The Study of
the Scriptures
Session 14, Wednesday 21 October 2015
Faith Baptist Fellowship Church
Lake Ariel, PA
Romans 7 Considered
in Context and Covenant
Outline:
I. A
Classification of the Views of the Identity and Nature of the Subject in Romans
7
II.
Introductory Considerations for Analyzing the Relative Merit of Views on Romans
7
III.
Romans 7 in the Diatribe of Romans
IV. Romans 7-8;
Jeremiah 31; and Ezekiel 36 —
The Explication
of the Fulfillment of the New Covenant Promise of Jeremiah 31:33 in Romans
7:7-25 as Unpacking Romans 2:15; and The Explication of the Fulfillment of the
New Covenant Promise of Ezekiel 36:26-27 in Romans 8:1-27 as Unpacking Romans
2:26, 29
V. An Outline of
Romans: Paul’s Defense of the Gospel of
the Administration of the New Covenant During the Inter-Advent Period
VI.
Select Resources
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them
that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he
liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but
if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be
called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so
that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore,
my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye
should be married to another, even to
him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the
law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead
wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is
the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin,
but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt
not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in
me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9 For I was alive
without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which
was ordained to life, I found to be
unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived
me, and by it slew me. 12 Wherefore
the law is holy, and the commandment
holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid.
But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good;
that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 14 For we
know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For
that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate,
that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto
the law that it is good. 17 Now
then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For
I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will
is present with me; but how to
perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would
I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do
that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22
For I delight in the law of God after the
inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring
against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin
which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall
deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I
thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve
the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Questions to be considered in studying “Romans 7
Considered in Context and Covenant”
1. What is there about Romans 7 that is not inspired
since not included in the original manuscripts?
2. What is the nature of Romans 1-11? Specifically, what
type of literary format is Paul following that distinguishes these chapters in
this epistle from his other epistles?
3. What contexts should be considered when studying
Romans 7?
4. What major parts of Romans 7 should be observed, and
how do they relate to one another?
5. Why is this chapter such a problem and source of
disagreement for so many Bible students?
6. What is almost entirely neglected in studies of Romans
7, and, in fact, of the entire book of Romans?
7. What would you consider to be the key verse in Romans
7 for testing the legitimacy of the various views that have been put forth for
who is in view here?
I. A Classification of the Views of the Identity and Nature of the
Subject in Romans 7
All of the views on this
chapter may not be subsumed under the tags “regenerate” versus “unregenerate.”
A thorough reading of Moo and Schreiner on this passage, for example, should
serve to disabuse any of the notion that all of the work on this passage in the
history of the Church may be laid under those two banners. See Doug Moo, Romans
1-8, Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary, pp. 433-499; and The Epistle
to the Romans, NICNT, pp. 409-467; and Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans,
BECNT, pp. 343-394. Complicating this question concerning the spiritual
condition of the subject is the identity of the “I” under discussion, the first
person singular. This has been seen variously as Paul, Israel, Adam in the
Garden, the “Adam” in all of us, existential, personal, typical, corporate,
fictive, a rhetorical figure of speech with no autobiographical reference (W.
G. Kummel, 1929), and even combinations of these. Cranfield distinguishes “at
least seven possibilities.” Romans, ICC, I:344. Therefore,
some would well ask, “Regenerate or unregenerate who?” Or, even, “Why not all
of the above?”
Please understand that not
all who survey the literature agree with categorizing specific authors under
the following categories. There are especially some differences of opinion with
the placement of those under views 2 and 3 below.
1. The regenerate man - “an
important aspect of normal Christian experience” (Moo) - “...the Latin
Fathers generally, the Reformers especially on the Calvinistic side...” (Sanday
and Headlam, Romans, ICC, pg. 185), Ambrose, Ambrosiaster,
Aquinas, Augustine's later view, Barrett, Karl Barth, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof,
G. C. Berkouwer, F. F. Bruce, John Calvin, D. H. Campbell, C. E.
B. Cranfield, Dockery, J. D. G. Dunn, Espy, James Fraser, Fung, D. B.
Garlington, William Hendriksen, Charles Hodge, Laato, R. C. H. Lenski, Martin
Luther, Methodius, Philip Melancthon, Leon Morris, Mounce, John Murray, Anders
Nygren, J. I. Packer, John G. Reisinger, Alan F. Segal, and D. Wenham
- see Cranfield, Romans,
ICC, I:345-346; Moo, Romans 1-8, Wycliffe Exegetical
Commentary, pg. 473; The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, pg. 447; Murray, Romans,
NICNT, pp. 256-257; Schreiner, Romans, BECNT, pg. 379.
