 88.R; 10.D; 28.A; 9.A; 88.J´

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

7:5

7:4

7–21 7–22

7–20

7–17

25.B 88.L´ 33.E

92.C

ὑμεῖς

παθήματα ἁμαρτιῶν νόμου

10.D

ἀνήρ

20.D

23.L 92.B 34.J

καρποφορήσωμεν

ἦμεν ἐνηργεῖτο

23.G 13.A

ἐθανατώθητε

ἀποθάνῃ ἐστὶν

34.J

γένηται

7–12

7–13 7–14

33.I

S.D.

χρηματίσει

Word

7–11

S.D.

7:3

Word

Predicator

C.

Subject

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

θεῷ

νόμῳ

ἐλευθέρα

μοιχαλὶ

Word

Comp.

12.A

33.E

37.J

88.J´

S.D.

σαρκί μέλεσιν ἡμῶν καρποφορῆσαι θανάτῳ

σώματος Χριστοῦ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ νεκρῶν ἐγερθέντι

νόμου εἶναι μοιχαλίδα γενομένην ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ

ῶντος ἀνδρὸς ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ

Word

Adj.

26 8.B 92.B 23.L 23.G

8.A 93.A 34.J 92.C 58.F 23.G 23.G

33.E 13.A 88.J´ 34.J 10.D 58.F

23.G 10.D 10.D 58.F

S.D.

ἀδελφοί

Word

Add.

11.B 92.A

S.D.

cf. * peculiarity in Rom 6:15–23 i. 37.A (x8) ii. 88.L´ (x6) iii. 37.J (x5) iv. 36.C (x4) v. 89.H (x3); 57.H (x3)

(6) Overall lists i. 37 (x17): A (x10), J (x6), D ii. 23.G (x14) (cf. 20.D [Kill] x1) iii. 92 (x11): A, B (x3), C (x6), D iv. 67 (x10): A (x2), B (νῦν: x5), E (x3) v. 13(x9): A (x7), C, D vi. 88.L´ (x7) vii. 10.D (x6); 33.E (x6) viii. 57.H (x5); 12.A (x5); 34.J (x5) ix. 36.C (x4)

(5) Additive i. 11.B (Socio-Religious: x2: ἀδελφοί) ii. 92.A (Speaker)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

7–24

7:6

7:10

7:9

88.L´

92.A

33.F´

88.L´

92.A 33.F´ 23.G

ἁμαρτία

ἐγὼ

ἐντολῆς

ἁμαρτία

ἐγὼ ἐντολὴ ζωήν

7–38

7–39

7–40

7–41

7–42 7–43

88.L´

ἁμαρτία

7–36

7:8

33.E

νόμος

92.B

S.D.

33.E

ἡμᾶς

Word

Subject

νόμος

7–28 7–29 7–30 7–31 7–32 7–33 7–34 7–35

7:7

7–27

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

ἀπέθανον εὑρέθη

ἀνέζησεν

ἐλθούσης

ἔζων

23.G 27.A

23.G

15.F

23.G

90.K

28.A 33.I 25.B

ᾔδειν ἔλεγεν ἐπιθυμήσεις

κατειργάσατο

13.D 28.A

33.F

ἐροῦμεν

γένοιτο ἔγνων

37.A

13.C

S.D.

δουλεύειν

κατηργήθημεν

Word

Predicator

μοι

νεκρά

πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν

ἐπιθυμίαν

ἁμαρτίαν

ἁμαρτία

Word

Comp.

92.A

23.G

59.C 25.B

25.B

88. L´

88. L´

S.D.

θάνατον

νόμου ποτέ

ἀφορμὴν λαβοῦσα ἐντολῆς ἐμοὶ νόμου

νόμου

νυνὶ νόμου ἀποθανόντες κατειχόμεθα καινότητι πνεύματος παλαιότητι γράμματος

Word

Adj.

23.G

33.E 67.B

22.G 18.A 33.F´ 92.A 33.E

33.E

67.B 33.E 23.G 37.A 67.E 12.A 67.E 33.E

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(4) Adjuncts i. 33.E (x3)

(3) Complements i. 88 (x6): C (Holy, Pure: x2), L´ (x2), B, A ii. 92.A (x3) iii. 25.B (Desire Strongly: x2); 23.G (x2) iv. 59.C

(2) Predicators i. 23.G (x3) ii. 29.A (x2) iii. 33.F; 13.D; 33.I; 25.B; 27.A; 20.D; 31.B; 15.F

(1) Subjects i. 88.L´ (x4) ii. 33.E (νόμος: x3) 33.F´ (Command, Order: x3) iii. 92.A (x2)

* peculiarity in Rom 7:1–6 i. 23.G (x9): 20.D ii. 33.E (x9) iii. 10.D (x6) iv. 34.J (x5) v. 58.F (x3)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

7–44

7:11

88.L´

ἁμαρτία

7–54

7:14

7–55 7–56 7–57

33.E 92.A

88.L´ 88.L´

ἁμαρτία ἁμαρτία

7–50 7–51 7–52

νόμος ἐγὼ

88.A

7:13

ἀγαθὸν

7–47 7–48

7:12

7–49

88.L´

ἁμαρτία

νόμος ἐντολὴ

S.D.

Word

Subject

33.E 33.F´

7–46

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

13.A 28.A 13.A 13.A

γένηται

οἴδαμεν ἐστιν εἰμι

14.F

13.D

γένοιτο

φανῇ

13.B

20.D

ἀπέκτεινεν

ἐγένετο

31.B

S.D.

ἐξηπάτησέν

Word

Predicator

πνευματικός σάρκινός

ἁμαρτωλὸς

ἐμοὶ θάνατος

ἅγιος ἁγία δικαία ἀγαθή,

με

Word

Comp.

26 26

88. L´

92.A 23.G

88.C 88.C 88.B 88.A

92.A

S.D.

πεπραμένος ἁμαρτίαν

ἀγαθοῦ μοι κατεργαζομένη θάνατον ὑπερβολὴν ἐντολῆς

ἀφορμὴν λαβοῦσα ἐντολῆς

Word

Adj.

57.O 88. L´

88.A 92.A 90.K 23.G 78.B 33.F´

22.G 18.A 33.F´

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(2) Predicators i. 42.B (Do, Perform: x6) ii. 13 (Be, Become, Exist, Happen: x5): A (x3), B, D iii. 28.A (Know: x2); 90.K (Agent of a Numerable

(1) Subjects i. 92.A (x7) ii. 88.L´ (x5) iii. 88.A (x3) iv. 85.E (x2) v. 33.E; 25.A; 90.K; 88.O; 33.J´

(5) Overall lists i. 23.G (x7) ii. 88. L´ (x6), 92.A (x6) 33.E (x6) iii. 33.F´ (x5) iv. 25.B (x3) v. 22.G (x2); 18.A (x2), 88.C (Goodness: x2) vi. 33.I, F; 27.A; 20.D; 59.C; 88.B, A;67.B; 15.F; 31.B

ii. 33.F´ (x2); 22.G (Favorite Circumstances: x2); 18.A (Grasp, Hold: x2) iii. 92.A; 67.B; 23.G

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

7–65 7–67 7–68

7–69 7–70

7–72 7–73

7:16

7:17

7:18

7:20

7:19

7–59 7–61 7–63

7:15

25.A 90.K

θέλειν κατεργάζεσθαι καλὸν

42.B 90.K

92.A 85.E 92.A 88.L´

ποιῶ κατεργάζομαι

ἐγὼ οἰκοῦσα ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία

42.B

πράσσω

7–81

7–83 7–85 7–86

42.B

85.A

28.A

οἶδα

παράκειταί

90.K

42.B 31.C

ποιῶ σύμφημι

κατεργάζομαι

32.A 42.B 42.B

S.D.

γινώσκω πράσσω ποιῶ

Word

Predicator

ποιῶ

88.A

88.A

92.A 85.E 92.A 88.L´

S.D.

ἀγαθόν

ἐγὼ οἰκοῦσα ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία

Word

Subject

7–79

7–75 7–77

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

S.D.

θέλω

θέλω ἀγαθόν θέλω κακὸν

μοι

θέλω νόμῳ καλός

25.A

25.A 88.A 25.A 88.O

92.A

25.A 33.E 88.A

κατεργάζομαι 90.K θέλω 25.A μισῶ 88.Z

Word

Comp.

ἐμοί ἔστιν σαρκί μου

νυνὶ

Word

Adj.

92.A 13.A 26 92.A

67.B

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(5) Overall lists i. 92.A (ἐγώ: x18) ii. 88.L´ (Sin: x9)

(4) Adjuncts i. 26 (x4) ii. 92.A (x3) iii. 88 (x2): L´, A; 23.G (x2); 8 (Body, Body Parts, Body Products: x2): A, B iv. 90.K; 78.B; 33.F´; 57.D; 9.A; 12.A; 92.B; 67.B; 13.A

(3) Complements i. 88 (x8): A (Goodness: x3), L´ (x3), Z, O; 92.A (x8) ii. 25. A (x6) iii. 33.E (x4); 33.G´ (Law, Regulation, Ordinance: x4) iv. 26 (Psychological Faculties: x3), 12.A (x3) v. 23.G; 90.K; 42.B; 58.F; 39.A; 55.E; 8.B; 22.A; 9.A

Event: x2); 85.A (Be in a Place: x2) iv. 14.F; 32.A; 31.C; 27.A; 24.A; 21.E; 35.B; 25.K

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

7–88

7:21

7–93

7–97

7:23

7:24

7–98

7–92

7:22

7–91

C.

V.

Verse/clause

ἐγὼ

Subject

Word

κακὸν

Appendix II (cont.)

92.A

88.O

S.D.

24.A

βλέπω

21.E

25.K

ῥύσεται

85.A

συνήδομαι

27.A

S.D.

παράκειται

εὑρίσκω

Word

Predicator

ταλαίπωρος ἄνθρωπος με

ἕτερον νόμον μέλεσίν μου ἀντιστρατευόμενον νόμῳ νοός μου αἰχμαλωτίζοντά με νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας

νόμῳ θεοῦ

νόμον θέλοντι ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν καλόν ἐμοὶ

Word

Comp.

22.A 9.A 92.A

92.A 33.G´ 88.L´

33.E 26 92.A 55.E

58.F 33.G´ 8.B 92.A 39.A

33.E 12.A

33.G´ 25.A 92.A 42.B 88.A 92.A

S.D.

σώματος θανάτου

ὄντι μέλεσίν μου

ἔσω ἄνθρωπον

Word

Adj.

9.A 23.G

13.A 8.B 92.A

26 8.A

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

iii. 25.A (Desire, Want, Wish: x7); 26 (Psychological Faculties: spiritual, flesh: x7); 88.A (Goodness: x7); 42.B (Do, Perform: x7), cf. 90.K (x5) iv. 33.E (the law: x5), cf. 33.G´ (Law, Regulation, Ordinance: x4); 13.A (εἰμί: x5) v.12.A (x4) vi. 23.G (Live, Die: x3) vii. 9.A (x2); 28.A (x2); 85.A (x2); 85.E (x2); 88.O (x2); 8.B (x2)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

7–99

7:25

8–3

8:3

26 13.A 12.A

σάρκα ὄντες πνεῦμα

8–10

8:5

8–12

33.G´ 33.E

δικαίωμα νόμου

12.A

θεὸς

8–7

56.E

33.G´ 12.A 23.G

κατάκριμα

νόμος πνεύματος ζωῆς

92.A

33.J´

S.D.

8:4

8–5

8–1

8–2

8:1

8:2

7–101

Subject

Word

χάρις

7–100 ἐγὼ

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

φρονοῦσιν

πληρωθῇ

κατέκρινεν

ἠλευθέρωσέν

δουλεύω

Word

Predicator

26

59.D

56.E

37.J

35.B

S.D.

33.E 12.A 33.G´ 88.L´

12.A

S.D.

26 12.A

πνεύματος

74 33.E 74 8.B 88.L´

92.C

σαρκὸς

ἀδύνατον νόμου ἠσθένει σαρκός ἁμαρτίαν

σε

Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ 93.A

νόμῳ θεοῦ νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας

θεῷ

Word

Comp.

ἡμῖν σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν πνεῦμα

υἱὸν πέμψας ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας ἁμαρτίας σαρκί

Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ νόμου ἁμαρτίας θανάτου

92.B 26 41.A 12.A

10.B 15.D 64 8.B 88.L´ 88.L´ 8.B

93.A 33.G´ 88.L´ 23.G

67.B

26

σαρκὶ νῦν

93.A 12.A 92.B 26

S.D.

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν νοῒ

Word

Adj. Word

Add. S.D.

(2) Predicators i. 13.A (x5) ii. 23.G (x3) iii. 74 (Able, Capable: x2); 57.I (Receive: x2); 85.E (Dwell, Reside: x2) iv. 56.E; 59.D; 26 (the cognates of φρόνημα); 67.B; 15.W; 24.F; 87.B;

(1) Subjects i. 12.A (Supernatural Beings: x9): God (x2), the Holy Spirit (x7) ii. 26 (Psychological Faculties: x7): the cognates of σάρξ (x4), the cognates of φρόνημα (x3) iii. 23.G (Live, Die: x5) iv. 93.A (Jesus: x3) v. 33.G´ (Law, Regulation, Ordinance: x2), 13.A (εἰμί: x2) vi. 56.E; 33.E; 92.C; 8.A

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

8–31

12.A 23.G 93.A 23.G 23.G 93.A 23.G

πνεῦμα ἐγείραντος Ἰησοῦν νεκρῶν ἐγείρας Χριστὸν νεκρῶν

8–29

8:11

85.E

23.G

οἰκεῖ

ζῳοποιήσει

13.A

ἔστιν

93.A 8.A 12.A

Χριστὸς σῶμα πνεῦμα

8–26 8–27 8–28

8–25

8:10

57.A

ἔχει

13.A

8–24

12.A 12.A

πνεῦμα θεοῦ

ἐστὲ 85.E

92.C

ὑμεῖς

74

οἰκεῖ

8–21 8–22 8–23

8:9

δύναται

74

26 13.A

σαρκὶ ὄντες

δύναται

8–18

8–17

S.D.

