An Intertextual Analysis of Romans 2 : 1 - 16 Paul

We contend that Paul consciously alludes to Deut. 9-10; 29-30 and to Jer. 31:30-34 in Rom. 2:1-16. These allusions shape and inform Paul’s discourse and, therefore, provide a new approach to old exegetical questions, such as, the rhetorical nature of vv. 6-11 and whether vv. 13-16 refer to ‘Gentile Christians’. On the basis of our intertextual approach we assert that: (1) Romans 2 is essentially covenantal in concern, (2) vv. 6-11 are not hypothetical, and (3) vv. 13-16 refer to ‘Gentile Christians’. I Methodological Considerations I.1 Who Wrote Romans? The academic corpus on Romans is nearly unanimous that authorship may be ascribed to the apostle Paul.1 If we are to properly understand Pauline discourse we must understand something of his heritage, and his self-perception. 1 Moo comments, ‘Romans claims to be written by Paul (1:1), and there has been no serious challenge to this claim.’ Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 1. 154 ECCLESIA REFORMANDA Vol. 1, No. 2 Three things are significant: i) Paul was a Jew. This was his religious community and heritage until his conversion. He was not only a Jew but a ‘Hebrew of Hebrews’2, zealous for the faith, trained in rabbinic Judaism3 and rooted in the Scriptures. ii) Paul was a prophet. Paul perceived his commissioning and vocation after his conversion in prophetic terms. Litwak notes that Paul, in Acts 13:46-47, describes his ministry citing Isa. 49:6: ‘Paul himself thus characterises his ministry in the words spoken by Isaiah of the Servant of the Lord.’4 5 iii) Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. Chae has argued that ‘Paul’s consciousness of his apostleship to the gentiles’ is the theme that provides thematic unity to the letter to the Romans.6 This may be overstatement, but Paul was surely conscious of his calling to show how the OT prefigured the incorporation of the Gentiles into God’s eschatological community.7 These three facets of Paul shape the nature and the content of his discourse, and, as exegetes of Paul, we ought to recognise that fact and be suspicious of any interpretation predicated on the view that 2 Philippians 3:5. All English translations in this article are taken from the ESV. 3 ‘Paul was trained under Gamaliel I (see Acts 26:3), a Pharisee of the school of Hillel.’ D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Apollos, 1992), 218. 4 Kenneth D. Litwak, ‘Israel’s Prophets meets Athens’ Philosophers: Scriptural Echoes in Acts 17:22-31’, Biblica 85 (2004): 200. David Moessner also suggests this self-perception: ‘Luke has linked Paul to Jesus the prophet like Moses through the common calling and fate of the rejected Deuteronomistic prophet’ (David P. Moessner, ‘Paul and the Pattern of the Prophet like Moses in Acts’, in Society of Biblical Literature 1983 Seminar Papers, ed. Kent Harold Richards [California: Scholars Press, 1983], 211). 5 Similarly, Hays comments, ‘He [Paul] saw himself as a Prophetic figure, carrying forward the proclamation of God’s word as Israel’s prophets and sages had always done, in a way that reactivated past revelation under new conditions’ (Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul [London: Yale University Press, 1989], 14). 6 Daniel J-S Chae, Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles, Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997), 13. 7 See Chae, Paul as Apostle, 289-301.