2. The unregenerate man -
most of the early Church Father's (“Origen and the mass of Greek Fathers” -
Sanday and Headlam, Romans, ICC, pg. 184), Michael W. Adams,
Paul Achtemeier, Augustine's early view, C. H. Dodd, Frederic Godet, Hans
Hubner, Robert Jewett, Franz Leenhardt, Heikki Raisanen, Sanday and Headlam,
Geoff Volker, and John Wesley.
3. The in
between/halfway/pre-regenerate/pre-Christian man - Althaus, J. C.
Beker, J. A. Bengel, Bornkamm, Bultmann, Byrne, D. Davies, Gordon Fee, J. A.
Fitzmeyer, A. H. Francke, E. Fuchs, Gundry, Hoekema, Ernst Kasemann, K.
Kertelge, Kummel, Kuss, Jan Lambrecht, D. M. Lloyd-Jones, B. L. Martin, P.
Meyer, Douglas Moo, Herman Ridderbos, Schnackenburg, Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerd
Theissen, Ulrich Wilckens, and J. T. Ziesler
- see esp. Thomas R.
Schreiner, Romans, BECNT, pp. 384-385, note 22; also Moo, Romans
1-8, Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary, pg. 470; The Epistle to the
Romans, NICNT, pg. 444.
4. “...any man, whether
regenerate or unregenerate, who relies upon the law and his own efforts for
sanctification.” -
W. H. Griffith-Thomas, et al.
- see Murray, Romans,
NICNT, pp. 256-257, note 19; also Moo, Romans 1-8, Wycliffe
Exegetical Commentary, pg. 474; and The Epistle to the Romans,
NICNT, pg. 447.
5. “a refinement of
Kümmel’s position” - a “parody of existence under the Torah” - Gary S. Shogren.
II. Introductory Considerations for
Analyzing the Relative Merit of Views on Romans 7
Many exegetes and expositors seem well aware of the
problems with Romans 7, along with the pros and cons of the arguments for the
various views. However, there still appear to be significant factors which are
not being considered that should shed light on a solution.
1. There were no chapter divisions in the
original epistle, and their presence may obscure the seamless flow of the
Pauline teaching.
2. The nature of the majority of the epistle is
a diatribe, indeed, the greatest document utilizing this style of writing ever
produced. Consideration must be given to where this diatribe format begins and
ends in the epistle, and what is involved with the progressions in the
development of the diatribe.
3. Many readers would be quite comfortable if
chapter 7 was not there. In other words, if they were to read from 6:23
immediately to 8:1, they would not experience any traumatic “hiccup” in their
reading. If the truth were told there are some who might admit they wish that
this chapter either were not there at all, or were somewhere else in the
epistle. A consideration of both the contents and location of the chapter
followed by a consideration of its absence would be in order to answer the
following question: “What effect would the lack of chapter 7 have on the
development of the Pauline diatribe?
4. It might not be unfair, in other words, it
may be quite fair to assert that many conclusions are drawn concerning chapter
7 without connecting it to the previous chapter, or to what follows in the next
chapter.
5. It might be necessary for some to consider
that the bridge between chapter 7 and chapter 6 is found in 7:1-6. This
transitional paragraph and its function in the context between the end of
chapter 6 and then what follows in 7:7-8:1 is an important key for
understanding what develops next as Paul places the next point of his diatribe
on “the table.” 7:1-6 should not be disconnected from either what precedes or
what follows. Understanding this in an exegetically tenable manner should make
it very difficult indeed to see what is going on in 7:7-25 as foreign to either
the flow of chapter 6 or chapter 8.