37.A

26 26

φρόνημα σαρκὸς

Word

Predicator

ὑποτάσσεται

26 26 26 12.A

S.D.

φρόνημα σαρκὸς φρόνημα πνεύματος

Word

Subject

8–16

8–15

8:8

8:7

8–13

8:6

8–14

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν

νεκρὸν ζωὴ

πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ

θεῷ ἀρέσαι

νόμῳ θεοῦ

23.G 8.A 92.C

34.E 23.G 23.G

12.A 93.A

12.A 25.H

33.E 12.A

39.A

23.G 22.G

ζωὴ εἰρήνη ἔχθρα

23.G

S.D.

θάνατος

Word

Comp.

ἐνοικοῦντος πνεύματος ὑμῖν

ὑμῖν

ὑμῖν ἁμαρτίαν δικαιοσύνην

σαρκὶ πνεύματι ὑμῖν

θεόν

Word

Adj.

85.E 12.A 92.C

92.C

92.C 88.L´

26 12.A 92.C

12.A

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(5) Additive i. 12.A (God: x2)

(4) Adjuncts i. 12.A (x6): God, the Holy Spirit (x5) ii. 26 (x4) (cf. 8.B (σαρκός: x2) iii. 92 (x5): B, C (x4) iv. 88. L´ (x4) v. 23.G (x2) vi. 58.B; 93.A; 33.G´; 10.B; 15.D; 64; 41.A; 85.E; 25.V; 34.E

(3) Complements i. 12.A (x9): God (x5), the Holy Spirit (x4) ii. 23.G (x6) iii. 26 (x3), cf. 8.B (σαρκός); 10.B (Kinship Relations Involving Successive Generations: x3); 57.I (x3); 93.A (x3); 92 (x3): C (x2), B iv. 74 (x2); 33.E (x2); 8.A (σῶμα: x2) v. 88.L´; 22.G; 39.A; 25.H; 42.B; 37.A; 35.G; 57.R

33.T; 33.F; 57.A (Have, Possess, Property, Owner)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

8:17

8:16

8:15

8:14

33.F

κράζομεν

8–45 8–46

8–53 8–54

8–52

8–49 8–50 8–51

8–48

συμπάσχομεν συνδοξασθῶμεν 24.F 87.B

13.A

57.I

ἐλάβετε

8–44

ἐσμὲν

57.I

ἐλάβετε

8–43

33.T

13.A

εἰσιν

8–42

συμμαρτυρεῖ

15.W

ἄγονται

8–47

23.G

ζήσεσθε

8–41

12.A

8–40

πνεῦμα

23.G 67.B 23.G

S.D.

ζῆτε μέλλετε θανατοῦτε

Word

8–36 8–37 8–39

8:13

S.D.

Predicator

13.A

8–34

8:12

Word

Subject

ἐσμὲν

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

10.B 57.I 57.I 12.A 57.I

τέκνα κληρονόμοι κληρονόμοι θεοῦ συγκληρονόμοι Χριστοῦ

93.A

26 92.B 10.B 12.A

12.A 37.A 12.A 35.G

10.B 12.A

23.G 42.B 8.A

57.R 26

S.D.

πνεύματι ἡμῶν τέκνα θεοῦ

πνεῦμα δουλείας πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας

υἱοὶ θεοῦ

ἀποθνῄσκειν πράξεις σώματος

ὀφειλέται σαρκὶ

Word

Comp.

φόβον

πνεύματι θεοῦ

πνεύματι

σάρκα

σάρκα ζῆν

Word

Adj.

25.V

12.A 12.A

12.A

26

26 23.G

S.D.

αββα πατήρ

ἀδελφοί

Word

Add.

12.A 12.A

11.B

S.D.

(6) Overall lists i. 12.A (x26): God (x10), the Holy Spirit (x16), cf. 93.A (Jesus: x7) ii. 23.G (x16) iii. 26 (x15): the cognates of σάρξ (x10), the cognates of φρόνημα (x4), πνεῦμα (x1), cf. 8.B (x3) iv. 92 (x19): B (x2), C (x7) v. 13.A (x7); 57 (x7): I (x5), R,A vi. 33.G´ (x3); 33.E (law: x3) vii. 88.L´ (x5) viii. 74 (Able, Capable: x4) 10.B (x4), cf. 35.G (υἱοθεσία) ix. 85.E (x3)

ii. 11.B

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

8–55 8–56

8–59

8–60

8–63

8–64 8–65 8–66

8–68

8–71 8–72

8:18

8:19

8:20

8:21

8:22

8:23

8:24

8–74

C.

V.

Verse/clause

ἐλπὶς βλεπομένη

25.D 24.A

53.B 12.A 57.A 92.B

42.C

κτίσις

ἀπαρχὴν πνεύματος ἔχοντες ἡμεῖς

42.C

42.C

42.C

κτίσις

κτίσις

25.D

ἀποκαραδοκία κτίσεως

S.D.

12.A 67.B 67.A

Word

Subject

παθήματα νῦν καιροῦ

Appendix II (cont.)

25.L

21.F 13.A 25.D

ἐσώθημεν ἔστιν

ἐλπίζει

28.A 25.L 24.F

οἴδαμεν συστενάζει συνωδίνει

στενάζομεν

37.J

37.A

25.D

30.A

S.D.

ἐλευθερωθήσεται

ὑπετάγη

ἀπεκδέχεται

λογίζομαι

Word

Predicator

βλέπει

ἐλπίς

ματαιότητι

ἀποκάλυψιν υἱῶν θεοῦ

ἄξια

Word

Comp.

24.A

25.D

65.C

28.C 10.B 12.A

65.B

S.D.

ἐλπίδι

ἑαυτοῖς υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι ἀπολύτρωσιν σώματος ἡμῶν

ἄχρι νῦν

δουλείας φθορᾶς ἐλευθερίαν δόξης τέκνων θεοῦ

ἑκοῦσα ὑποτάξαντα ἑλπίδι

μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἡμᾶς

Word

Adj.

25.D

92.D 10.B 25.D 37.J 8.A 92.B

67.E 67.B

37.A 23.M 37.J 79.E 10.B 12.A

25.E 37.A 25.D

67.B 79.E 28.C 92.B

S.D.

Word

Add. S. D. according to the structure of Romans

(3) Complements i. 12.A (x5): God (x2), Jesus, the Holy Spirit (x2) ii. 24.A (See: x2), 25 (x2): D, C (Love, Affection, Compassion), iii. 65 (x2): B (Worthy, Not Worthy), C (Useful, Useless) iv. 28.C; 10.B; 74; 92.B; 33.M; 71.D; 26; 30.D; 33.C´; 13.A; 58.A; 6.M

(2) Predicators i. 28.A (Know: x4); 25.D (x4) ii. 30 (x3): E (To Decide, To Conclude: x2), A (To Think, Thought) iii. 25.L (Laugh, Cry, Groan: x2); 33.C´ (Call: x2); 34.E (δικ— word: x2), 37 (x2): A, J iv. 24.F; 21.F; 13.A; 35.A; 33.I´, 27.D; 42.B; 79.E

(1) Subjects i. 12.A (the Holy Spirit: x4) ii. 42.C (Make, Create: x3) iii. 25.D (Hope, Look Forward To: x2); 67 (x2): A, B iv. 53.B; 57.A; 92.B; 24.A; 27.D; 26

S.D.

Summary

8–79

8:26

8–88 8–89

8–92 8–93

8–95 8–96 8–97 8–98 8–99 8–100

8:29

8:30

8–87

8–84

8–83

8:28

8:27

8–76 8–78

8:25

8–80

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Subject

Word

12.A

27.D 26

ἐραυνῶν καρδίας

12.A

S.D.

πνεῦμα

πνεῦμα

Appendix II (cont.)

28.A 27.D 28.A 42.B

28.A 30.E

30.E 33.C´ 33.C´ 34.E 34.E 79.E

ἐντυγχάνει

οἴδαμεν συνεργεῖ

προέγνω προώρισεν

προώρισεν ἐκάλεσεν ἐκάλεσεν ἐδικαίωσεν ἐδικαίωσεν ἐδόξασεν

33.I´

28.A

35.A

25.D 25.D

S.D.

οἶδεν

ὑπερεντυγχάνει

συναντιλαμβάνεται οἴδαμεν

ἐλπίζομεν ἀπεκδεχόμεθα

Word

Predicator

συμμόρφους εἰκόνος υἱοῦ

ἀγαπῶσιν θεὸν πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν

φρόνημα πνεύματος

ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν προσευξώμεθα δεῖ

βλέπομεν

Word

Comp.

58.A 6.M 12.A

25.C 12.A 30.D 33.C´ 13.A

26 12.A

71.D

74 92.B 33.M

24.A

S.D.

εἶναι πρωτότοκον ἀδελφοῖς

ἀγαθόν

θεὸν ἁγίων

στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις

ὑπομονῆς

Word

Adj.

13.A 10.B 11.B

25.C

12.A 11.B

25.L 33.F

25.O

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(5) Overall lists i. 12.A (x11): God (x4), Jesus, the Holy Spirit (x6) ii. 25.D (Hope, Look Forward To: x10) iii. 37 (x6): A (Control, Restrain: x3), J (Release, Set Free: x3) iv. 28.A (Know: x4) v. 92.B (x4); 10.B (Kinship Relations Involving Successive Generations: x4) (cf. υἱός as Jesus: x1) vi. 67.B (x3); cf. with regard to time: 67.A (x1), E (x1);

(4) Adjuncts i. 37 (x4): A (Control, Restrain: x2), J (Release, Set Free: x2) ii. 25.D (x3); cf. 25. C, E, L, O 10.B (x3) iii. 79.E (Glorious: x2), 11.B (Socio-Religious: x2), 92.B (x2); cf. 92.D 12.A (God: x2) 67.B (x2); cf. 67.E iv. 28.C; 23.M; 8.A; 33.F; 13.A

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

33.V´

ἐγκαλέσει

8:34 13.A 27.D

ἐστιν

ἐντυγχάνει

8–116

93.A

8–115

8–110 8–112 Χριστὸς

8–108 θεὸς

12.A

57.H

χαρίσεται

8–106

8–107

57.H

παρέδωκεν

8–105

8:33

22.C

33.F

S.D.

ἐφείσατο

ἐροῦμεν

Word

8–104

12.A

S.D.

8:32

Word

Predicator

8–101 8–102 θεὸς 8–103

C.

Subject

8:31

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

34.E 56.E 23.G 23.G

κατακρινῶν ἀποθανών ἐγερθείς

92.B

57.A 12.A

S.D.

δικαιῶν

ἡμῖν

ἰδίου υἱοῦ

Word

Comp.

δεξιᾷ θεοῦ ἡμῶν

ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ

ἡμῶν

ἡμῶν ἡμῶν

Word

Adj.

82.B 12.A 92.B

30.F 12.A

92.B

92.B 92.B

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(2) Predicators i. 33 (x4): B´ (Urge, Persuade), E (Written Language), F (Speak, Talk), V´ (Accuse, Blame)

(1) Subjects i. 12.A (God: x2); 22.A (Trouble, Hardship, Distress: x2); 23.G (Live, Die: x2) ii. 12.A (Supernatural Beings: angels), B (Supernatural Powers) 1.B (Regions Above the Earth) 1.C (Regions Below the Surface of the Earth) iii. 93.A (Jesus); 39.I; 23.A; 49; 21.A; 6.G; 13.B; 67.B; 76; 42.C; 58.F

25.L (Laugh, Cry, Groan: x3); 24.A (See: x3); 33.C´ (Call: x3); 79.E (Glorious: x3); 13.A (x3) vi. 28.C (x2); 27.D (x2), 11.B (x2); 26 (x2); 30.E (x2); 34.E (x2)

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

39.L 33.B´

ὑπερνικῶμεν

πέπεισμαι

δυνήσεται

8–122

8–124

8–125 θάνατος ζωὴ ἄγγελοι οὔτε ἀρχαὶ οὔτε ἐνεστῶτα μέλλοντα δυνάμεις ὕψωμα βάθος κτίσις ἑτέρα

8:38– 39 74

30.A

ἐλογίσθημεν

8–121

23.G 23.G 12.A 12.B 13.B 67.B 76 1.B 1.C 42.C 58.F

34.E 23.G

63.G

S.D.

γέγραπται θανατούμεθα

χωρίσει

Word

8–119 8–120

22.A 22.A 39.I 23.A 49 21.A 6.G

S.D.

Predicator

8:37

8:36

8–117

8:35

Word

Subject

8–118 θλῖψις στενοχωρία διωγμὸς λιμὸς γυμνότης κίνδυνος μάχαιρα

C.

V.

Verse/clause

Appendix II (cont.)

ἡμᾶς χωρίσαι ἀγάπης θεοῦ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν

ἡμᾶς

Word

Comp.

92.B 63.G 25.C 12.A 93.A 12.A 92.B

92.B

S.D.

ἀγαπήσαντος ἡμᾶς

σοῦ ὅλην ἡμέραν πρόβατα σφαγῆς

ἀγάπης Χριστοῦ

Word

Adj.

25.C 92.B

92.C 63.A 67.I 4.A 20.D

25.C 93.A

S.D.

Word

Add. S.D.

