Monday, April 01, 2013

Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 1 of 14)

(pp. 1-3)
   Let's discuss Romans, and Moo together (his 1996 commentary on Romans)

   The introduction mentions what Romans has meant to Luther, and Draxe:  gospel for Luther, saving doctrine for Draxe, and for Moo, first of all, something written out of specific context.  Does our idea of Romans correspond more closely to any of these three than the other?

   The third approach is the author's cautionary safeguard against taking Romans as "a systematic theology."   What is this meant to exclude? We see that the author believes that Romans has "a message," and that it, the message, is "timeless." Is the caution against taking the assertions of Romans, directly, without forming them into a message? It is very common to take plain assertions of a Bible text as absolutes, instead of as out of a specific context.   It is also very common to disallow the plain assertions of a Bible text, and take a formulated "message" as absolute.  In doing that kind of thing, there's often a selectivity factor applied, where someone takes a set of verses X as their plain assertions, and another set of verses Y as needing to be understood in their context producing a "message" Z.  Then, that "message" is then combined with X, usually to overrule it.  A different person combines and selects differently.

   Paul's situation leads the author to say that Paul is writing at a time when he is hoping to heal the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the early church.  He bases this idea (p. 3) on Romans 15:31 (p. 2). 

3 comments:

larnewman said...

There is some oddness to the bald assertion on p.3, that "the most serious social-theological rift in the early church -- [is] the relationship between Jew and Gentile in the people of God."

ESPECIALLY since Paul is confident, so clearly so, of the success of this endeavor toward the saints in Jerusalem, in 2 Cor 9:13-14.

Larry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Larry said...

If Moo is right that Romans could be dated 57 A.D. within a year or two, what in the world was I doing that I didn't celebrate one of those three years 1950 years later? I'm embarrassed! I wish I had the ability to look up from the grindstone and thank God for the 1950th year since Romans was written! Anybody willing to celebrate the 1957th with me? :)

Followers

Blog Archive