6. This seamless flow in the Pauline diatribe between
at least chapters 6 and chapter 8, or perhaps 5:12 to 8:39 — or 3:21 to 8:39 — is
often ignored, or dismissed in treatments of chapter 7.
7. The regenerate are understood as in view from
3:21 on at least to the end of chapter 6, and then again in chapter 8. It
should be beyond argument that what is found in 7:1-6 is also distinctive of
the normal Christian or regenerate person. Therefore, to imagine that Paul is
now going to revert to what was already dealt with in 1:18-3:20 should neither
be expected nor imagined. The burden of proof would then be on anyone considering
that the person in view in chapter 7 is not identical to those in view in
chapters 6 and 8.
8. One glaring failure at this point is to even
entertain any notion that this has anything to do with the New Covenant. The
very function of the book of Romans in Scripture, positioned providentially as
it is following the book of Acts, is to answer questions regarding the nature
of the Gospel of the New Covenant raised by in Acts. Romans lays a foundation
for the rest of the New Testament, and indeed for the rest of the inter-Advent
period, in unpacking how the New
Covenant promises and
prophecies are to be fulfilled. While this may be more implicit than explicit,
that was also the case often in the exposition of the Old Covenant by the
prophets from Moses to Christ. The Covenant is woven through the warp and the
woof of their preaching and teaching, and is understood as the foundation for
it. So it is with the New Covenant and the Pauline epistles, especially Romans.
9. Chapter 2 of Romans is not often considered
when it comes to how chapters 7 and 8 relate to one another. What is introduced
for another reason early in the diatribe in Romans 2:15 is then unpacked in
Romans 7. What is introduced in Romans 2:26 and 29 is then unpacked in Romans
8. The two sides of the coin concerning the reality of New Covenant Gentiles in
Romans 2 becomes the two sides of the same coin for all regenerate believers in
Romans 7 and 8 as exemplifying two aspects of normal Christianity in the
fulfillment of the New Covenant promises and prophecies.
III. Romans 7 in the Diatribe of
Romans 1-11
“Schaeffer pointed out that, until
recently, Romans was studied in American law schools in order to teach students
the art of presenting an argument. A reasoned case is made for a foundational
proposition. Counter statements are considered one by one, and refuted. Romans
is not about a leap of faith but presents a comprehensive argument for the
central proposition...”
1. Key indicators of the style known as diatribe
1. “Diatribal pronominal expressions” —
Dialogue with “an imaginary interlocutor,” in the
second-person singular, — an “…authorial device of turning from the audience to
an imaginary individual….known in Paul’s time as speech-in-character.” This
“turning from the audience” is referred to as an “apostrophe,” and in the
diatribe style is often introduced by addressing the fictitious person in the
vocative, e.g., “O man” (Rom. 2:1).
2. Rhetorical questions, especially when responded to
with μὴ γένοιτο (“mē genoito”) as in
3:4, 6, 31; 6:2, 16; 7:7, 13; 9:14; 11:1, 11 —
Translations of this expression:
AV: “God forbid.”
NASB: “May it never be!”
ESV: “By no means!”
HCSB: “Absolutely not!”
NIV: “Not at all!”
NLT: “Of course not!”
NKJV: “Certainly not!”
Other examples of this expression in a diatribal style:
1 Cor. 6:15 — Know ye not that your bodies are the
members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the
members of an harlot? God forbid.
Gal. 2:17 — But if, while we seek to be justified by
Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister
of sin? God forbid.
Gal. 3:21 — Is the law then against the promises of God?
God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life,
verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Usages of this expression in a non-diatribal style is
found in Lk. 20:16 and Gal. 6:14.
2. Sources on Diatribe and Paul’s use of diatribe
style in Romans
C. K. Barrett, A
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Harper’s New Testament
Commentaries, gen. ed. Henry Chadwick (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), pp.
43, 61, 86, 121, 140, 172, 185-186, 218.
A. J. Malherbe, “MH ΓENOITO in the Diatribe and Paul,” Harvard Theological Review 73:1-2
(JAN-APR 1980), pp. 231-240.
Douglas J. Moo, The
Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament,
gen. eds. Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 14-15, 125-126, 356, 589-590, 600.
