VA DB
A DE ROMEI E
~·,jll1Jt.~M•1MI. vcwm'Mstomche thematische analyse
van Rom 1,16 - 3,29
WITH A StJ'MMARY IN BNGLISR
PROEFSCHRIFT
TER VERKRIJGING VAN DE GRAAD VAN
DOCTOR IN DE GODGELEERDHEID
AAN DE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT TE NIJKEGEN,
OP GEZAG VAN DE RECTOR MAGNIFICUS T. A. BIRRELL,
HOOGLERAAR I DE FACULTEIT DER LETTEREN,
VOLGE S HET BESLUIT VAN
DE FACULTEIT DER GODGELEERDHEID
IN HET OPENBAAR TE VERDEDIGEN OP WOE SDAG l JULI fM
DES AllIDDAGS TE 4 UUR
DOOR
REMBERTUS C. M. RUIJS OFM
GBBORBN TB DTBBL BN SPAl.AND
OJt.VK nABDlCATIO BV G.alJI ES'I",
.....'.·! fqmu
~ SCltIPTU :t1ll OVAB Dt1ClT AD VITAK
s. HieronYJD115
COl'lrest>Qn wi the obj 'ves of e uclies
· tl to the Rom • The problem tow: ·
exPJres&4~in the following questions: w: t are
'•r•mal nllatiion.s betlveen the various parts and themes of om? Does
~-· o.1·t1ae.·:blstla (I, 16-1 S, 33), or the dogmatic part of it, oom ·
conati'tiite one coherent whole of theses, elaboration
~~~:••· • •··.•1Pmt111ta1tion (from the Scriptures); or is the elaboration of a
~ne n11>1&t«Dy interrupted by digressions teuching
~~0'!1ili1N6•&·01 ? d, in case the possibility of several
· ted, are these themes independent and of eq
· direct line with each , or has one of
?
. [the title The Structure of the Epistle to the Romans will
3. An c.·planatJnn °
"d t t7 0 b "ecf-mallcr of our ._..,.,
Y" .. "arch In Rom, as in every literary work
· '
eluo a c . ze. 'J . 1 wecn the contents that are conveyed and the means
one can d1stmgnish l>c . . . , l The synthesis of these two the
l . 1 l1 ' , ·ont<·nts arc cxp1esscc. ,
b r w uc l ll e c 1 . ~f. tl1c interaction of contents and means of
1 1·1 111 rc·sntmg tom .
ama gama · • t This term does not merely refer to either form
cx1m.' ·sion we call struc ure. . . 1. k .
various strata 1terary
·· · '
or conh•nt but comprc1wn< s . . c
1 the
,
m
t
a
f th b' ,t viz. the
wor
mmcl-stratum' the semantics · ·tra t u m and the stra um T oth e o Jee. s repre-
t
.. ented ·- in this' case ,the message ' conveyc d by Rom . o ese vanous s rata
·corresponds an equa1numb er of possibilities of approach to the text, each . of
wlnch· ~ can he· usec • 1m · 1a t'10n from the others. The text, taken as a. stratified
· iso
umt · of data as d cscn'bed a bove • brings out the place . and funct10n of d the.
smaller and larger components in the whole. Acco~dingly our metho will
cons1st· of a wor d-t o-word and verse-to-verse analysis of the text.. Neverthe-
less, the analysis of details is directed through.out towards our mam purpose,
since it will always help to bring out the dommants 0 f the_ comp?nent parts
1
and, in the first place, of the Epistle as a whole. By domm~nt~ we under-
stand the dominant idea and the formal principle -the stylistic centres of
gravity which like pillars support, carry along and conclude the argument
both as to form and content.
4. The results of this approach to the text of Rom are not easy to summarize,
as they are no less relevant to the details than to the main trend of thought.
In Rom 2, 1-16 the stylistic figure of chiasmus is the formal principle, divine
talion is the dominant idea; these two flow together into what has been called
the chiastic talion formula. The talion finds its negative (evil deeds - punish-
ment), positive (good deeds - reward), and ambivalent (judgment according
to deeds) expression in formulas that for the greater part are rooted in
tradition. The structure of the passage is partly conditioned by the antithesis
'God/man'. St. Paul begins to speak about man judging his fellow-man (2, I),
to which he opposes God's judging of man (2, 2f.), and he elaborates this
by expounding the just judgment of God (2, 5-16). The thesis of the passage
is, that the Jew judging the Gentiles, is himself under the judgrnent of God.
This thesis lends the passage its elan and polemic quality. The way in which
this thesis is elaborated and the fact that the perspective of Paul's train of
thought is continuously and actively present in the details, entitles us to
reject as a deviation any interpretation that represents Rom 2, 14-16 as
dealing with sin and condemnation or with obedience and justification of a
definite group of Gentiles, of the Gentiles in general, or of Gentile-Christians.
In these verses St. Paul states that God judges the Gentiles justly, and his
intention is to put the Jew, who placed himself at God's side on the judgment-
seat to judge and condemn the Gentiles, under God's judgment, together
with the Gentiles. Thus this passage constitutes a transition from 1, 18-32,
where the sins of the Gentiles are amply dealt with, to 2, I 7ff., where the Jews
are being accused of transgression of the Law.