(5) Overall lists i. Divine beings (x10): God (x6); Jesus (x4) ii. Believers: 92.B (x9) iii. 23.G (x4) iv. 25.C (x3)

(4) Adjuncts i. 92.B (x5) ii. 12.A (God: x2): cf. Jesus (93.A: x1); 25.C (Love, Affection, Compassion: x2) iii. 30.F; 82.B; 92.C; 63.A; 67.I; 4.A; 20.D

(3) Complements i. 92.B (we: x4) ii. 12.A (x3): God (x2), Jesus (cf. 93.A [Jesus]: x1) iii. 57.A; 34.E; 56.E; 23.G; 63.G; 25.C

ii. 57.H (Give: x2) iii. 22.C; 13.A; 27.D; 63.G; 23.G; 30.A; 39.L; 74

S. D. according to the structure of Romans

Summary

BIBLIOGRAPHY Achtemeier, P.J. Romans. IBC. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985. Adams, E. “Abraham’s Faith and Gentile Disobedience: Textual Links between Romans 1 and 4.” JSNT 65 (1997) 47–66. Aletti, J.-N. “Romans 7:7–25: Rhetorical Criticism and Its Usefulness.” SEÅ 61 (1996), 77–95. ——. “The Rhetoric of Romans 5–8.” In The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference, edited by S.E. Porter and T.H. Olbricht, 294–308. JSNTSup 146. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Aune, D.E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. LEC. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987. Baird, William. “Abraham in the New Testament: Tradition and the New Identity.” Int 42 (1988), 367–79. Balz, Horst and G. Schneider. “μεταξύ.” In EDNT 2:49. Barrett, C.K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. HNTC. SanFrancisco: Harper & Row, 1957. Barth, F. “Introduction.” In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference, edited by Fredirk Barth, 9–38. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1969. Barton, S.C. “Social-Scientific Approaches to Paul.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid, 892–900. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993. ——. “Social-Scientific Criticism.” In A Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 277–89. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Bassler, J.M. Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom. SBLDS 59. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982. Battistella, E.L. Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. New York: State University of New York Press, 1990. Bauer, W. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Trans. F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Beekman, J. and J. Callow. Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. Beker, J.C. Paul, the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. Bell, R.H. No One Seeks for God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 1.18– 3:20. WUNT 106. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. ——. “Rom 5:18–19 and Universal Salvation.” NTS 48 (2002), 417–32. ——. Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11. WUNT 2.63. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Betz, H.D. “The Literary Composition and Function of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.” NTS 21 (1975), 353–79. ——. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Bickermann, E. Studies in Jewish and Christian History. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Black, E. Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method. New York: Macmillan, 1965. Black, M. “The Interpretation of Romans 8:28.” In Neotestamentica et Patristica: eine Freundegabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu Seinem 60. Geburtstag überreicht, edited by W.C. van Unnik, 166–72. NovTSup 6. Leiden: Brill, 1962. ——. Romans. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.

548

bibliography

Black, Stephanie L. Sentence Conjunctions in the Gospel of Matthew: καί, δέ, τότε, οὖν and Asyndeton in Narrative Discourse. JSNTSup 216. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Blass, F., A Debrunner and R. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Bloomfield, L. Language. New York: Henry Holt, 1933. Boers, H. The Justification of Gentiles: Paul’s Letters to the Galatians and Romans. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. ——. “The Structure of Rom 5:1–11.” In Text und Geschichte, edited by S. Maser and E. Schlarb, 1–18. MTS 50. Marbug: Elwert, 1999. ——. “The Structure and Meaning of Romans 6:1–14.” CBQ 63 (2001), 664–82. Booth, Steve. Selected Peak Marking Features in the Gospel of John. New York: Peter Lang, 1996. Boring, M.C. “The Language of Universal Salvation in Paul.” JBL 105 (1986), 269–92. Bornkamm, G. “Baptism and New Life in Paul: Romans 6.” In Early Christian Experience, 71–86. London: SCM Press, 1969. ——. “Sin, Law and Death: An Exegetical Study of Romans 7.” In Early Christian Experience, 87–104. London: SCM Press, 1969. Brandt, W.J. The Rhetoric of Argumentation. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970. Brown, G. and G. Yule. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Bryan, C. A Preface to Romans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Bultmann, R. “Glossen im Römerbrief.” TLZ 72 (1947), 197–202. ——. Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann. Selected, translated, and introduced by S.M. Ogden. New York: Meridian, 1960. ——. “Adam und Christus nach Röm 5.” In Exegetica. Aufsätze zur Erforchung des Neuen Testaments, edited by R. Bultmann, 145–65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1967. ——. “νεκρός κτλ.” In TDNT 5:892–95. ——. Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt und die Kynisch-Stoische Diatribe. FRLANT 13. Götingen: vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910. ——. “πιστεύω κτλ.” In TDNT 6:174–228. Burnett, Gary W. Paul & the Salvation of the Individual. BibIntSer 57. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Busch, Austin. “The Figure of Eve in Romans 7:5–25.” BibInt 12 (2004), 1–36. Byrne, B. Romans. SP. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996. Byron, John. Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity. WUNT 162. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Callow, Katherine. Discourse Considerations in Translating the Word of God. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. ——. Man and Message. New York: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1998. Calvin, J. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. Campbell, D.H. “The Identity of Ἐγώ in Romans 7:7–25.” In Studia Biblica 1978: Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies, Vol. 3: Paper on Paul and Other New Testament Authors, edited by E.A. Livingston, 57–64. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980. Campbell, D.A. The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3:21–26. JSNTSup 65. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. ——. “Romans 1:17—A Crux Interpretum for the Pistis Christou Debate.” JBL 113 (1994), 265–85. Caragounis, C.C. “Romans 5:15–16 in the Context of 5:12–21: Contrast Or Comparison?.” NTS 31 (1985), 142–48. Carter, T.L. Paul and the Power of Sin. SNTMS 115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Cavalin, H.C.C. “ ‘The Righteous Shall Live by Faith’ A Decisive Argument for the Traditional Interpretation.” ST 32 (1978), 32–43.

bibliography

549

Christensen, F. “A Generative Rhetoric of the Paragraph.” CCC 16 (1965), 144–56. Classen, C.J. “St. Paul’s Epistles and Ancient Greek and Romans Rhetoric.” In Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from 1992 Heidelberg Conference, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, 256–91. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. ——. “Melanchton’s Rhetorical Interpretation of Biblical and Non-Biblical Texts.” In Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament, 99–177. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Cosgrove, C.H. “What If Some Have Not Believed? The Occasion and Thrust of Romans 3:1–8.” ZNW 78 (1987), 90–105. Cranfield, C.E.B. “On the Πίστις Χριστοῦ Question.” In On Romans and Other New Testament Essays, 81–97. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. ——. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975. ——. “The Works of the Law in the Epistle of the Romans.” JSNT 43 (1991), 89–101. Dabourne, Wendy. Purpose and Cause in Pauline Exegesis: Romans 1:16–4:25 and a New Approach to the Letters. SNTSMS 104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Dahl, N.A. “Appendix I: A Synopsis of Romans 5:1–11 and 8:1–39.” In Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission, 88–90. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing house, 1977. ——. “The Missionary Theology in the Epistle of Romans.” In Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission, 70–94. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977. ——. “Romans 3:9: Text and Meaning.” In Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honor of C.K. Barrett, edited by M.D. Hooker and S.G. Wilson, 184–204. London: SCPK, 1982. Das, A.A. Paul, the Law, and the Covenant. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001. Davidson, M.E. “New Testament Greek Word Order.” LLC 4 (1989), 19–28. Davies, G.D. Faith and Obedience in Romans. JSNTSup 39. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Davies, W.D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. London: SPCK, 1965. de Beaugrande, R. and J.W. Dressler. An Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longmans, 1981. de Boer, M.C. The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5. JSNTSup 22. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. Deidun, T.J. New Covenant Morality in Paul. AnBib 89. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute Press, 1981. Deissmann, Adolf. “ἱλαστήριος und ἱλαστήριον: eine lexikalische Studie.” ZNW 4 (1903), 193–212. ——. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1927. ——. Light from the Ancient East. Rep. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965. Dik, S.C. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1978. ——. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Berlin: Moulton de Gruyter, 1997. ——. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin: Moulton de Gruyter, 1997. Dodd, Brian. Paul’s Paradigmatic “I”. JSNTSup 177. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Dodd, C.H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. MNTC. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1932. ——. The Bible and the Greeks. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935. Doeve, J.W. “Some Notes with Reference to ΤΑ ΛΟΓΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ in Rom. III 2.” In Studia Paulina in Honorem Jahannis de Zwaan Septuagenarii, edited by J.N. Sevenster and W.C. van Unnik, 111–23. Haarlem: F. Bohr, 1953. Donfried, K.P. “Justification and Last Judgment in Paul.” ZNW 67 (1976), 90–110.

550

bibliography

Dry, A.H. “Foregrounding: An Assessment.” In Language in Context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre, edited by S.J.J. Hwang and W.R. Merrifield, 435–50. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1992. Dunn, J.D.G. “New Perspective on Paul: Paul and the Law.” In Romans 1–8, lxiii–lxxii. WBC. Waco: Word Books, 1988. ——. Romans 1–8. WBC. Waco: Word Books, 1988. ——. “Rom 7:14–25 in the Theology of Paul.” TZ 31 (1975), 257–73. ——. “The New Perspective on Paul.” BJRL 65 (1983), 95–122. ——. “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ.” In Pauline Theology. Volume IV: Looking Back, Pressing On, edited by E.E. Johnson and D.M. Hay, 61–81. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. ——. “Paul and Justification by Faith.” In Road from Damascus, edited by R.N. Longenecker, 85–101. MNTS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. ——. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. ——. “Spirit Speech: Reflection on Romans 8:12–27.” In Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday edited by Sven K. Soderlund and N.T. Wright, 82–91. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ——. “The Narrative Approach to Paul.” In Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, edited by B.W. Longenecker, 217–30. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002. Earnshaw, J.D. “Reconsidering Paul’s Marriage Analogy in Romans 7:1–4.” NTS 40 (1994), 68–88 Eckman, F.R., E. Moravcsik, and J.R. Wirth. Markedness. New York: Plenum, 1986. Eckstein, H.J. “ ‘Denn Gottes Zorn wird von Himmel her offenbar werden’: Exegetiche Erwäunen zu Röm 1.18.” ZNW 78 (1987), 74–89. Elliot, Neil. The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism. JSNTSup 45. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Englezakis, B. “Rom 5:12–15 and the Pauline Teaching on the Lord’s Death: Some Observations.” Bib 58 (1977), 231–6. Erickson, R.J. “The Damned and the Justified in Romans 5:12–21: An Analysis of Semantic Structure.” In Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed, 282–307. JSNTSup 170. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Esler, Philip F. Conflict and Identity in Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Espy, J.M. “Paul’s ‘Robust Conscience’ Re-Examined.” NTS 31 (1985), 161–88. Evans, Craig A. “ ‘It Is Not as Though the Word of God Had Failed’: An Introduction to Paul and the Scriptures of Israel.” In Paul and the Scripture of Israel, edited by C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders, 13–17. JSNTSup 83. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Fee, G.D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. ——. “Toward a Pauline Theology of Glossolalia.” In Pentecostalism in Context: Essays in Honor of William W. Menzies, edited by Wonsuk Ma and R.P. Menzies, 29–30. JPTS 11. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ——. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical Study. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007. Fitzmyer, J.A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1993. ——. The Acts of the Apostles. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Fowl, S.E. The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul. JSNTSup 36. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Friedrich, G. “Das Gesetz des Glaubens Röm 3:27.” TZ (1954), 401–17. Fryer, N.S.L. “Reconciliation in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.” Neot 15 (1981), 34–68. Fuller, Lois K. “ ‘The Genitive Absolute’ in New Testament/Hellenistic Greek: A Proposal for Clearer Understanding,” JGRChJ 3 (2006), 142–67. Furnish, V.P. Theology and Ethics. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968.

bibliography

551

Garlington, Don B. “Romans 7:14–25 and the Creation Theology of Paul.” TJ 11 (1990), 197–235. ——. Faith, Obedience and Perseverance. WUNT 79. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Gaston, L. Paul and the Torah. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1987. Gathercole, S.J. “A Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2.14–15 Revisited.” JSNT 85 (2002), 27–49. ——. Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ——. “Justified By Faith, Justified By His Blood: The Evidence of Romans 3:21–4:5.” In Justification and Varigated Nomism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxies of Paul, edited by D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid, 147–84. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Georgakopoulou, A. and D. Goutsos. Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh university press, 1997. Gill, A.M. and K. Whedbee. “Rhetoric.” In Discourse as Structure and Process, edited by T.A. van Dijk, 157–184. London: SAGE, 1987. Givón, T. “Beyond Foreground and Background.” In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, edited by B.R. Tomlin, 175–88. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1987. ——. “The Pragmatic Word-Order: Predictability Importance and Attention.” In Studies in Syntactic Typology, edited by M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik and J. Wirth, 243–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1988. Godet, F. Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Re. and ed. T.W. Chambers, 1883. Repr. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977. Gorman, Michael J. Apostle of the Crucified Lord. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Green, J.B. “Discourse Analysis and New Testament Interpretation.” In Hearing the New Testament, edited by J.B. Green, 175–196. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Grieb, A. Katherine. The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002. Grimes, J.E. The Thread of Discourse. The Hague: Moulton, 1975. Grobel, K. “A Chiastic Retribution-Formula in Romans 2.” In Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Gebrurtsstag, edited by E. Dinkler, 255– 61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964. Guerra, A.J. Romans and the Apologetic Tradition: The Purpose, Genre and Audience of Paul’s Letter. SNTSMS 81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Gundry, R.H. “The Moral Frustration of Paul before His Conversion: Sexual Lust in Romans 7:7–25.” In Pauline Studies, edited by D.A. Hagner and M.J. Harris, 228– 45. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1980. Guthrie, G.H. The Structure of Hebrews. NovTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Hagner, D.A. “Paul and Judaism—the Jewish Matrix of Early Christianity: Issues in the Current Debate.” BBR 3 (1993), 111–30. Hall, D.R. “Romans 3:1–8 Reconsidered.” NTS 29 (1983), 183–97. Halliday, M.A.K. “Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English: Part 1 and 2.” JL 3 (1967), 37–81, 199–244. ——. “Linguistic Function and Literary Style: An Inquiry into the Language of William Golding’s the Inheritors.” In Literary Style: A Symposium, edited by S. Chatman, 330–68. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971. ——. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold, 1978. ——. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold, 1985. Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1976. ——. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Hansen, G. “Rhetorical Criticism.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid, 822–25. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

