Much information has been presented about the underlying narratives in the book of Romans. What has been said should be regarded as explorations into the narrative character of Romans, rather than definitive statements about how Romans should be understood. The essence of what is being claimed here is this: Romans can best be understood when one reads it in light of the grand Trinitarian narrative of Scripture which underlies everything that Paul says, because the reality and power of Romans lies not in propositional statements, but in the missional story of God that began in Genesis and continues in the church today.
With that being said, there are many areas left unexplored and undeveloped. Some of them are vitally important to this effort to read Romans in a way that is faithful to the text and sensitive to the underlying concerns of Paul.
- Work needs to be done on how particularly the underlying narrative of Romans is decidedly Trinitarian.
- I hinted at several times the way in which Romans should be read as the community of faith. Along with integrating the narrative with the Trinity, the basis for community in the Trinity should be explored in Romans.
- The missional theme of Paul’s life should be explored along with the missional nature of the entire Biblical story.
Those three points could have been developed more in my study, however, this is merely a preliminary exploration into this area. The model suggested by the diagram above should provide a foundation to build from, so that further study can be done to understand how Romans aids the church in fulfilling her role in the missional story of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
December 9, 2006 at 11:36 am |
This work continues to hold promise. The next step after focusing on narrative is to make the move that Kevin Vanhoozer makes in The Drama of Doctrine, this draws the reader/believer more explicitly into the narrative, AS an actor in the drama. I think that way of thinking is helpful. Keven’s work also helps tie canonical and linguistic issues together. How this works out in terms of Christian practice is nicely illustrated by Samuel Wells’ recent work on ethics, Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics.
I also think you are wise to work further on your familiarity with biblical theology, both OT and NT. The work on by Chris Wright sounds like a great place to start. You might also check the collection of essays on biblical theology, Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation.
Keep going.
December 9, 2006 at 10:47 pm |
Joel, one other thought. Instead of working with a four part drama (creation, fall, redemption, restoration), it might be better to follow the suggestion of Samuel Wells (Improvisation, p. 53-57). He makes a good case for a five part drama: Creation (with Fall as a part), Israel, Jesus, Church, and Eschaton (consummation/restoration/recreation). This has several advantages, Fall is really part of the creation narrative in Genesis, and part of the beginning of the human condition; and more importantly Jesus (Christ-event) is central, as it should be. It also has the two balancing features of the people of God (Israel/Church), with the Church in the already/not yet position. You might want to think about this, and perhaps read his treatment. I think this would also apply nicely to Romans as a test case.