Leland Ryken, A Complete Handbook
of Literary Forms in the Bible (Wheaton:
Crossway, 2014), s.v. “Diatribe.”
Leland Ryken, Literary Introductions to the Books of the
Bible (Wheaton: Crossway, 2015).
Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans,
BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), pp.
Steven Coxhead, “The Significance of Paul's Diatribe in
Romans 2” (7 MAR 2010), on
Berith Road
at
http://berithroad.blogspot.com/2010/03/pauls-diatribe-in-romans-2.html
[accessed 19 OCT 2015], pp. 23-25, 24n52, 105-106, 127, 147, 150n6, 200, 247n3,
265-266, 303-304, 358, 472n9, 505, 513, 535, 607n8, 718n13.
Changwon Song, Reading
Romans as a Diatribe, Studies in Biblical Literature 59 (New York: Peter
Lang International Academic Publishers, 2004).
Stanley Kent Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans,
Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 57 (Chico, CA: Scholars
Press, 1981); on Amazon at [accessed 16 OCT
2015].
Stanley K. Stowers (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1997), pp. 11, 15, 100-104, 144-150, 153, 160-175, 231-237.
IV. Romans 7-8; Jeremiah 31; and Ezekiel 36 —
The Explication of the Fulfillment of the New Covenant
Promise of Jeremiah 31:33 in Romans 7:7-25 as Unpacking Romans 2:15; and The
Explication of the Fulfillment of the New Covenant Promise of Ezekiel 36:26-27
in Romans 8:1-27 as Unpacking Romans 2:26, 29
Verses 1-6 of Romans 7
stand together with the marriage and adultery metaphor related to life and
death and spirit and letter. The last two verses, 24-25, set up chapter
8.
A key verse for me — that I
use to set up critiques of how folks handle this chapter — is verse 9, “...when
the commandment came...”
The temporal scenario Paul
sets up is as follows:
1) Sin was dead and I was
alive.
2) the commandment “came.”
3) Sin revived and I died.
The question that must be
addressed is, “When did the commandment come?” One corollary question
that must be asked is, “In what sense could he have been alive prior to the
coming of the commandment?” Then another: “In what sense did he die
subsequent to the “coming of the commandment”? None of the answers I have found
in the standard works satisfy, that is, if they even give consideration to
these questions at all.
I continue to insist
that:
1) He was quite dead in
trespasses and sins prior to the coming of the commandment.
2) His “aliveness” was only
in his ignorance and personal perception, rather than in reality.
3) The commandment “came”
when the Spirit of God wrote it on his heart via regeneration. This would be
seen to be the case especially when the internal nature of the sin of coveting
is considered (vss. 7-8!) coordinate with the nature of the fulfillment of the
New Covenant promise in Jeremiah 31:33.
4) He then “died,” or was
brought to realize his deadness in sin and provoked to cry out to Christ in
faith for deliverance (vss. 24-25). This should be the response of the
repentant believer under conviction of sin throughout the process of
sanctification this side of glory.
I see the development in
verses 7-25 as unpacking Rom. 2:15 regarding the impact of the fulfillment of
the New Covenant promise in Jer. 31:33. Verse 6 sets up the New Covenant
linkage for this development - “newness of spirit, and not in oldness of the
letter” - that is explicitly comparable to 2 Cor. 3. This must be
coordinated with the next chapter, Romans 8, which unpacks Rom. 2:26, 29,
regarding the impact of the fulfillment of the New Covenant promise of Ezek.
36:26-27.
I would suggest that the
goodness, holiness, justness, or spirituality of the Law (7:12, 14) is inherent
regardless of its consequent positive or negative effects. In fact, in
this context it would appear that the intent of the Law is being contrasted to
its consequent effects. The finger of Scripture is tracing out the root of this
contradiction, and pointing at the carnality of the sinner revealed in the
mirror of the Law now inscribed on the heart of the regenerate via the
indwelling Spirit of Christ.
Certain truths that must be
kept in mind as background in order to get this chapter right:
1. The Old Covenant Law
(Mosaic Code) cannot be divided into tripartite “chunks” as in
moral/civil/ceremonial.