552

bibliography

Hanson, A.T. Paul’s Understanding of Jesus. Hull: University of Hull, 1963. ——. Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology. London: SPCK, 1974. Harvey, J.D. Listening to the Text. ETS Studies. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998. Hays, R.B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983. ——. “ ‘Have We Found Abraham to Be Our Forefather according to the Flesh?”A Reconsideration of Rom 4:1.” NovT 27 (1985), 76–98. ——. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. ——. “ ‘The Righteousness One’ as Eschatological Deliverer: A Case Study in Paul’s Apocalyptic Hermeneutics.” In Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, edited by J. Marcus and M. Soards, 191–216. JSNTSup 24. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. ——. “PISTIS and Pauline Christology: What Is at Stake?.” In Pauline Theology. Volume IV: Looking Back, Pressing On, edited by E.E. Johnson and D.M. Hay, 35–60. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. ——. The Faith of Jesus Christ. 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Heimerdinger, Jean-Marc. Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives. JSOTSup 295. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Hoey, M. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Hofius, Otfried. “Die Adam—Christus Antithese und das Gesetz.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by J.D.G. Dunn, 165–206. WUNT 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Hollander, John. The Figure of Echo: A Mode of Allusion in Milton and After. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. Hooker, M.D. “Interchange in Christ.” JTS 22 (1971), 349–61. ——. “ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ.” NTS 35 (1989), 321–42. Hopper, P.J. “Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse.” In Discourse and Syntax, edited by T. Givón, 213–41. New York: Academic Press, 1979. Hopper, P.J. and S.A. Thompson. “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.” Language 56 (1980) 251–99. Horrell, D.G. “ Paul’s Narratives or Narrative Substructure?.” In Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, edited by B.W. Longenecker, 157–71. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002. Howard, G. “On the ‘Faith of Christ’.” HTR 60 (1967), 459–65. ——. “The ‘Faith of Christ’.” ExpTim 85 (1973–74), 212–15. Http://divinity.mcmaster.ca/OpenText/model/guidelines/clause/0–2. Hultgren, Arland J. Christ and His Benefits: Christology and Redemption in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. Hutchison, John and Anthony D. Smith. “Introduction.” In Ethnicity, edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, 3–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Hübner, H. Law in Paul’s Thought. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1984. Jeremias, J. “Zu Röm 1:22–32.” ZNW 45 (1954), 119–21. Jervis, L.A. The Purpose of Romans: A Comparative Letter Structure Investigation. JSNTSup 55. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Jewett, R. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Johnson, L.T. “Romans 3:21–26 and the Faith of Jesus.” CBQ 44 (1982), 77–90. ——. Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary. New York: Crossroad, 1997. Johnson, S.L. “Romans 5:12—An Exercise in Exegesis and Theology.” In New Dimension in New Testament Study, edited by R.N. Longenecker and M.C. Tenney, 298– 316. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. Käsemann, E. “ ‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul.” In New Testament Questions of Today, 168–82. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.

bibliography

553

——. “The Cry for Liberty in the Worship of the Church.” In Perspectives on Paul, 122–37. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. ——. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. König, A. “Gentiles or Gentile Christians? On the Meaning of Romans 2:12–16.” JTSA 15 (1976), 53–60. Kümmel, W.G. “Πάρεσις and ἔνδειξις: A Contribution to the Understanding of the Pauline Doctrine of Justification.” JTC 3 (1967), 1–13. ——. Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus. UNT 17. Munich: Kaiser, 1974 (1929). Karlberg, M.W. “Israel’s History Personified: Romans 7:7–13 in Relation to Paul’s Teaching on the ‘Old Man’.” TJ 7 (1986), 65–74. Kaye, B.N. The Thought Structure of Romans with Special Reference to Chapter 6. Austin: Scholars Press, 1979. Keck, L.E. “ ‘Jesus’ in Romans.” JBL 108 (1989), 443–60. ——. “What Makes Romans Tick?.” In Pauline Theology: Volume III: Romans, edited by D.M. Hay and E.E. Johnson, 3–29. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. ——. Romans. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Kennedy, G.A. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Kertelge, K. “Exegetische uberlegungen zum Verständnis der paulinischen Anthroplogie nach Römer 7.” ZNW 62 (1971), 105–14. ——. “ἀπολύτρωσις.” In EDNT 1:138. Kim, Seyoon. Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thought on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Kirby, J.T. “The Syntax of Romans 5:12: A Rhetoric Approach.” NTS 33 (1987), 283–86. Klostermann, E. “Die adäquate Vergeltung in Röm 1:22–31.” ZNW 32 (1933), 1–6. Kruse, C.G. “Virtues and Vices.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid, 962–63. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Kuipers, A.H. “On Symbol, Distinction and Markedness.” Lingua 36 (1975), 31–46. Lambrecht, J. “Man before and without Christ: Romans 7 and Pauline Anthropology.” LS 5 (1974), 18–33. ——. The Wretched “I” and Its Liberation: Paul in Romans 7 and 8. LTPM 14. Louvain: Peters/ Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Leckie-Tarry, H. Language and Context: A Functional Linguistic Theory of Register. London: Pinter, 1992. Lee, Jae Hyun. “Against Richard B. Hays’s ‘Faith of Jesus Christ’.” JGRChJ 5 (2008), 51–80. ——. “Günther Bornkamm and Redaction Criticism.” In Pillars in the History of New Testament Interpretation: Old and New, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams. Forthcoming. ——. “Richard B. Hays and a Narrative Approach to the Pauline Letters.” In Pillars in the History of New Testament Interpretation: Old and New, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams. Forthcoming. Leenhardt, F.J. The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary. London: Lutterworth Press, 1961. Levinsohn, S.E. Discourse Features of New Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Information Structure of New Testament Greek. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1991. Levinson, S.C. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Lichtenberger, H. Das Ich Adams und das Ich der Menschheit. WUNT 164. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Lightfoot, J.B. Notes on Epistles of St. Paul. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999. Lincoln, A.T. “From Wrath to Justification: Tradition, Gospel, and Audience in the

554

bibliography

Theology of Romans 1:18–4:25.” In Pauline Theology: Volume III: Romans, edited by D.M. Hay and E.E. Johnson, 130–59. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Litwak, Kenneth D. “Echoes of Scripture? A Critical Survey of Recent Works on Paul’s Use of the Old Testament.” CurBS 6 (1998), 260–88. Lohse, E. Märtyrer und Gotteskbecht: Untersuchngen zur ruchristlichen Verkündigung vom Sühntod Jesu. Götingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955. ——. “ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος: Exegetiche Anmerkumgen zu Röm 8:2.” In Neues Testament und christliche Existenz: Festschrift für Herbert Braun zum 70. Gebrustag am 4 Mai 1973, edited by H.D. Betz and Luise Schotroff, 279–87. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973. Longacre, R.E. “Why We Need a Vertical Revolution in Linguistics.” The Fifth LACUS Forum 1978 (1978), 247–70. ——. “Discourse Peak as Zone of Turbulence.” In Beyond the Sentence: Discourse and Sentential Form, edited by J.R. Wirth, 81–98. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers, 1985. ——. “Interpreting Biblical Stories.” In Discourse and Literature, edited by T.A. van Dijk, 169–85. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1985. ——. “Storyline Concerns and Word Order Typology in East and West Africa.” In Studies in African Linguistics, Los Angeles: Development of Linguistics and the James S. Coleman African Studies Center, 1990. ——. “Towards An Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Text.” In Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, edited by D.A. Black, 271–86. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992. ——. The Grammar of Discourse: Notional and Surface Structures. New York: Plenum Press, 1996. Longacre, R.E. and W.B. Wallis. “Soteriology and Eschatology in Romans.” JETS 41 (1998), 367–82. Longenecker, B.W. Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002. ——. Eschatology and the Covenant: A Comparison of 4 Ezra and Romans 1–11. JSNTSup 57. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. ——. “πίστις in Romans 3:25: Neglected Evidence for the ‘Faithfulness of Christ’?.” NTS 39 (1993), 478–80. Longenecker, R.N. Paul, Apostle of Liberty. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976 (1964). ——. “The Focus of Romans.” In Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by S.K. Soderlund and N.T. Wright, 49–69. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Louw, J.P. “Linguistic Theory and the Greek Case System.” AC 9 (1966), 73–88. Louw, J.P. and E.A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 Vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988. Malherbe, A.J. Ancient Epistolary Theorist. SBLSBS 19. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. ——. “ME GENOITO in the Diatribe and Paul.” In Paul and the Popular Philosophers Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 25–33. Marshall, I.H. “The Development of the Concept of Redemption in the New Testament.” In Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L.L. Morris on His Sixtieth Birthday, edited by R. Banks, 153–69. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. ——. “The Meaning of Reconciliation.” In Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology, edited by R.A. Guelich, 117–32. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. ——. New Testament Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Martín-Asensio, G. Transitivity-Based Foregrounding in the Acts of the Apostles. JSNTSup 202. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

bibliography

555

Martin, R.P. Reconciliation: A Study of Paul’s Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989. ——. “Center of Paul’s Theology.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid, 92–95. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Matlock, R.B. “Detheologizing the ΠΙΣΤΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ Debate: Cautionary Remarks from a Lexical Semantic Perspective.” NovT 42 (2000), 1–23. ——. “The Arrow and the Web.” In Narrative Dynamics in Paul, edited by B.W. Longenecker, 44–57. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Mattern, L. Das Verständnis des Gerichtes bei Paulus. ATANT 47. Zürich: Zwingli, 1966. McDonald, L.M. and S.E. Porter Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000. McDonald, P.M. “Romans 5:1–11 as a Rhetorical Bridge.” JSNT 40 (1990), 81–96. Metzger, B.M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971. Meyer, H.A.W. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Romans. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884. Meyer, P. “The Worm at the Core of the Apple: Exegetical Reflections on Romans 7.” In The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, edited by R.T. Fortna and B.R. Gaventa, 62–84. Nashville: Abingdon, 1990. Michaels, J.R. “The Redemption of Our Body.” In Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Sven K. Soderlund and N.T. Wright, 92–114. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Michel, O. Der Brief an die Römer. MeyerK. Götingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Miller, James C. “The Romans Debate: 1991–2001.” CurBS 9 (2001), 306–49. Minear, Paul. The Obedience of Faith: The Purpose of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. London: SCM Press, 1971. Moo, D.J. “Law, Works of the Law, and Legalism in Paul.” WTJ 45 (1983), 73–100. ——. “Israel and Paul in Romans 7–1–12.” NTS 32 (1986), 122–35. ——. “Paul and the Law in the Last Ten Year.” SJT 40 (1987), 287–307. ——. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Moody, R.M. “The Habakkuk Quotation in Romans 1:17.” ExpTim 92 (1980–81), 205–208. Moravcsik, E. and J.R. Wirth. “Markedness—An Overview.” In Markedness, edited by F.R. Eckman, E. Moravcsik and J.R. Wirth, 1–11. New York: Plenum, 1986. Morris, Leon. Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. London: Tyndale Press, 1955. ——. “The Meaning of ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3:25.” NTS 2 (1955–56), 33–43. ——. The Epistle to the Romans. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Moule, C.F.D. An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960. Mounce, R.H. Romans. NAC, 27. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Moxnes, H. Theology in Conflict: Studies in Paul’s Understanding of God in Romans. NovTSup 53. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Note. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Nanos, Mark D. The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Nash, W. Rhetoric: The Wit of Persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Nicole, R.R. “C.H. Dodd and the Doctrine of Propitiation.” WTJ 17 (1954–55), 117–57. Nygren, A. Commentary on Romans. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949.

556

bibliography

Obeng, E.A. “The Origin of the Spirit Intercession Motif in Romans 8:26.” NTS 32 (1986), 621–32. O’Brien, P.T. “Romans 8:26, 27: A Revolutionary Approach to Prayer?.” RTR 46 (1987), 65–73. ——. The Epistle to the Philippians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. ——. “Justification in Paul and Some Crucial Issues of the Last Two Decades.” In Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the World, edited by D.A. Carson, 69–95. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Onesti, K.L. and M.T. Baruch. “Righteousness, Righteousness of God.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid, 827–37. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Osburn, C.D. “The Interpretation of Romans 8:28.” WTJ 144 (1982), 99–109. Packer, J.I. “ ‘The Wretched Main’ in Romans 7.” In Studia Evangelica, Vol. 2: Papers Presented to the Second International Congress on New Testament Studies Held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1961, Part 1: The New Testament Scriptures, edited by F.L. Cross, F.M., 621–27. TU 87. Berlin: Akademie-Verleg, 1964. ——. “The Wretched Man Revisited: Another Look at Romans 7:14–25.” In Romans and the People of God, edited by Sven K. Soderlund and N.T. Wright, 70–81. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Penna, R. “Narrative Aspect of the Letter to the Romans.” In Paul the Apostle: Jew and Greek Alike, 90–102. Collegeville: Michael Glazier Book, 1996. Perelman, C. The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and Its Application. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979. ——. The Realm of Rhetoric. Trans. W. Kluback. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982. Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969. Petersen, N.R. Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul’s Narrative World. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Pickering, W. A Framework for Discourse Analysis. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington, 1980. Piper, J. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1– 23. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983. Pobee, J.S. Persecution and Martyrdom in the Theology of Paul. JSNTSup 6. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament. SBG 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1989. ——. “The Argument of Romans 5: Can a Rhetorical Question Make a Difference?.” JBL 110 (1991), 655–677. ——. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. BLG 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. ——. “The Theoretical Justification for Application of Rhetorical Categories to Pauline Epistolary Literature.” In Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, 100–22. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. ——. “Word Order and Clause Structure in New Testament Greek: An Unexplored Area of Greek Linguistics Using Philippians as a Test Case.” FN 6 (1993), 177– 206. ——. καταλλασσω in Ancient Greek Literature, with Reference to the Pauline Writings. EFN 5. Córdoba: Ediciones El Almendro, 1994. ——. “A Newer Perspective on Paul: Romans 1–8 through the Eyes of Literary Analysis.” In The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson, edited by M. Daniel Carroll R., David J.A. Clines, and Philip R. Davies, 366–92. JSOTSup 200. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