8
Dlll~.•iact:ure of ROllS 1, 18-32 · like mainly conditioned by the formal
di ' talion; in this case, ho ever, exclusively represented
IMIE&tii•e ore than once guilt and punishment are set off against
or the t time this happens m v. 18, which may be consitlered
:ranunatic mtroduction to the passage. Tue programme is elaborated
order in 19-24. 25-27 and 1,insucha way that the first
formula ( . 24, cf. . 26.28) a shift of emphasis from
punishment, hich · carried out by degrees in verses 25er and
32 concludes the passage as a counterpart of verse 18.
· formal principle is connected with a dominant idea that can be
-~- into these components: to the revelation of God's power or glory
•:res1J01ilds or should correspond the glorification of God; if man glorifies
, God will make him participate in that glory; if man does not
•I.Oar ~ he will stray from the glory of God and fall into dishonom.
ftl:tlY on acco of this dominant idea the verses 20 (~ Te d"'°' dro6
•w.rc ml fa&d'nl') and 23 are related to each other. Verse 32 is related
23 in so far as punishment by tlelllh is the consequence of estrange-
_.._.:from an ifflfltOrlal God.
question of the place and function of Rom I, 18-32 in the entire
-~D. of the Epistle is then posed with the dominants resulting from the
-.-1111· •.analysis in mind. Our answer leads us to chapters 5, 6, 8 and 12-13.
is marked by points of contact between Rom 1, 18-32 ·
, and by allusions to certain data from other Epistle9 _._.
iLBf:·• - • of the contacts of Rom I, 20.23 and 32 with isd 2. ~~
can bridge the gap between Rom l and Rom 5, IJa r . . . . .
. ..-r:i1 of the same texts from isd cau be pointed out.
evident similarities bet een Rom 6; Eph 4, 17-2"; Col 2, 6-3, 10 and
common Sia im Lsbett bring Rom 6 within the pattern. of focal pointa
structure of Rom. The passages from Eph and Col mentioned abovec
the data that in the Epistle to the Romans are scattered thrt~ld
6, UI. ; 8, 1211. and 12-13. e arrive at the conclusion that
its paraenetic context is the terpart of the descriptica
dence in l, 18-32, just as Ro 8, 17ff. is a counterpart of.
cont of a more oteriological nature. Between tlle11111•B
oJd;••••MQ
pictures Rom 5 figures as a climax and tuming-·pai••r Mll
' dam/Chri t' and Rom 6 with the antithesis 'the
l.f3, 2 (in 3, 20a) supplied us with the formal principle and the dominan
that inspired the quotations as a whole, leads us to the conclusion that
aul himself is the author of this mosaic.
final chapter demonstrates that Rom 1, 16-3, 23 forms a well-organized
wn-. In this section of Rom the same structure can be discovered as in
, though on a smaller scale. The quotations from Hab 2, 4 (Rom
l 17b) Ps 143, 2 (Rom 3, 20a) have the same function within th ame-
k of 1, 16-3, 23 as Gen 1, 26f. and Wisd 2, 23ff. perform in chapters 1-8.
chapters 1-8 are framed by the negative (1, 23) and positive (8, 29)
.._texts; in a similar way 1, 16-3, 23 is framed by 1, 17b (o de dlKa'°'
""1-r~ C?jana') and 3, 20a (iE l(!YW'JI voµov oV 6iKaiwfHJanai nii.aa
rief). Chapters 5 and 6 constitute the climax and turning-point of chapters
1-8; in 1, 16-3, 23, the climax is reached in 2, 6-11 and 12-16. In 2, 6-11 the
formula'/~ ... Kai "Ell.,,,, occurs twice, in a positive (2, 10; cf. 1, 16)
aud a n~ve (2, 9; cf. 3, 9) context. In 2, 13 the statements containing
words from the d&K-stem that are scattered through 1, 16-3, 23 are brought
ogether; in 2, 13a in a negative context reminding us of 3, 20; in 2, 13b in a
positive statement (cf. especially 1, 16f.; 3, 20ff.). The formula '[~...
«al•ElltF. and the quotations in 1, l 7b and 3, 20 are, therefo e, the formal
principles presenting us with the key to the structure of Rom 1, 16-3, tll
And in the same manner as we were able to elucidate the structure of
1-8 by drawing a comparison with 1 Cor 15, 20-57, we can illustrate;
connecting lines within Rom 1, 16-2, 23 by referring to the trend of
of Gal 3, 6-14.
Extending comparison between l, 16-3, 23 and chapters 1
thematic level, leads to the conclusion that the dominant idea ofchail>td
cen also be found in 1, 16-3, 23, although here it is overshadowed b1
theme; conversely, the dominant ideaof 1, 16-3,23functionsasa
theme in chapters 1-8. In 1, 16-3, 23 words containing the &It
ptedominant, and the statements in which they occur det •
~ of this passage of the Epistle. At the side of this the
with the .Z1erlw - MEa-theologoumenon presents itself as an
sitJe.theme (d. 1, 20-24.26; 2, 7.1 O; 3, 23). Within the framework of
J-8 this theme is predominant, without superseding the o.........."
npties that the antithesis 'loss of divine ddEa' and 'renewed parti
'41•', or the poles: 'creation - new creation' dominate the rhythm of
• ofthought, rather than the antithesis 'unrighteousness -righ
Ti6mannerin which the themes in 1, 16-3, 23 and at other places in
l-8aremterwoven, points to the fact that St. Paul combines these t
~in such a way, that it is hardly admissible to bring to
110m1Jae Of justification Id lhe e%f>ense ofthe imago-doctrine,«
. . , , chapters 6--8 as a more authentic~ of
aocoaat
1'llB