2. The Old Covenant
Law (Mosaic Code) in its entirety has been nailed to the Cross, and no longer
has covenantal jurisdiction or significance. That the New Covenant believer no
longer has any covenantal relationship to the Old Covenant Law is explicit in
Romans 7:1-6.
3. The Old Covenant
Law (Mosaic Code) is nevertheless still Scripture, and as such along with all
other Scriptures has just as much profit for the New Covenant believer by way
of doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.
4. The New Covenant
promise of Jer. 31 has been fulfilled, and as Paul makes clear elsewhere (2
Cor. 3) the indwelling Spirit in the regenerate writes the nature of Christ
within.
5. The fulfillments
of the coordinate New Covenant promises of Jer. 31 and Ezek. 36 concerning the
Law and the Spirit must be seen as linked in 2 Cor. 3, and therefore it must be
considered that Rom. 7 and Rom. 8 do the same. Therefore these chapters must
not be contrasted but coordinated.
6. The significance
of verse 9 for getting this section right cannot be overestimated.
7. At the end of the
day what is developed in this middle section of the chapter leading up to the
last two verses has everything to do with the "internalization" of
the lessons of the Law. This cannot be about the “Law out there” as a separate
entity in tablets of stone from the entity of the sinner. Rather, the Law
viewed as: 1) internalized in the Spirit's indwelling, 2) “fleshed” out in
Christ, and, 3) effecting the humbling of the sinner in recognition of his
utter inability due to the absolute failure of the flesh. As such it must be
the ongoing lessons learned and experience of every child of God so long as we
continue to dwell in the flesh this side of resurrection glory.
V. An Outline of Romans: Paul’s Defense of the Gospel of the Administration of the New Covenant
During the Inter-Advent Period
|
Ch
|
Point Concerning or
Promise/Prophecy of the New Covenant
|
O.T. Ref
|
|
1:18-32
|
The world’s need of
the New Covenant
|
|
|
2
|
The Jew’s need of the
New Covenant, with parenthetical mention of Gentiles reception of the
blessings of the New Covenant (2:15, 26, 29)
|
|
|
3:1-20
|
The universal condition
as the basis of the necessity for the New Covenant for reconciliation regardless
of ethnic or national distinctions
|
|
|
3:21-6:23
|
“And they shall teach
no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the
LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of
them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember
their sin no more.”
|
Jer. 31:34
|
|
7
|
“But this shall be
the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days,
saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in
their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
|
Jer. 31:33
|
|
8
|
“A new heart also
will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away
the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And
I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye
shall keep my judgments, and do them.”
|
Ezek. 36:26-27
|
|
9-11
|
“Behold, the days
come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I
made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them
out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an
husband unto them, saith the LORD:….Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun
for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a
light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD
of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the
LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me
for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the
foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the
seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.”
“Nevertheless I will
remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish
unto thee an everlasting covenant. Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be
ashamed, when thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger:
and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant. And I
will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD:
That thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any
more because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou
hast done, saith the Lord GOD.”
|
Jer. 31:31-32, 35-37;
and
Ezek. 16:60-63
(also Ezek. 37)
|
|
12-16
|
“…and will be their
God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his
neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall
all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the
LORD;”
|
Jer. 31:33d-34c
|
VI. Select Resources
Sinclair B. Ferguson, John
Owen on the Christian Life (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth,
1987);
Note: Not currently available
on Christianbook.
Anthony Hoekema, The Christian Looks at
Himself (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975);
Note: Not currently available on Westminster
Books.
David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans
7:1-8:4: The Law, Its Functions and Limits (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth,
1973);
on
Amazon at
http://www.amazon.com/Romans-Functions-Limits-Exposition-Chapter/dp/0851511805/ref=sr_1_1 [accessed
10 AUG 2015];
on
Christianbook at
http://www.christianbook.com/romans-the-law-its-functions-limits/d-lloyd-jones/9780851511801/pd/1511805 [accessed