bibliography

557

——. “Discourse Analysis and New Testament Studies: An Introductory Survey.” In Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek, edited by S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson, 14–35. JSNTSup 113. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. ——. “ΚΑΤΑΛΛΑΣΣΩ in Ancient Greek Literature and Romans 5: A Study of Pauline Usage.” In Studies in the Greek New Testament, 195–212. New York: Peter Lang, 1996. ——. “Ancient Rhetoric Analysis and Discourse Analysis of the Pauline Corpus.” In The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, 249–74. JSNTSup 146. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ——. “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment on Method and Terminology.” In Early Christian Interpretation of the Scripture of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, edited by C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders, 75–96. JSNTSup 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ——. “Linguistics and Rhetorical Criticism.” In Linguistics and the New Testament, edited by Stanley E. Porter and D.A. Carson, 63–92. JSNTSup 168. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. ——. “Paul as Epistolographer and Rhetorician?.” In The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture, edited by S.E. Porter and Dennis L. Stamps, 222–48. JSNTSup 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. ——. “Diatribe.” In Dictionary of New Testament Background, edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter, 296–98. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000. ——. “Paul of Tarsus and His Letters.” In Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in Hellenistic Period (330 B.C–A.D. 400), edited by Stanley E. Porter, 533–85. Leiden: Brill Academic, 2001. ——. “The Rhetorical Scribe: Textual Variants in Romans and Their Possible Rhetorical Purpose.” In Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible, edited by S.E. Porter and D.L. Stamps, 403–19. JSNTSup 195. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. ——. “Prominence: An Overview.” Unpublished paper; Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Atlanta, 22–25 November, 2003. Porter, Stanley E. and Matthew B. O’Donnell. “Theme, Topic and Information.” In Discourse Analysis and the New Testament. Forthcoming. ——. “Cohesion.” In Discourse Analysis and the New Testament. Forthcoming. ——. “Conjunction and Levels of Discourse.” Unpublished Paper Presented at the European Association of Biblical Studies Annual Meeting, Budapest, Hungary. 6–9 August 2006. Preisker, Herbert. “πιπράσκω.” In TDNT 6:160 Quarles, C.L. “From Faith to Faith: A Fresh Examination of the Prepositional Series in Romans 1:17.” NovT 44 (2003), 132–42. Quek, Swee-Hwa. “Adam and Christ according to Paul.” In Pauline Studies, edited by D.A. Hagner and M.J. Harris, 67–79. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1980. Räisänen, H. Paul and the Law. WUNT 29. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. ——. The Torah and Christ: Essay in German and English on the Problem of the Law in Early Christianity. PFES 45. Helsinki: Finish Exegetical Society, 1986. Reed, Jeffrey T. “Using Ancient Rhetorical Categories to Interpret Paul’s Letters: A Question of Genre.” In Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, 292–324. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. ——. “Modern Linguistics and the New Testament: A Basic Guide to Theory, Terminology, and Literature.” In Approaches to New Testament Study, edited by S.E. Porter and D. Tombs, 222–56. JSNTSup 120. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. ——. A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate Over Literary Integrity. JSNTSup 136. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ——. “Discourse Analysis.” In A Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 189–217. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

558

bibliography

——. “Epistle.” In A Handbook on Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 BC–AD 400), edited by Stanley E. Porter, 171–94. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Reese, J.M. “Wisdom of Solomon.” In Harper’s Bible Commentary, edited by James L. Mays, 820–35. New York: HarperCollins, 1988. Reicke, B. “Paulus über das Gesetz.” TZ 41 (1985), 237–57. Reinhart, T. “Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Texts.” Linguistics 22 (1984), 779–809. Rhyne, C.T. Faith Establishes the Law. SBLDS 55. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981. Ridderbos, H. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by J.R. de Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Robertson, A.T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman, 1934. Robinson, D.W. “Faith of Jesus Christ—A New Testament Debate.” RTR 29 (1970), 71–81. Roetzel, Calvin J. “Paul and the Law: Whence and Whither?.” CurBS 3 (1995), 249–75. Sanday, W. and A.C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902. Sanders, E.P. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. ——. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. London: S.C.M. Press, 1977. Schlatter, A. Romans: The Righteousness of God. Trans, by S. Schatzmann. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995. Schliesser, Benjamin. Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4. WUNT 224. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Schnabel, E.J. Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul. WUNT 2.16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Schnackenburg, R. “Römer 7 in Zusammenhang des Römerbriefes.” In Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg Kümmel zum 70 Geburtstag, edited by E.E. Ellis and E. Gräßer, 283–300. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Schreiner, T.R. Interpreting Pauline Epistles. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990. ——. “ ‘Works of Law’ in Paul.” NovT 33 (1991), 21–44. ——. The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993. ——. Romans. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. ——. Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001. Scroggs, R. The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1966. Segal, A.F. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Seifrid, M.A. “The Subject of Rom 7:14–25.” NovT 34 (1992), 313–33. ——. Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme. NovTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ——. “In Christ.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin and D.G. Reid, 433–36. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993. ——. Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification. NSBT. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000. ——. “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, edited by D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid, 415–42. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. ——. “Unrighteous by Faith: Apostolic Proclamation in Romans 1:18–3.20.” In Justification and Varigated Nomism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxies of Paul, edited by D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid, 105–45. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Seifrid, M.A. and R.K.J. Tan. “Justification.” In The Pauline Writings: An Annotated Bibliography, 183–86. IBR 9. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

bibliography

559

——. “Paul and the Old Testament.” In The Pauline Writings: An Annotated Bibliography, 105–108. IBR 9. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. ——. “The Law.” In The Pauline Writings: An Annotated Bibliography, 160–66. IBR 9. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. ——. The Pauline Writings: An Annotated Bibliography. IBR 9. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Shapiro, M.H. The Sense of Grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983. Silva, M. Philippians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. Snodgrass, K.R. “Justification by Grace—to the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the Theology of Paul.” NTS 32 (1986), 72–93. ——. “Spheres of Influence: A Possible Solution for the Problem of Paul and the Law.” JSNT 32 (1988), 93–113. Snyder, Graydon F. “Major Motifs in the Interpretation of Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” In Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology, edited by Sheila E. McGinn, 42–63. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Snyman, A.H. “Style and the Rhetorical Situation of Romans 8:31–39.” NTS 34 (1988) 218–31. ——. “Persuasion in Philippians 4:1–20.” In Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, 325–37. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Song, Changwon. Reading Romans as a Diatribe. StBL 59. New York: Peter Lang, 2004. Stamps, Dennis L. “Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament: Ancient and Modern Evaluations of Argumentation.” In Approaches to New Testament Study, edited by S.E. Porter and D. Tombs, 193–210. JSNTSup 120. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995. ——. “Rhetorical and Narratological Criticism.” In A Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament, edited by S.E. Porter, 219–239. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ——. “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament as a Rhetorical Device: A Methodological Proposal.” In Hearing the Old Testament through the New, edited by S.E. Porter, 9–37. MNTS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Stanley, C.D. Paul and the Language of Scripture. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. ——. “ ‘The Redeemer will Come ἐκ Σιων’: Romans 11:26–27 Revisited.” In Paul and the Scripture of Israel, edited by C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders, 118–42. JSNTSup 83. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. ——. “ ‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Ethnic Conflict in Graeco-Roman Society.” JSNT 64 (1996), 101–24. ——. “The Rhetoric of Quotations: An Essay on Method.” In Early Christian Interpretation of the Scripture of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, edited by C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders, 44–58. JSNTSup 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ——. Arguing with Scripture. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Stauffer, E. “ἐγώ.” In TDNT 2:358–62. Stendahl, Krister. “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.” HTR 56 (1963), 199–215. Stowers, S.K. The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. SBLDS 57. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981. ——. “ Paul’s Dialogue with a Fellow Jew in Rom 3:1–9.” CBQ 46 (1984), 707–22. ——. A Rereading of Romans. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. ——. “Romans 7:7–25 as a Speech-In-Character (προσωποποιία).” In Paul in His Hellenistic Context, edited by T. Engberg-Pedersen, 180–202. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Strack, H.L. and P. Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, 6 Vols. Munich: Beck, 1922–61. Strecker, Georg. Theology of the New Testament. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter/Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2000.

560

bibliography

Stuhlmacher, P. Reconciliation, Law and Righteousness: Essays in Biblical Theology. Trans. E. Kalin. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. ——. “The Theme of Romans.” In The Romans Debate, edited by K.P. Donfried, 333– 45. Rev. ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991. ——. Paul’s letter to the Romans. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994. Taylor, G.M. “The Function of πίστις Χριστοῦ in Galatians.” JBL 85 (1966), 58–76. Terry, R.B. A Discourse Analysis of First Corinthians. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1995. Theissen, G. Psychological Aspect of Pauline Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Thielman, F. From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework to Understanding Paul’s View of the Law in Galatians and Romans. NovTSup 61. Leiden: Brill, 1989. ——. “Law.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by G.F. Hawthorne, R.P. Martin, and D.G. Reid, 529–42. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993. ——. Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994. ——. “The Story of Israel and the Theology of Romans 5–8.” In Pauline Theology: Volume III: Romans, edited by D.M. Hay and E.E. Johnson, 169–95. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Thimmes, Pamela. “ ‘She Will Be Called an Adulteress . . .’: Marriage and Adultery Analogies in Romans 7:1–4.” In Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology, edited by Sheila E. McGinn, 190–203. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Thompson, R.W. “ Paul’s Double Critique of Jewish Boasting: A Study of Rom 3: 27 in Its Context.” Bib 67 (1986), 520–31. Thomson, I.H. Chiasmus in the Pauline Letters. JSNTSup 111. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Tobin, Thomas H. “Controversy and Continuity in Romans 1:18–3:20.” CBQ 55 (1993), 298–318. ——. “What Shall We Say That Abraham Found? The Controversy behind Romans 4.” HTR 88 (1995), 437–57. ——. Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004. Tomlin, R.S. “Foreground-Background Information and the Syntax of Subordination.” Text 5 (1985), 85–122. Tomlin, R.S., L. Forrest, M.M. Pu, and M.H. Kim. “Discourse Semantics.” In Discourse as Structure and Process, edited by T.A. van Dijk, 63–111. London: SAGE, 1997. Tuckett, C.M. “Atonement in the NT.” In ABD 1:518–22. Turner, N. A Grammar of NT Greek. III. Syntax. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963. van Dijk, T.A. “The Study of Discourse Analysis.” In Discourse as Structure and Process, edited by T.A. van Dijk, 1–35. London: SAGE, 1997. ——. Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantic and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman, 1977. van Dijk, T.A. and W. Kintsch. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press, 1983. van den Beld, A. “Romans 7:14–25 and the Problem of Akrasia.” RelS 21 (1985), 495–515. Vorster, Johannes P. “Strategies of Persuasion in Romans 1:16–17.” In Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from 1992 Heidelberg Conference, edited by S.E. Porter and H. Obricht, 152–70. JSNTSup 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Wallace, S. “Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories.” In Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, edited by R.S. Tomlin, 201–23. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1982. Watson, Duane F. “Rhetorical Criticism of the Pauline Epistles since 1975.” CurBS 3 (1995), 219–48. Watson, Francis. Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach. SNTSMS 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

bibliography

561

——. “The Two Roman Congregations: Romans 14:1–15:13.” In Romans Debate, edited by K.P. Donfried, 203–15. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991. ——. “Is There a Story in These Texts?.” In Narrative Dynamics in Paul, edited by B.W. Longenecker, 231–39. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002. ——. “Constructing a Hermeneutic: A Rereading of Romans 1–4.” Unpublished paper, A paper prepared for the New Testament Graduate Seminar, Duke Divinity School, November, 2004, 1–13. Wedderburn, A.J.M. “Adam in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” SB 3 (1978), 413–30. Wenham, D. “The Christian Life: A Life of Tension?—A Consideration of the Nature of Christian Experiencein Paul.” In Pauline Studies, edited by D.A. Hagner and M.J. Harris, 80–94. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1980. Westerholm, S. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. ——. “The ‘New Perspective’ at Twenty-Five.” In Justification and Varigated Nomism: A Fresh Appraisal of Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Vol. 2: The Paradoxies of Paul, edited by D.A. Carson, P.T. O’Brien and M.A. Seifrid, 1–38. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Westfall, Cynthia L. A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning. LNTS 297. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Wilckens, U. Der Brief an die Römer. EKKNT. 3 Vols. Zurich: Benziger, 1978–81. Williams, S.K. Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept. HDR 2. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975. ——. “ ‘The Righteousness of God’ in Romans.” JBL 99 (1980), 241–90. ——. “Again Pistis Christou.” CBQ 49 (1987) 431–47. Winger, Michael. By What Law? the Meaning of Νόμος in the Letter of Paul. SBLDS 128. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Witherington, Ben. Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994. ——. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Wolter, M. Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil: Unterschungen zu Röm 5:1–11. BZNW 43. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978. Wright, N.T. “The Messiah and the People of God.” Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 1980. ——. “Romans.” In Vol. 10 of NIB, edited by Leander E. Keck, 393–770. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002. ——. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. ——. The Climax of the Covenant. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ——. “The Vindication of the Law: Narrative Analysis and Romans 8.1–11.” In The Climax of the Covenant, 193–219. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ——. “Romans and the Theology of Paul.” In Pauline Theology: Volume III: Romans, edited by D.M. Hay and E.E. Johnson, 30–67. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. ——. “The Law in Romans 2.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by J.D.G. Dunn, 131–50. WUNT 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. ——. What Saint Paul Really Said?. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. ——. “New Exodus, New Inheritance: The Narrative Substructure of Romans 3–8.” In Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Sven K. Soderlund and N.T. Wright, 26–35. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Zahn, T. Der Brief an die Römer. KNT 6. Leipzig: Deichert, 1910. Ziesler, J.A. “The Role of Tenth Commandment in Romans 7.” JSNT 33 (1988), 41–56. ——. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. TPINTC. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989.

