Skip to main content

The Deliverance of God: How Does Romans 2 Fit with the Rest of Romans?

At SBL in 2009 there was a session on the Deliverance of God. Michael Gorman objected to Campbell's construal of Romans 1-3, arguing that Keener, in his 2009 commentary on Romans, had shown decisively that Romans 2 is integral to the rest of Paul's argument in Romans and hence should not be assigned as a reductio of the Teacher's position.[1] This is a significant claim, and if correct, it severely weakens Campbell's case. It would give him exegetical problems on par with those he exposed in justification theory. In this post we'll assess the case.

Keener has two charts, one on page 45 and one on 47 which list the themes of Romans 2 that get developed elsewhere in Romans. I'm not going to go through them all, and I do believe some of them are not really relevant. Before we start looking at a couple of representative cases, I want to bring up one point. One should expect, even if Romans 2 is a reductio, to have some ties between Romans 2 and the rest of Romans. After all, both Paul and the Teacher claim to be Christian so one would expect some overlap in thought. One also might expect that Paul might revisit some of the problems he reveals from the Teachers thought, showing how his gospel is superior.

I would argue that of the relevant parallels, all of them should be classified as either of the two types above. First, we'll bring up an example of the first type. In Romans 2:17-18a Paul says, 'But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of your relation to God and know his will...' In Romans 12:2 Paul says, 'Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God: what is good and acceptable and perfect.' Both the Teacher and Paul make a statement about knowing the will of God. Is this surprising? Clearly access to the will of God would be important in any Christian ethical system. I don't see why this shared theme hurts Campbell's case at all. It's simply a parallel (and obvious) concern in both systems. Now to a type two example.

Romans 2:7 states, 'to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life,' holding out the offer of salvation for those who do good works. Romans 3:28 states that, 'For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.' It's obvious that Paul is stating something in tension with Romans 2:7. Deeds don't result in salvation. Yes, Paul is picking up his point from 2:7 here in 3:28, but he's contradicting it. This connection is actually easier to explain under Campbell's interpretation. Paul is offering his alternative to the exegesis of the Teacher. Now we don't have to struggle to integrate these two distinct perspectives into one.

Overall, I do think that Campbell's exegesis of Romans 1:1-3-20 does hold up under scrutiny.

[1] To be perfectly clear, this post isn't an assessment of Keener's claims per say, it's more an assessment of Gorman's argument building on Keener's observations.


Popular posts from this blog

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars).

In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following:
This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit.The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private.Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him.The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocating a vie…