Steve and Rom 1:18 to 2:1

[mikew]

I thought I heard Steve mention that Rom 1:18 to 2:1 reflects the approach of 2 Sam 12:1-9 where Nathan led David into making a judgment against the rich man who stole a poor man's ewe lamb. After David made a judgment, Nathan said to him "you are the man."

After skimming through teachings on Romans from 8 years ago (circa 2016) and the more recent overview in Oct 2022, I did not hear Steve making that association with 2 Sam 12:1-9. Maybe I was just influenced by his perception of 1:18-32 as talking about Jews. Does Steve share the association of Rom 1:18-2:1 with 2 Sam 12:1-9 somewhere?

Just some extra info about the concept. Sanday and Headlam noted a similarity of approach. The idea was picked up more recently by Stanley Stowers briefly in A Rereading of Romans. Also, Michael Middendorf mentions this briefly in his Romans commentary. However, none of these people identified the potential effect of using the Nathan-David approach upon the understanding of the events in Rome that necessitated Paul to write to the church.

[mikew]

Okay. I found a different juridical parable that Steve refers to. He relates this to the vineyard parable in Matt 21. This is shared in the 6th recording on Romans 1 part 3. https://thenarrowpath.com/verse_by_verse.php#Romans

He speaks of this in around the 14th minute. So I partly remembered roughly what Gregg had shared. Steve expects the Jews to be entering in a judgmental tone against gentiles only to find Paul is speaking about the Jews of his audience. I reverse this and find gentiles viewing Rom 1:18-32 to as being about Jews only to be turned against the gentiles in 2:1. But this is not against all gentiles but only against the letter's recipients because they had come to know God but were purposely living in a fashion opposing the instruction of the law. This will appear in my analysis of Rom 5-6.

Even though Steve presents a reverse sense of Paul's focused recipients in 1:18 to 2:1, he has recognized the juridical parable being used in this passage. His explanation in light of Matt 21 gets closer to apply the concept of the juridical parable more than other writers. Other writers only identify a vague similarity of Paul's approach in 1:18 to 2:1 with the Nathan-David encounter of 2 Samuel 12:1-9 but do not recognize the actual use of a juridical parable here. Edited in on same day: Steve does mention 2 Sam 12:1-9 about Nathan and David's encounter. I was just skimming through and missed that

[PR]

Hi Mike. I was wondering if you're familiar with Douglas Campbell's interpretation of Romans 1:18 - 3:20. He considers it to be a debate between a hypothetical Jewish teacher (similar to the ones in Galatians) and Paul, he calls it a diatribe.

I found it to be very interesting. In fact, I wondered if Steve had commented on this interpretation by Campbell anywhere.

Here's his book: https://www.amazon.com/Deliverance-God- ... 0802870732

Thanks

PR

[mikew]

Thanks for posting on this topic.
I don't hear Steve mentioning many commentators on the recent lectures I have heard on Romans. Some commentators will mention Rom 2:1 as a diatribe style with some also mentioning a parallel association with 2 Sam 12:1-9. Thus, it does not sound like Campbell has much distinction from those commentators. My interest in the passage is the manner by which the gentile-only audience became clear. My proposal requires evidence further into the letter to give greater credence to my reading. (Andrew Das in Solving the Romans Debate, makes a sufficient argument that the letter is addressed solely to gentiles.)
The reason that Paul uses the Nathan-David approach (2 Sam 12:1-9) is to draw out the repentance of the gentiles for their bad attitude toward Jews.

Hi Mike. I was wondering if you're familiar with Douglas Campbell's interpretation of Romans 1:18 - 3:20. He considers it to be a debate between a hypothetical Jewish teacher (similar to the ones in Galatians) and Paul, he calls it a diatribe.

I found it to be very interesting. In fact, I wondered if Steve had commented on this interpretation by Campbell anywhere.

Here's his book: https://www.amazon.com/Deliverance-God- ... 0802870732

Thanks

PR