INDEX OF AUTHORS Achtemeier, P.J. 87 Adams, E. 109 Adams, S.A. 15, 49 Aletti, J.-N. 309, 348 Aune, D.E. 36, 126 Baird, W. 265 Balz, H. 162 Barrett, C.K. 91, 107, 117, 118, 131, 134, 160, 162, 177, 202, 221, 234, 263, 277, 283, 284, 298, 351, 365, 370, 391, 396, 412, 419, 423 Barton, S.C. 4 Brauch, M.T. 93 Bassler, J.M. 87, 99, 100, 131, 136, 137, 146, 147, 160 Battistella, E.L. 65, 66, 67 Bauer, W. 49, 94, 107 Beekman, J. 33–34, 41–42, 63–64, 207 Beker, J.C. 2, 273, 298, 366 Bell, R.H. 106, 131, 160, 162, 179, 187, 189, 192, 303 Betz, H.D. 17, 18 Bickermann, E. 222 Billerbeck, P. 253 Black, E. 20 Black, M. 221, 273, 323, 412 Black, S.L. 38, 79 Blass, F. 78, 118 Bloomfield, L. 30 Boers, H. 146, 288, 323, 330 Booth, S. 30, 82 Boring, M.C. 303 Bornkamm, G. 49, 313, 336, 347, 366 Brandt, W.J. 20 Brown, G. 25, 26, 27, 31 Bruce, F.F. 263–264, 273, 338, 351, 359, 412 Bryan, C. 110, 188, 220, 245, 246, 406 Bultmann, R. 1, 136, 188, 264, 298, 336, 350, 366 Burnett, G.W. 330, 350, 351, 353, 359, 366 Busch, A. 350 Byrne, B. 273, 313, 323, 335, 336, 337, 359, 394, 395, 396, 406, 420, 422 Byron, J. 366

Callow, J. 33–34, 41–42, 63–64, 207 Callow, K. 49, 54, 61, 62, 75 Calvin, J. 146 Campbell, D.H. 364 Campbell, D.A. 91, 95, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 226 Caragounis, C.C. 293 Carter, T.L. 330, 338 Cavalin, H.C.C. 91 Christensen, F. 41 Classen, C.J. 19 Cosgrove, C.H. 194 Cranfield, C.E.B. 91, 93, 94, 101, 110, 117, 118, 131, 136, 146, 160, 161, 162, 177, 181, 187, 192, 197, 202, 205, 221, 224, 225, 226, 228, 234, 245, 246, 253, 263, 264, 273, 277, 285, 286, 313, 323, 335, 337, 350, 359, 365, 370, 375, 391, 394, 396, 406, 411, 412, 422 Dabourne, W. 188, 189 Dahl, N.A. 131, 202, 424 Das, A.A. 366, 370 Davidson, M.E. 66, 73 Davies, G.D. 93, 246 Davies, W.D. 347, 351 de Beaugrande, R. 31 de Boer, M.C. 273 Debrunner, A. 78, 118 Deidun, T.J. 394 Deissmann, A. 221, 222, 346 Dik, S.C. 27, 29, 31, 32, 61 Dodd, B. 349, 358, 359 Dodd, C.H. 106, 131, 197, 221, 222, 277, 338, 412, 423 Doeve, J.W. 187 Donfried, K.P. 284 Dressler, J.W. 31 Dry, A.H. 62, 64, 66 Dunn, J.D.G. 15, 16, 48, 91, 93, 94, 95, 99, 101, 130, 131, 145, 160, 172, 181, 192, 194, 202, 205, 221, 223, 224, 235, 245, 246, 253, 263, 264, 273, 277, 282, 283, 284, 285, 298, 299, 313, 317, 323, 330, 337, 349, 359, 365, 370, 372, 391, 393, 394, 396, 405, 411, 412, 422

564

index of authors

Earnshaw, J.D. 338 Eckstein, H.J. 101 Elliot, Neil 277, 330, 349 Englezakis, B. 293 Erickson, R.J. 298, 303 Esler, P.F. 4, 5, 6, 7, 131, 178, 330, 349, 350, 351, 359, 372, 394, 423 Espy, J.M. 349, 365 Evans, C.A. 8, 9, 10, 12, 131 Fee, G.D. 100, 273, 277, 280, 284, 285, 366, 391, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 399, 411, 412 Fitzmyer, J.A. 1, 2, 39, 91, 93, 99, 110, 118, 131, 154, 160, 162, 187, 203, 207, 234, 236, 263, 264, 277, 284, 323, 337, 339, 347, 350, 359, 366, 370, 391, 394, 396, 405, 412, 419, 423 Forrest, L. 61 Fowl, S.E. 13, 14 Friedrich, G. 234 Fryer, N.S.L. 285 Funk, R. 78, 118 Fuller, L.K. 346 Furnish, V.P. 336 Garlington, D.B. 333, 365 Gaston, L. 95, 263 Gathercole, S.J. 160, 235, 277, 286 Georgakopoulou, A. 31, 33, 34, 42 Gill, A.M. 81 Givon, T. 31, 45, 62, 63 Godet, F. 91, 162, 187, 189, 396 Gorman, M.J. 349, 366 Goutsos, D. 31, 33, 34, 42 Green, J.B. 25 Grieb, A.K. 13 Grimes, J.E. 30 Grobel, K. 145 Guerra, A.J. 2 Gundry, R.H. 347 Guthrie, G.H. 40 Hübner, H. 234, 236, 394 Hagner, D.A. 300, 347, 365 Hall, D.R. 187, 188, 189, 192, 194 Halliday, M.A.K. 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 41, 42, 47, 48, 51, 52, 57, 61, 80 Hansen, G. 17 Hanson, A.T. 91 Harvey, J.D. 30, 48, 138, 145, 293, 321, 357, 424 Hasan, R. 27, 28, 31, 48 Hays, R.B. 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 91, 95, 220, 245

Headlam, A.C. 91, 94, 131, 162, 187, 192, 203, 221, 264, 273, 277, 284, 286, 298, 313, 323, 337, 338, 394, 396, 411 Heimerdinger, J.-M. 31, 62 Hoey, M. 31 Hofius, O. 299 Hollander, J. 8 Hooker, M.D. 202, 220, 395 Hopper, P.J. 62, 63, 80 Horrell, D.G. 17 Howard, G. 220 Hultgren, A.J. 303 Hutchison, J. 4 Jeremias, J. 101 Jervis, L.A. 2 Jewett, R. 17, 91, 94, 96, 101, 106, 117, 118, 126, 132, 133, 138, 145, 149, 160, 162, 171, 179, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 194, 201, 202, 203, 221, 223, 225, 228, 244, 245, 253, 263, 264, 273, 278, 284, 286, 293, 298, 299, 313, 318, 323, 336, 338, 348, 350, 351, 352, 357, 358, 359, 370, 391, 394, 396, 399, 406, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 419, 423, 424, 425 Johnson, L.T. 95, 338 Johnson, S.L. 298 Käsemann, E. 91, 93, 131, 136, 162, 187, 188, 192, 224, 236, 253, 263, 264, 277, 283, 284, 323, 337, 349, 359, 366, 370, 372, 394, 411, 423 König, A. 146, 160 Kümmel, W.G. 223, 347, 348, 366 Karlberg, M.W. 350 Kaye, B.N. 273, 313, 314, 323 Keck, L.E. 3, 145, 188, 192, 203, 204, 220, 246, 263, 277, 359, 370 Kennedy, G.A. 18, 19 Kertelge, K. 221, 366 Kim, S. 93, 351 Kintsch, W. 51, 81 Kirby, J.T. 298 Klostermann, E. 101 Kruse, C.G. 126 Kuipers, A.H. 67 Lambrecht, J. 350, 351, 366, 370 Leckie-Tarry, H. 27, 28 Lee, J.H. 15, 49, 95, 221 Leenhardt, F.J. 131, 146, 224, 273 Levinsohn, S.E. 35, 78 Levinson, S.C. 35 Lichtenberger, H. 349 Lightfoot, J.B. 91, 203

index of authors

565

Litwak, K.D. 8 Lincoln, A.T. 146 Lohse, E. 222, 369, 394 Longacre, R.E. 30, 32, 62, 63, 82, 83, 84 Longenecker, B.W. 13, 16, 17, 134–35, 220, 235, 236, 349, 370 Longenecker, R.N. 93, 220, 273, 298, 349, 375 Louw, J.P. 49, 72, 78, 101, 193, 247, 281, 358, 399, 425

Nygren, A. 365, 372

Malherbe, A.J. 20, 131, 188 Marshall, I.H. 69, 222, 280, 338 Martín-Asensio, G. 18, 29, 44 Martin, R.P. 2, 4, 8, 17, 93, 126, 160, 280, 393 Matlock, R.B. 16, 221 Mattern, L. 146 McDonald, L.M. 2 McDonald, P.M. 273, 280 Metzger, B.M. 202, 244, 277, 394, 405, 412 Meyer, H.A.W. 286, 298 Meyer, P. 366, 370 Michaels, J.R. 406 Michel, O. 136, 313, 330, 350, 396, 423 Miller, J.C. 2 Minear, P. 329 Moo, D.J. 87, 91, 93, 94, 96, 99, 109, 110, 117, 118, 122, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 145, 146, 147, 148, 158, 160, 162, 171, 181, 187, 188, 192, 194, 205, 221, 222, 224, 226, 234, 236, 242, 245, 253, 264, 265, 267, 273, 277, 284, 285, 286, 298, 299, 313, 314, 318, 323, 330, 335, 350, 351, 358, 359, 366, 370, 372, 375, 390, 391, 393, 394, 395, 396, 399, 406, 411, 412, 415, 423, 424 Moody, R.M. 91 Moravcsik, E. 45, 65 Morris, L. 222, 264, 273, 285, 298, 330, 359, 365, 370, 395, 396, 422 Moule, C.F.D. 78 Mounce, R.H. 365 Moxnes, H. 264 Murray, J. 91, 131, 136, 162, 181, 221, 234, 236, 264, 273, 284, 318, 323, 365, 370, 394, 396, 412, 423

Packer, J.I. 365 Penna, R. 13 Perelman, C. 20 Petersen, N.R. 13 Pickering, W. 26, 32, 38, 46, 47, 53 Piper, J. 187, 192, 224 Pobee, J.S. 222 Porter, S.E. 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 38, 43, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 59, 63, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 78, 81, 82, 87, 97, 100, 110, 118, 119, 131, 160, 181, 207, 220, 225, 229, 246, 273, 277, 278, 280, 281, 285, 286, 290, 293, 298, 309, 318, 333, 357, 359, 365, 367, 375 Preisker, H. 367 Pu, M.M. 61

Nanos, M.D. 6, 131 Nash, W. 20 Nicole, R.R. 222 Nida, E.A. 49, 78, 101, 193, 247, 281, 358, 399, 425

1, 91, 131, 223, 273, 298,

Obeng, E.A. 412 O’Donnell, M.B. 22, 38, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54 O’Brien, P.T. 93, 107, 160, 235, 349, 411 Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 20 Onesti, K.L. 93 Osburn, C.D. 412

Quarles, C.L. 91 Quek, S.-H. 300 Räisänen, H. 146, 192, 235, 338, 394 Reed, J.T. 20, 21, 25, 28, 32, 40, 42, 44, 298 Reese, J.M. 133 Reicke, B. 369 Reinhart, T. 63 Rhyne, C.T. 234, 236 Ridderbos, H. 366 Robertson, A.T. 78 Robinson, D.W. 220 Roetzel, C.J. 160 Sanday, W. 91, 94, 131, 162, 187, 192, 203, 221, 264, 273, 277, 284, 286, 298, 313, 323, 337, 338, 394, 396, 411 Sanders, E.P. 146, 235, 273, 335 Sanders, J.A. 8, 9, 10, 12 Schlatter, A. 93, 131, 146, 160, 162, 412 Schliesser, B. 214, 223, 264 Schnabel, E.J. 394 Schnackenburg, R. 366

566

index of authors

Schreiner, T.R. 2, 87, 91, 94, 99, 101, 110, 120, 126, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 144, 145, 146, 160, 177, 178, 179, 181, 187, 191, 192, 193, 194, 205, 221, 222, 224, 226, 227, 235, 236, 245, 246, 253, 255, 264, 267, 273, 277, 278, 282, 284, 286, 313, 323, 330, 335, 350, 351, 352, 357, 359, 366, 367, 368, 370, 372, 391, 394, 395, 396, 406, 411, 412, 413, 425 Scroggs, R. 300 Segal, A.F. 313 Seifrid, M.A. 4, 8, 93, 107, 111, 131, 135, 160, 181, 235, 236, 349, 367, 368, 370, 372, 393 Shapiro, M.H. 67 Silva, M. 8, 349 Smith, A.D. 4 Snodgrass, K.R. 146, 160, 370 Snyder, G.F. 1 Snyman, A.H. 19, 423 Song, C. 131, 188 Stamps, D.L. 12, 17, 18, 21, 220 Stanley, C.D. 5, 9, 12, 96, 171 Stauffer, E. 351 Stendahl, K. 349 Stowers, S.K. 91, 100, 131, 132, 136, 137, 149, 158, 188, 203, 207, 222, 232, 245, 246, 277, 288, 322, 348, 352 Strack, H.L. 253 Strecker, G. 347 Stuhlmacher, P. 94, 161, 162, 202, 222, 223, 245, 264, 273, 283, 330, 349, 359, 366, 395 Tan, R.K.J. 4, 8, 93, 160 Taylor, G.M. 220 Terry, R.B. 74, 82 Theissen, G. 348, 349, 359, 366, 371 Thielman, F. 8, 146, 160, 349, 351, 370 Thimmes, P. 338 Thompson, R.W. 235, 236 Thompson, S.A. 80 Thomson, I.H. 293, 300

Tobin, T.H. 17, 109, 131, 188, 189, 202, 214, 232, 246, 253, 277, 278, 284, 299, 313, 317, 338, 339, 348, 352, 358, 366, 370, 394, 412 Tomlin, R.S. 31, 62, 63, 102 Tuckett, C.M. 223 Turner, N. 220, 264 van Dijk, T.A. 25, 30, 51, 61, 81, 82 van den Beld, A. 365 Vorster, J.P. 87 Wallace, D.B. 42, 72, 78, 79, 82, 118, 119, 277 Wallace, S. 62, 63, 64, 67 Wallis, W.B. 82 Watson, D.F. 17, 18 Watson, F. 6, 7, 16, 110–11, 131, 146, 160, 192, 234, 236, 263, 302, 359 Wedderburn, A.J.M. 349 Wenham, D. 365 Westerholm, S. 158, 160, 205 Westfall, C.L. 25, 35, 70, 72, 75, 76, 77 Whedbee, K. 81 Wilckens, U. 91, 134, 187, 221, 223, 264, 277, 285, 298, 313, 337, 349, 366, 367, 372, 394, 406, 423 Williams, S.K. 93, 187, 220, 222 Winger, M. 370 Wirth, J.R. 45, 65, 83 Witherington, B. 12, 13, 16, 17, 330, 333, 334, 350, 359, 365, 366, 370, 395, 396, 412, 423 Wolter, M. 273, 277, 284, 285 Wright, N.T. 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 93, 144, 159, 160, 162, 177, 178, 179, 234, 273, 277, 280, 351, 365, 366, 369, 396, 406, 412 Yule, G.

