I've been reading through Romans recently and looking over Thomas Tobin's book Paul's Rhetoric in its Context: The Argument of Romans. Tobin (p. 427) makes a good point that Romans 8 and 9-11 should be grouped together as one section since they both focus on eschatology (where most commentators link chapters 5-8 and 9-11).
Even so, I'm inclined to see 8.1-17 more concerned with a pneumatically drive ethic apart from law observance, so I think that 8.1-17 really lates back to chs. 6-7 with the focus on righteous living apart from strict law observance. I would be willing to posit 8.18-39 as a kind of bridging section that enables Paul to move from ethics to eschatological hope to the problem of Israel's continuing unbelief. The link between chaps 8-9 is quite natural. Afterall, Israel's failure to embrace her Messiah might lead one to question Paul's confidense in divine faithfulness in 8.18-39 since God's faithfulness apparently did not bring Israel to salvation. Thus, 9-11 obviously address the salvation-historical problem of Israel's rejection and Gentile inclusion; but it is also an apology for the fidelity of God's eschatological promises (i.e. 8.18-39) in light of Israel's failure to believe.
Just my thoughts on the matter!
8:18-39 as a janus is excellent, superb in fact. (Though 8:17 and 18 are hard to drive apart.) Write an article on it.
ReplyDeleteI smell again here NTW's point, that the question of Israel is always a question of God's purposes for the cosmos. How will he reconcile the cosmos? (8:18-39) Suprisingly, and even sorrowfully for Paul, through the pruning of Israel (11:15)-- yet with the hope of even fuller cosmic reconciliation and redemption in the influx/fullness of the salvation of God's people... (11:12)...
I was about to say that exact thing, J.B. Hood!
ReplyDeleteMike (and others), what do you think of Neil Elliot's rhetorical treatment of Romans?
ReplyDeleteit is slightly related to the topic...