[B-Greek] Romans 1:16
Iver
iver_larsen at sil.org
Sat Oct 11 03:01:33 EDT 2003
[Jeffrey:]
> OU GAR EPAISXUNOMAI TO EUAGGELION, DUNAMIS GAR QEOU ESTIN SWTHRIAN
>
> If memory serves (and I don't have the opportunity at the moment to
> consult any commentaries) this statement by Paul is usually taken to be
> an attempt at offering a definition of what the "gospel" **is** -- as if
> somehow this needed clarifying.
While I am not able to survey all the commentaries, Douglass Moo (p. 68)
says "The second clause in v. 16 explains (GAR) why Paul is not ashamed of
the gospel."
I would agree complete. The GAR does not function to explain TO EUAGGELION,
but to explain or give further support to OU EPAISCUNOMAI.
Paul uses the word GAR a lot in these verses because he is building his case
for why he was so determined to proclaim and teach the message of Jesus in
Rome, too, even though they already knew the basics.
In v. 14-15 Paul explains that his mission is to proclaim the gospel
everywhere and to everyone. That is the background for (hOUTWS) his
eagerness (TO KAQ' EME PROQUMON) to preach even/also to the Christians in
Rome. The word order (acc. to my understanding) of v. 15 suggests that the
most prominent element is his eagerness, secondly that the Romans should be
included as recipients and lastly that he is going to proclaim the gospel
(which is predictable).
The first GAR in v. 15 then supports his eagerness. He is set on this,
because he is not ashamed. Actually, I don't think ashamed is the best word
in English, because it has too much of a negative moral flavor to it or
covering up a mistake. I prefer "I have no qualms about proclaiming..." or
"I am not hesitant to proclaim...". The word is often used in contexts where
if someone is "ashamed" of something, they keep quite about it. (Cf. Mark
8:38 and 2 Tim 1:8,12,16). Paul had been persecuted many times for
proclaiming the message, and he knew that there might well be persecution in
Rome for himself as well as the local believers.
> But is there anything in the grammar and syntax of the text to give us
> reason to believe that what Paul is doing is responding to a challenge?
I would say: No, I see no indication that Paul is responding to a challenge
(except that he perceives a need for proper teaching to enhance their
understanding of the content of the message. And yes, Paul is defending
himself to a certain degree. He is not defending the truth of the gospel,
but explaining his eagerness to come to them, too, in Rome, for the message
has in it the power to offer eternal life (SWTHRIA is both past, present and
future). For such great benefit it is worth enduring persecution, if that
should happen.
> That is to say, is there any grammatical or syntactical or stylistic
> (or, if I might ask, contextual) reason to see that what Paul is up to
> here is not answering a question (what is the Gospel?, how do **you**
> define it?), but is defending a claim **about** what the (his) Gospel
> is **that is in dispute**
Neither of the above.
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list