25, 26, 27, 31

Zahn, T. 131, 160, 162, 263, 264 Ziesler, J.A. 131, 187, 236, 349, 370, 394

INDEX OF REFERENCES Old Testament Genesis 2–3 2:16 3 3:13 3:17–18 15:5 15:6 17 17:5 Exodus 20:3 20:14–15 20:17

350 350 350, 410 350 410 264 242, 246, 249, 252, 253, 268 253 263 171 171 350

Leviticus 16

222, 223

Deuteronomy 5:21 10:16 30:6

350 179 179

Job 1:1 1:8 2:3 3:16

349 349 349 10

Psalms 5:10 (LXX) 13:1–3 (LXX) 9:28 (LXX) 31:1–2 (LXX) 32:1 35:2 (LXX) 43:22 (LXX) 50 (LXX) 106:20 139:4 (LXX)

201 201 201 246, 249, 252, 253 330 201 424 192 110 201

Isaiah 52:5 (LXX) 59:7–8

163, 171 201

Jeremiah 2:11 4:4 9:25 31:31–34

110 179 179 178, 179

Ezekiel 11:19 36:25–29

179 178

Habakkuk 2:4

91, 92, 95, 96, 107

New Testament Matthew 4:1–4 4:11 5:21–48 5:21–22 5:27–28 5:31–32 5:38–39 5:43–44 9:22 13:3

46 78 37 37 37 38 38 38 69 36

13:24 13:31 13:33 14:13–21 14:29 15:21–28 15:21 15:28 17:14–21 17:18 27:23

36 36 36 45 46 79, 82 82 79, 82 49 45 77

568

index of references

Mark 4:26 5:34 9:14–29 10:52 14:29 14:36

36 69 49 69 46 388

Luke 5:35 7:50 8:48 10:42 17:11–19 17:11–12 17:11 17:12–14 17:12 17:13 17:14 17:15 17:16 17:17 17:19 18:42 20:36

73 69 69 73 68, 69 69 68, 69 68 68 68 68 69 69 68 69 69 74

John 1–2 1:1 1:6 1:15 1:19 1:29 1:35 1:43 2:1 14:30 15:16 18 18:1–11 18:1 18:12–14 18:12 18:15–18 18:15 18:19–24 18:19 18:25–27 18:25 18:28–38 18:28 18:29

35 52, 53 52 52 35 35 35 35 35 44 79 36 36 36 36 36 37 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37

Acts 6:1–7 6:1 6:2 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:6 6:7 9:31 15:23–26 23:26–30 28:30–31 Romans 1–8 1–4 1:1–15 1:1 1:2 1:1–7 1:1–4 1:2–4 1:4 1:5–7 1:5 1:7 1:8–15 1:8 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:15 1:16–8:39 1:16–8:30 1:16–5:11 1:16–2:11 1:16–17

1:16–18 1:16

1:17–18

48 48 48 48 48 48 48 37, 48 37 36 36 37 24 273 87, 89, 92 92, 88, 97 87 87 95, 441 87 87 87 89, 343 89 87 89 88, 89, 92, 97 89 89 89 89 89 87, 89, 92, 97 23, 24, 431, 440, 441, 443 442 147 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 97, 98, 100, 101, 106, 107, 111, 113, 146, 153, 213, 230, 270, 308, 431, 442 100 24, 87, 89, 90, 92, 94, 95, 96, 100, 107, 109, 178, 280, 287, 422, 425 226

index of references 1:17 1:18–5:11 1:18–3:20

1:18–2:29 1:18–2:11

1:18–2:5 1:18–32

1:18–23 1:18–21 1:18–19 1:18

1:19–23 1:19–22 1:19–20 1:19 1:20–23 1:20 1:21–23

1:21–22 1:21 1:22–24 1:22–23 1:22 1:23 1:24–32 1:24–31

89, 90, 92, 94, 95, 96, 107, 227 298, 431, 440 210, 213, 218, 223, 226, 229, 230, 244, 249, 289, 290, 303, 432, 433, 440, 442 191, 196, 197, 204 99, 100, 132, 136, 145, 146, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 157, 165, 210 147 99, 100, 101, 102, 109, 110, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 143, 147, 151, 152, 432, 433 101, 102, 103, 104, 109, 111, 112, 118, 122 101 136 71, 94, 95, 99, 100, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 117, 125, 130, 137, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, 197, 225, 227, 247, 284 108, 117, 119 71 71, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 111, 113, 151 71, 104, 105, 108, 111

1:24–27

71, 104, 105, 108, 111 104, 105, 106, 110, 111, 112, 113, 122, 126, 138–39, 151, 285 125 104, 111, 117, 122 101 135, 140 101, 104 104, 110, 283 152

2:1–4 2:1–3 2:1–2 2:1

1:24–26 1:24

1:25–27 1:25 1:26–27 1:26 1:27 1:28–32 1:28–31 1:28–29 1:28 1:29–32 1:29–31 1:29 1:30 1:31 1:32 2 2:1–11 2:1–5

2:2–5 2:2 2:3–6 2:3–5 2:3 2:4–5

569 101, 102, 114, 118, 119, 120, 127, 128, 151 115, 119 100, 101, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 126, 130, 151 101 101, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 125, 130, 151, 285 110, 115, 119 100, 101, 115, 117, 119, 121 100, 115, 116, 119, 120, 121 101, 102, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 151 124, 126, 152 125 102, 117, 118, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130, 151, 285 110, 126, 128, 130 127, 204 125, 204 204 102, 124, 125, 126, 127, 140, 204 99, 172 99, 100, 129, 139, 152, 432 99, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 144, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152 133 132 134, 136 99, 130, 132, 136, 138, 139, 172 130 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137, 139, 140, 152 137 135, 138, 433 130, 135, 137, 138, 139, 151, 172 137

570 2:4 2:5 2:6–11 2:6–10 2:6–8 2:6 2:7–10 2:7–8 2:7 2:8–9 2:8 2:9–11 2:9–10 2:9 2:10 2:11 2:12–3:20 2:12–29 2:12–16

2:12–13 2:12

2:13–16 2:13–14 2:13 2:14–16 2:14–15

index of references 130, 132, 133, 135, 138, 139 100, 130, 135, 137, 138, 139, 150, 276, 284, 290 100, 141, 142, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 160 145 143 100, 142, 144, 145, 149, 150 145 144, 148, 149 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150 99, 100, 148, 149, 150, 284, 290 99, 100, 142, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150 142 100, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 149 99, 100, 142, 143, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 152, 178 100, 142, 143, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 436 100, 142, 144, 145, 148, 149 153, 155, 210, 213, 432 132, 155, 156, 191 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 169, 170, 174, 175 157, 162 99, 155, 157, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 170, 173, 174, 175, 185, 197, 204, 210, 226, 247, 330, 432 160 161, 179 157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 205, 210, 211 157, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166 166, 181, 205

2:14 2:15–16 2:15 2:16 2:17–29 2:17–25 2:17–24 2:17–20 2:17 2:18 2:19–20 2:19 2:20 2:21–24 2:21–22 2:21 2:22 2:23–24 2:23 2:24 2:25–29 2:25–27 2:25 2:26–29 2:26–27 2:26 2:27–29 2:27 2:28–29 2:28 2:29 3 3:1–20 3:1–18 3:1–9 3:1–8

109, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 164, 179, 211, 352 157, 161, 162, 163 157, 161, 163, 164 155, 157, 162, 163 132, 195, 203, 210 132, 183 156, 163, 167, 168, 170, 172, 173, 210 172, 191 99, 132, 168, 170, 171, 172, 174, 182, 183, 185, 278, 283 168, 170, 171, 172, 174 170, 172, 174 168, 170, 173, 178 168 172 171, 172, 174 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174 110, 168, 173 172, 174 168, 169, 170, 171, 173, 210, 278, 283 168, 171, 173 156, 159, 162, 163, 176, 177, 180, 183, 184, 191 178, 179, 182 75, 99, 162, 173, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 191, 210 177, 178 177, 179, 181, 183, 184, 205 163, 177, 178, 179, 211 177, 196 163, 177, 210 177, 180, 182, 183, 184 177, 180 177, 178, 179, 180, 383 177, 290 155, 185 207, 211 207 155, 156, 185, 187, 188, 190, 195, 200, 203, 207, 208, 232

index of references 3:1 3:2–3 3:2 3:3–8 3:3–4 3:3 3:4 3:5–8 3:5–6 3:5 3:6 3:7–8 3:7 3:8 3:9–20 3:9–10 3:9 3:10–18 3:10 3:11 3:12–13 3:12 3:13–18 3:13 3:14 3:15–17 3:15 3:16 3:17 3:18 3:19–20 3:19 3:20–22 3:20 3:21–5:11

39, 155, 187, 188, 189, 191, 196, 202, 203, 207, 248 188, 213 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 195, 208, 210 191, 209 187, 192 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 194, 195, 197, 208 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 208, 380 188, 193, 197, 203, 209 187 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 197, 208, 226, 284 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 195 187, 188, 189, 190, 192 187, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 208, 210 187, 189, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 202 155, 156, 198, 202, 203, 208 147, 203 39, 178, 200, 202, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 221, 248, 284, 367 200, 201, 204, 208, 210 200, 204, 206 200, 204, 365 201 200, 204, 206 200, 201, 204, 207 200, 201, 204 201 200, 204 200 200, 204 200, 201, 204 201, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 227, 433 200, 204, 205, 206, 208 225 200, 205, 206, 225, 227, 230, 262, 299, 355, 366, 380 440

3:21–4:25 3:21–31 3:21–26

3:21–22 3:21 3:22–24 3:22 3:23–24 3:23 3:24–26 3:24 3:25–26 3:25 3:26 3:27–31 3:27–30 3:27–28 3:27 3:28–30 3:28 3:29–30 3:29 3:30 3:31 4 4:1–25 4:1–8 4:1–3 4:1 4:2–8 4:2–3

571 213, 215, 270, 289, 290, 425 215, 216, 217, 249 214, 215, 218, 220, 224, 229, 234, 235, 237, 239, 247, 271, 284, 395, 402, 433, 434, 440, 441, 442, 443 213, 214, 219, 223, 225, 227, 228, 229, 235, 239, 254, 270 153, 213, 214, 217, 222, 225, 229, 236 271 214, 215, 217, 218, 220, 221, 228, 229, 236, 239 226, 227, 228, 229 217, 226, 283, 284 270 215, 217, 218, 222, 223, 226, 228, 307, 436 217, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228 215, 217, 218, 219, 223, 226, 227, 228, 272 91, 215, 217, 223, 227, 435 214, 215, 231, 232, 234, 237, 238, 239, 245, 248, 271 245 233, 236, 246, 271 39, 232, 234, 235, 237, 278, 283, 370 254 177, 214, 215, 237, 232, 233, 235 233, 237, 271 178, 232, 235, 236 91, 215, 232, 236 232, 233, 236, 237, 245, 271, 380 177, 245, 271, 273, 290, 434 215, 240 214, 215, 240, 242, 245, 248, 249, 255, 256, 271 242, 248 39, 207, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249 246 221, 247, 248

572 4:2 4:3 4:4–8 4:4–6 4:4–5 4:4 4:5 4:6–8 4:6 4:7–8 4:7 4:8 4:9–25 4:9–12 4:9–10 4:9 4:10 4:10–12 4:11–12 4:11 4:12 4:13–25 4:13–22 4:13–16 4:13 4:14 4:15 4:16 4:17–25 4:17–23 4:17–22 4:17–21 4:17 4:18–21 4:18 4:19–20 4:19 4:20–21 4:20 4:21 4:22–24 4:22–23 4:22

index of references 215, 242, 243, 246, 278, 283 177, 214, 242, 243, 246 246, 247 242 246, 248, 249, 263 215, 242, 436 177, 242, 243 242, 246, 271 177, 214, 242, 244, 247, 249 248, 252 215, 242, 243, 248, 330 177, 242, 244, 248 271 214, 215, 245, 246, 250, 251, 255, 256, 271 254, 255 177, 215, 251, 252, 255, 256 251, 253, 254, 255 215 251, 253, 254, 255, 256 91, 177, 214, 251, 253, 255, 268 251, 253, 255 214, 215, 257, 259, 267, 268 245 259, 261, 266, 270 91, 259, 261, 267, 268 259, 261, 262 259, 263 215, 259, 262, 263, 266, 268, 271, 436 261 262 259, 263, 266, 268 260, 268 259, 262, 263, 264, 266, 268, 268 264 259, 260, 261, 264, 266, 268 264, 266 259, 261, 264, 267, 268 259, 268 259, 261, 264, 268 259, 267, 268 260 259 177, 259, 265, 268

4:23–5:11 4:23–25 4:23–24 4:23 4:24–25 4:24 4:25 5 5:1–8:30 5:1–21 5:1–11

5:1–3 5:1–2 5:1 5:2–5 5:2–3 5:2 5:3–5 5:3 5:4 5:5 5:6–10 5:6–8 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:9–11 5:9–10 5:9 5:10–11 5:10

