Posted by Ray Kidder on 6/9/2009, 9:56 pm, in reply to "Re: Some implications"
98.204.216.96
Jim,
You wrote:
"+Wright suggests strongly that the second chapter falls outside the actual letter. Sanders seems to think it was a sermon, probably by Paul, that was a scribal insertion. If that is so, we have to be a bit careful about conclusions between 2 and 3. I am not saying you are wrong, merely that care is a good idea."
I assume you were thinking of this section that starts near the bottom of the first page of the linked web page from N.T. Wright:
"The second reason for the neglect of Romans 2 is that, even where the consensus has been challenged, the challenge has not so far penetrated as far as a fresh contextual exegesis of the chapter. Notoriously, Sanders in Paul, the Law and the Jewish People declared that the passage was not a legitimate part of Paul’s argument; it was an old synagogue sermon, with minimal Christian updating. I suspect that Sanders here said out loud what a lot of exegetes have thought privately, but it still comes as something of a shock to be told that the [132] second chapter in a major theological letter must be put in brackets. My hunch is that Sanders’ reforms in Pauline studies have not yet, in fact, gone far enough; that, when they are taken further, there will be more room for a chastened Protestant exegesis than is currently imagined, either by Sanders or his Lutheran objectors; and that Romans 2, for so long the Achilles heel of schemes on Paul and the Law, may make a vital contribution to some eventual solutions, both to the theological questions which surround all of Paul’s writings and, of course, to the exegesis of Romans itself."
If chapter 2 was not part of the original epistle to the Romans, then this is how the Epistle reads when jumping directly from Chapter 1 to chapter 3 (NKJV):
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?
2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.
3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect?
4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:
“ That You may be justified in Your words,
And may overcome when You are judged.”
5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.)
6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?
7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?
8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.
By removing chapter 2, I get the impression that St. Paul would be omitting the usefulness and importance of repentance, which is mentioned at various other places in the New Testament. Without chapter 2, we still find in this passage (in chapter 3, verses 7 and 8) that those who persist in doing evil (without repentance) receive a just condemnation. How can there be justified person who persists in doing evil unto their condemnation?
Removing Romans 2 does not seem to make the epistle easier to understand. Also, N.T. Wright mentioned his belief that St. Paul was referring to gentile Christians in Romans 2, which means that N.T. Wright considered St. Paul the author of Romans 2; right? N.T. Wright wrote:
"One of the comparatively few points agreed on by those two great modern commentators on Romans, Charles Cranfield and Ernst Käsemann, is that this line of thought is wrong. Paul here speaks of Christian Gentiles. In fact, I think this is the easiest point to prove of all the contentious things I wish to argue about Romans 2, and this is why I have started with this paragraph. Out of the numerous arguments that have run back and forth, I select the following as particularly important."
Ray Kidder
Message Thread:
« Back to thread