10 AUG 2015];
on
Westminster Bookstore at
http://www.wtsbooks.com/romans-7-d-martyn-lloyd-jones-9780851511801 [accessed
10 AUG 2015].
Kris Lundgaard, The Enemy Within:
Straight Talk about the Power and Defeat of Sin (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian
& Reformed, 1998);
on
Amazon at
http://www.amazon.com/Enemy-Within-Straight-about-Defeat/dp/0875522017/ref=asap_bc [accessed
10 AUG 2015];
on
Christianbook at
http://www.christianbook.com/enemy-within-straight-about-power-defeat/kris-lundgaard/9780875522012/pd/42017 [accessed
10 AUG 2015];
on
Westminster Bookstore at
http://www.wtsbooks.com/the-enemy-within-kris-lundgaard-9780875522012 [accessed
10 AUG 2015].
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the
Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996);
on
Amazon at
http://www.amazon.com/Epistle-Romans-International-Commentary-Testament-ebook/dp/B00EP71I5A/ref=la_B000AQ6VXE_1_2 [accessed
10 AUG 2015];
on
Christianbook at
http://www.christianbook.com/epistle-romans-new-international-commentary-testament/douglas-moo/9780802823175/pd/2371X [accessed
10 AUG 2015];
on
Westminster Bookstore at
http://www.wtsbooks.com/the-epistle-to-the-romans-douglas-moo-9780802823175 [accessed
10 AUG 2015].
Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo
Gloria,
John T. “Jack” Jeffery
Pastor, Wayside Gospel
Chapel
Greentown, PA
Middlemann has been the President of the Francis A.
Schaeffer Foundation since 1988, and “…
holds
degrees in both law (LLM from Freiburg University, Germany) and theology (BD
and MA from Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, MO, USA).” Wingshadow On the River at
http://www.wingshadowministries.org/Home/middleman-retreat/udo-short-bio [accessed 21 OCT 2015].
“DIATRIBE An important
New Testament genre that the writers of the Epistles took over from their
surrounding Greek and Roman culture. Scholars do not completely agree about the
details of this genre. The consensus is that the diatribe was a form of teaching,
street preaching, and oratory. The most important literary aspect of the
diatribe is that it is a form of satire, meaning that it is an attack on vice
or folly. As in all satire, there is an object of attack or rebuttal.
Additionally, the diatribe implies an aggressive putdown of the person or
position being attacked. The diatribe is a vigorous and combative form of
discourse. The author’s energy is embodied in such motifs as: dialogue with
imaginary questioners or opponents; question-and-answer constructions,
sometimes catechismlike in effect; questions or hypothetical objections used as
a transition to the next topic; rhetorical questions; use of famous and
representative figures from the past as examples; use of analogy as a
rhetorical device; and aphoristic (memorable) style. This list immediately
alerts us that the Epistles (especially those of Paul) make continuous use of
these techniques. The passage in which James attacks the idea that faith
without works is acceptable (James 2:14–26) is an example of a diatribe.”
“This book illustrates
how the macro-structure of the «body» of Romans essentially follows that of the
diatribes in Epictetus’s Discourses.
As in Discourses, the diatribe in
Romans begins with the thesis (1.16-17), then follows an indictment (1.18-32)
and dialogues with a fictitious second-person singular in chapter two.
Arguments with the mē genoito formula dominate the middle part of
the diatribe. In the middle of chapter eleven, the phase changes back to
dialogues with the second-person singular. The ending of the diatribe Romans
also, like Discourses, includes
cynic and hyperbolic statements (14.21 and 14.23). Thus, the «body» of Romans
should not be read as a real letter, but as a diatribe that was distributed in
Paul’s schoolroom and later appropriated as a letter. This teaching was not
directed to a specific group of people, viz., the Christians in Rome, but
rather intrinsically universalized. Therefore, its message is intrinsically
more powerful for us.”
See especially pp. 108ff.
in this book for the author’s treatment of the significance of this literary
style for Romans 7, “Reading Romans 7 by Means of the Diatribal Pronominal
Expressions.”
Song’s definition of diatribe is cited by Leland Ryken in his Literary Introductions to the Books of the
Bible (Wheaton: Crossway, 2015), s.v. “Romans.”
“
God
promises to put His laws in our hearts and write them on our minds. That's
sanctification in principle or sanctification that's begun.” Jerry Bridges,
tweet 14 OCT 2015 @BridgesWisdom
(accessed 15 OCT 2015).