288 265, 268, 271 259 177, 259, 268 260, 262, 273, 395, 402 177, 215, 259, 261, 265, 265, 268 215, 259, 265, 268, 270, 271, 283, 324, 423 221, 265, 272, 273, 274, 307, 308, 343, 430, 431, 441, 442, 443 423, 424 322, 441 274, 276, 278, 280, 281, 282, 286, 288, 289, 290, 298, 304, 306, 382, 415, 417, 424, 430, 440, 442 277, 280, 281, 282, 286, 288, 298 274, 281, 283, 307 39, 91, 274, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 282, 283, 286, 288, 424, 434, 436 286 281, 286 274, 276, 277, 278, 282, 283, 287, 301, 307, 308, 424, 432 281, 282, 288 276, 278, 283, 284, 288, 424 276, 424, 440 276, 277, 283, 284, 286, 287, 383, 424, 429 281, 282, 435 281, 283, 284, 286, 287, 288, 395, 402, 424 276, 277, 278, 281, 287, 308, 424 276, 277, 281, 283, 287 276, 277, 278, 281, 287, 308, 424 274, 280, 281, 282, 286, 288, 298, 308 278, 280, 281, 284, 287, 288, 308, 440 274, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 284, 285, 423, 424, 434 281, 287, 434 270, 276, 277, 278, 282, 285, 324, 424, 432, 434, 436

index of references 5:11 5:12–8:39 5:12–21

5:12–14 5:12 5:13–14 5:13 5:14 5:15–21 5:15–17 5:15–18 5:15 5:16–17 5:16 5:17 5:18–21 5:18–19 5:18 5:19 5:20–21 5:20 5:21 6–8 6–7 6 6:1–7:25 6:1–7:6 6:1–14

6:1–11

274, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 283, 286, 298 431, 436, 440, 442 15, 274, 291, 293, 296, 298, 304, 306, 307, 308, 314, 316, 322, 324, 325, 343, 350, 367, 378, 382, 401, 430, 436, 437, 439, 441, 442 302, 350, 351, 367 293, 294, 295, 298, 302, 304, 306, 343, 436 270, 293, 299, 306 110, 263, 293, 299, 301, 302, 307, 436 293, 294, 295, 299, 300, 301, 302 436 293, 299 302, 306 48, 270, 293, 294, 295, 298, 299, 300, 302, 303, 306 293, 294, 300 48, 270, 293, 294, 298, 299, 301, 302, 303, 393, 410 270, 274, 293, 294, 295, 300, 301, 302, 303, 434 293, 302, 306 293, 299 274, 293, 294, 298, 300, 301, 302, 393 274, 293, 294, 295, 298, 300, 301, 302 293, 310, 329, 351, 367, 379, 381 270, 293, 294, 295, 301, 303, 307, 316, 325, 436, 438 274, 293, 294, 295, 298, 301, 302, 304, 367, 437 273, 437, 441, 442 350, 359, 367, 400, 438 410 310, 382 310, 368, 378 270, 280, 310, 313, 314, 316, 321, 323, 324, 325, 342, 343, 368, 379, 381, 437, 438, 439 323

6:1–4 6:1 6:2–14 6:2–4 6:2 6:3–11 6:3–4 6:3 6:4 6:5–11 6:5–7 6:5–6 6:5 6:6–7 6:6 6:7 6:8–11 6:8 6:9–10 6:9 6:10–11 6:10 6:11–14 6:11–13 6:11 6:12–23 6:12–14 6:12–13 6:12 6:13 6:14–15 6:14 6:15–7:6 6:15–23 6:15

573 313 39, 207, 248, 313, 316, 320, 322, 323, 358, 379, 436 323 322 313, 315, 316, 317, 318, 320 322, 339 317, 320 313, 315, 321, 333, 335, 359, 371, 372, 379 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 320, 321 313, 323 313, 317, 318, 319, 320, 322 321 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 320, 321 318 313, 314, 321 313, 315, 316, 321 313, 317, 318, 322 313, 315, 316, 318, 319, 320, 321 318, 320 313, 314, 315, 318 319, 323 313, 314, 315, 316, 318 313, 322, 323 322 313, 315, 316, 318, 320, 321, 380 323 313, 322, 323 318, 323 313, 315, 316, 319, 320, 321, 323, 380, 437 313, 314, 315, 316, 319, 320, 323, 380, 439 367 313, 314, 318, 319, 320, 330, 334, 351, 379, 436 310, 329, 330, 333, 334, 340, 342, 343, 379, 381 329, 330, 332, 333, 343, 368, 381, 437, 438 207, 248, 310, 323, 329, 330, 333, 334, 337, 339, 340, 342, 358, 359, 379, 436, 437, 438

574 6:16–23 6:16 6:17–23 6:17–18 6:17 6:18 6:19–23 6:19 6:20–23 6:20 6:21–23 6:21 6:22 6:23 7–8 7 7:1–25 7:1–6

7:1–3 7:1–2 7:1 7:2 7:3 7:4 7:5–6 7:5 7:6–20 7:6 7:7–8:39 7:7–25

7:7–13 7:7–12 7:7

index of references 334, 335, 340, 341, 342, 379 329, 334, 335, 336, 337, 340, 341, 371, 372, 379 335 335, 336, 340 329, 335, 341, 343, 436 329, 367 336, 340 329, 336, 343, 380, 393 336 329, 341 335 313, 329, 343 329, 331, 341, 343, 367, 393, 439 73, 329, 330 439 378 330, 332, 333, 334, 337, 340, 341, 342, 343, 351, 368, 379, 380, 381, 437, 438 329, 331, 338, 339, 379 336 329, 330, 333, 339, 340, 359, 371, 372 329, 339, 342 329, 338, 341, 342 329, 331, 338, 339, 342, 343, 439, 442 329, 339, 383, 438 205, 329, 339, 340, 343, 348, 353, 355, 356, 358, 360, 366, 367, 379 393 178, 329, 331, 339, 340, 343, 358, 366, 367, 383, 394, 401, 429, 437, 439 437, 440 270, 310, 339, 346, 348, 349, 359, 366, 368, 369, 378, 380, 382, 383, 391, 393, 394, 396, 427, 438, 441 358, 359, 365 236, 346, 351, 359, 360, 364, 370, 374, 376, 378, 379, 381 39, 207, 248, 310, 346, 350, 352, 354, 355, 357, 358, 359, 360, 366, 379

7:8–11 7:8–10 7:8–9 7:8 7:9–11 7:9 7:10 7:11 7:12 7:13–25

7:13 7:14-Romans 8 7:14–25 7:14–17 7:14 7:15–18 7:15–16 7:15 7:16 7:17–25 7:17–20 7:17 7:18–21 7:18–20 7:18–19 7:18 7:19–25 7:19–20 7:19 7:20 7:21–25 7:21–23 7:21

350, 357, 358, 359, 371 350 350, 355, 356, 357 346, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358 356 346, 348, 349, 351, 352, 354, 355, 356 346, 354, 358, 360 346, 350, 354, 355, 356, 361 346, 356, 358, 359, 360, 379 347, 361, 364, 366, 367, 368, 370, 371, 376, 378, 380, 381, 400, 401 310, 359, 364, 373, 374, 376, 380 365 350, 352, 365, 368, 371, 372 372 359, 364, 366, 367, 371, 372, 374, 375, 376, 379 371 352, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376 364, 370 364, 370, 372 373 371, 372, 373, 374, 376 364, 370, 372, 374, 375 352 372 372 205, 364, 366, 370, 371, 372, 374 371 374, 375 364, 370 364, 370, 372, 374 372, 374, 376, 378 369 364, 369, 370, 372, 375

index of references 7:22–23 7:22 7:23 7:24–25 7:24 7:25 8 8:1–39 8:1–30 8:1–17

8:1–4 8:1 8:2–4 8:2 8:3–4 8:3 8:4–11 8:4 8:5–17 8:5–11 8:5–6 8:5 8:6–7 8:6 8:7–8 8:7 8:8 8:9–17 8:9–11 8:9–10 8:9 8:10

373, 394 364, 365, 371 364, 366, 369, 375 366, 374 364, 375 205, 364, 366, 369, 371, 373, 375, 393, 394, 436, 439 310, 358, 423, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443 383, 427, 429, 430, 438, 441 426, 429, 441 310, 351, 366, 367, 368, 381, 383, 384, 387, 391, 393, 397, 400, 401, 402, 408, 415, 427, 429, 430 391, 392 310, 383, 387, 388, 392, 393, 399, 400, 401, 429, 439 236, 393 348, 383, 387, 388, 393, 394, 398, 400, 401 394 204, 205, 348, 387, 388, 390, 391, 394, 399, 401, 402, 439 397 383, 387, 395, 398, 429 391 395 391, 392, 397, 398 383, 387, 395, 397, 398 436 383, 387, 388, 395, 397 387, 388, 392, 395, 397, 399, 442 365, 387 387 387 392, 395, 397, 398, 399 398 383, 387, 388, 395, 396, 398, 399, 400, 429 283, 387, 388, 396, 398

8:11 8:12–13 8:12 8:13 8:14–17 8:14–15 8:14 8:15 8:16 8:17 8:18–30

8:18 8:19–22 8:19–21 8:19 8:20–21 8:20 8:21–22 8:21 8:22 8:23–25 8:23 8:24–25 8:24 8:25 8:26–30 8:26 8:26–27 8:27 8:28–30 8:28 8:29–30 8:29

575 87, 383, 387, 388, 396, 398, 399 392 387, 396 383, 387, 388, 398 391, 392, 397, 398, 399, 402, 429, 442 398 383, 387, 388, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 429 383, 387, 388, 396, 397, 398, 399 383, 387, 388, 390, 396, 398, 399 383, 387, 388, 391, 396, 398, 399, 406, 410, 413, 415, 416 383, 403, 405, 407, 410, 414, 415, 416, 417, 423, 424, 429, 430 405, 408, 409, 414, 415, 416, 424 406, 407, 410, 430 434 405, 408, 409, 416 410 405, 406, 408, 416, 424 410 405, 406, 408, 409, 410, 414, 416, 424 405, 408, 410, 416, 433 406, 407, 411, 416 383, 405, 406, 408, 409, 411, 414, 416 411 405, 409, 424 405, 408, 424 411 383, 405, 407, 411, 415, 416 406, 407, 424, 429 383, 405, 406, 407, 411, 412 406, 407, 412, 413, 415 405, 406, 409, 412, 413, 423 406, 407, 409, 413, 423 405, 406, 416, 424

576 8:30 8:31–39 8:31–35 8:31–34 8:31 8:32 8:33–34 8:33 8:34 8:35–39 8:35–37 8:35–36 8:35 8:36 8:37 8:38–39 8:38 8:39 9–11 9:1 9:8 9:14 9:24 9:30 10:10 10:12 11:17–24 13:8–10 16:17–20 16:26 1 Corinthians 1:22 1:23 1:24 2:10 7:1 7:25 8:1 8:4 9:10 9:20 10:32 11:16

index of references 405, 416, 422, 423, 430 280, 383, 418, 419, 420, 422, 424, 425, 426, 427, 429, 430 420 422, 423, 426 207, 248, 419, 420, 422, 424, 426, 427 419, 420, 423, 424, 425 419, 424 419, 420, 422, 423, 424 419, 420, 422, 424, 427, 429 422, 424, 426, 429 424 419, 420, 422, 423, 424, 426, 427 419, 424 419, 420, 422, 424, 426, 427 420, 424 419, 422, 426 24, 419, 420, 424, 425, 426, 427 351 24 177 207, 248 178 91, 207, 248 91 178 47 236 5 343 178 178 178 78 36 36 36 36 78 178, 353, 367 178 74

12:1 12:13 12:30 14:1–5 14:1 14:5 14:20 16:1 16:12

36 178 411 40 40 40 37 36 36

2 Corinthians 3:6 4:16 5:18–19 5:19 11:3 11:24

178 365 282 177 350 178

Galatians 2:13 2:14 2:15 2:20 3–4 3:1–4:11 3:6 3:10 3:11 3:17 3:21 3:22 3:23 3:25 3:28 4:2 4:3 4:4–5 4:4 4:21 5:18

178 178 178 81, 82 350 552 177 367 107 350 14 367 367 367 178 367 367 14 14 367 367

Ephesians 2:1–10 2:11–12 2:13 3:16 6:1–9 6:1 6:4 6:5 6:9

79 79 79 365 37 37 37 37 37

Philippians 1:19

10, 11

index of references 3 3:3 3:6 3:7 3:9 4:1–20

178 178 348, 349, 352 74 74 19

Colossians 1:20 3:11

281 178

Titus 2:1–10 2:1 2:11–14 2:11

44 79 44 43

Philemon 4–7 4 5 6 7 13 20 21

46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46

1 John 2:12–14 2:12

47 47

2:13 2:14 Revelation 1:10 2–3 2:1–7 2:7 2:8–11 2:11 2:12–17 2:17 2:18–29 2:29 3:1–6 3:6 3:7–13 3:13 3:14–22 3:22 4:1 5:1 6:1 7:1 13:1 14:6 14:14 15:1 16:1 18:1

577 47 47 36 35, 39 35 40 35 40 35 40 35 40 35 40 35 40 35 40 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Wisdom of Solomon 10:5 349 11:15–12:2 133 11:17 133 11:23 133 12–15 132 12:10 133 12:19 132 15:1–2 132 15:1–6 110 18:21 349

4 Maccabees 17:21–22

222

Jubilees 1:20–21

179

Odes of Solomon 11:1–3

179

Other Classical Sources Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.18 § 178

352

Philo Gaius 16 § 115 Gaius 31 § 210

352 352

578

index of references

Cicero Inv. 1.99–100 Pat. or. 55 Pat. or. 57 De or. 3.205 Or. Brut. 85 Or. Brut. 138 Top. 45

348 348 348 348 348 348 348

Demetrius Eloc. 265–266 Rhet. Her. 4.66

348 348

Epictetus Diss. 1.12

348

Euripides Medea

352

Hermoes Prog. 9.1–43

348

Quintilian Inst. 1.8.3 Inst. 3.8.49–54 Inst. 4.1.28 Inst. 4.1.69 Inst. 6:1 Inst. 6.1.3 Inst. 6.1.25–27 Inst. 9.2.29–39 Inst. 11.1.39–41

348 348 348 348 348 348 348 348 348

Theon Prog. 2.115.11–118.5

348