Monday, April 15, 2013

Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 7 of 14)

(pp. 16-18)

   One thing that is hidden by comparing the use of older names such as Melancthon's to newer names such as F.C. Baur's (not that new!), and to times such as "the last three decades" is the ad novum fallacy.  There are many today who view Romans as Melancthon did, and and many then who viewed Romans as F.C. Baur and many in the last thirty years have.

   But commentators have to keep abreast of research, and Moo doesn't, after all, directly advocate a view that restricts the meaning of Romans to a particular time.

   However, doesn't it seem from Romans 1 that we already have the purpose of Paul in writing to the Romans?  "I long to see you, in order that I might impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established, " etc.  Is that not a sufficient reason to write to them?  It may not be a polemic-theological thing, but it's certainly enough.

No comments:


Blog Archive