A Stoic Reading of Internal Obedience in Romans 1:18–2:29
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. The Natural Law Foundation in Romans 1:18-32
Hic ego non mirer esse quemquam qui sibi persuadeat corpora quaedam solida atque individua vi et gravitate ferri mundumque effici ornatissimum et pulcherrimum ex eorum corporum concursione fortuita? Hoc qui existimat fieri potuisse, non intellego cur non idem putet, si innumerabiles unius et viginti formae litterarum vel aureae vel qualeslibet aliquo coiciantur, posse ex iis in terram excussis annales Ennii ut deinceps legi possint effici; quod nescio an ne in uno quidem versu possit tantum valere fortuna.
I must now marvel that anyone can persuade themselves that certain solid and indivisible bodies, born by force and weight, have produced this most adorned and beautiful world by their accidental collision. It seems to me that the person who thinks such a thing possible should also believe that if innumerable quantities of the letters of the alphabet, either of gold or whatever else one pleases, are thrown together and shaken onto the ground, then they will produce the Annals of Ennius so that a person may read them in order. I do not think that chance is strong enough to produce even one verse (Nat. D. 2.93-94).
3. Romans 2:1-13: God as the Ultimate Judge
Est quidem vera lex recta ratio naturae congruens, diffusa in omnes, constans, sempiterna, quae vocet ad officium iubendo, vetando a fraude deterreat…nec vero aut per senatum aut per populum solvi hac lege possumus, neque est quaerendus explanator aut interpres eius alius, nec erit alia lex Romae, alia Athenis, alia nunc, alia posthac, sed et omnes gentes et omni tempore una lex et sempiterna et immutabilis continebit, unusque erit communis quasi magister et imperator omnium deus, ille legis huius inventor, disceptator, lator.
Indeed, true law is right reason consistent with nature, spread out over all people, unchanging and eternal, which calls them to duty by its decrees and deters them from crime by its prohibitions…we are not able to be released from this law either by the senate or the people, nor must we seek someone to explain or interpret it for us; there will not be one law in Rome, another law in Athens, other laws now or other laws in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will preserve all peoples at all times, and god, the teacher and ruler of all people, is the author, judge, and proposer of this law (Rep. 3.33).
4. Romans 2:14-15: Revelation Written in the Heart
5. Romans 2:27-29: Internal Obedience to Law
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
1 | Rome’s legal system was highly advanced, allowing for complexity and flexibility, and it has exerted a lasting influence throughout legal history (Anderson 2018, p. 1; Riggsby 2010, p. 1; Domingo 2018, pp. 3–5). See (Hayes 2015, p. 81; Sandbach 2018, p. 16; Brunt 2013, p. 275; Annas 2000, p. 403) for the influence of Stoicism in Rome and in Roman jurisprudence and the jurists. |
2 | (Thorsteinsson 2003, pp. 88–89, 102–22) provides an overview of the perspectives on Paul’s audience and argues for it being composed solely of Gentiles. (Cf. Thiessen 2014). (Thorsteinsson et al. 2016) 21 asserts “Arguments that Paul includes Jews within at least parts of his rhetoric are very weak”. Nevertheless, even if the direct reference in 2:17 implies the inclusion of a Jewish interlocutor in Paul’s audience, as supported by (Morris 1988, p. 5; Westerholm 2022, p. 71; Thielman 2018, p. 125), the other clear references to a Gentile audience demonstrate that Paul is writing the dialogue of Romans 2:17-27 with the Gentiles looking on. Scholarship pointing to a primarily, if not completely, Gentile audience, amplifies the significance of Paul’s rhetorical strategy in using Stoic concepts when writing to them. |
3 | Our proposal of comparing Paul with Cicero affirms that despite significant differences (which will be highlighted below), there yet remains meaningful overlap between Paul’s view of how the spirit relates to the letter of the law and the view of Cicero on this subject. For a similar method of comparing differing ancient ethical theories, see (Annas 1995, p. 15). (Cf. Smith 1987, p. 14), who affirms that “[c]omparison requires the acceptance of difference”. |
4 | Wisdom of Solomon 13 provides a complementary account of creation testifying to the presence of a creator. However, unlike Paul’s insistence that those departing from this knowledge to the worship of created things are acting contrary to nature (παρὰ φύσιν, 1.24), which aligns with the Stoic perspective that humans gain the knowledge of god from nature herself (ab ipsa natura, Cic. Nat. D. 2.16), Wis 13:1 states that those who do not know God are foolish by nature (μάταιοι φύσει). See (Linebaugh 2011) for the connection between Romans 1-2 and Wis 13. |
5 | For Cicero as a primary source for the Stoic argument on intelligent design, see (Foster et al. 2008, p. 53; Jantzen 2014, p. 35). For earlier arguments of design, see (Sedley 2007, pp. 78–83). |
6 | Cic. Nat. D. 2.104-114; Aratus, Phaen. 4; Acts 17:28. |
7 | Asmis (2008, p. 6) notes that on these points, Cicero is “following them [the Stoics] closely”. Cf. (Covell 1992, p. 7). |
8 | (Käsemann 1980, p. 47) nuances the abandonment to perversity, saying that “moral perversion is the result of God’s wrath, not the reason for it”. However, in 1:22-23, Paul notes the failure of humankind to glorify God, their descent into ungratefulness, and their worship of the creation; thus, Paul signifies that moral perversion can be both the cause and the result of God’s wrath. |
9 | |
10 | Cf. Cic. Off. 1.22 that the Stoic belief that humans are born to mutually assist one another and that naturam debemus ducem sequi (we ought to follow nature as our guide), and Off. 1.100: et quidem ista duce errari nullo pacto potest (and indeed with that guide it is not possible to err in any way). See Off. 3.20 for Cicero’s following of Stoic teachings on moral duties (cf. Dyck 1996, pp. 18–19). |
11 | (Brunt 2013, p. 17) explores the question of whether this state is curable. |
12 | Cic. Nat. D. 1.36 describes how Zeno thought naturalem legem divinam esse (that the natural law was divine) and vim obtinere recta imperantem prohibentemque contraria (its strength maintained the commanding of right actions and the forbidding of opposite ones). |
13 | (Keener 2009, p. 44), maintains that only those transformed by Christ can live thus. |
14 | See (Moo 1991, p. 142), for the hypothetical interpretation. (Cf. Thielman 2018, p. 130; Hultgren 2011, pp. 112–13; Aletti 1988, p. 56; Thorsteinsson 2003. Against this view, see Schreiner 1993, p. 137). |
15 | For an overview of the exegetical difficulties of 2:14-15, see (Yates 2008, pp. 28–30). For those who support the reading of pagan Gentiles, see (Bole 2004, pp. 141–42; Fuchs 1991, p. 8; Maritain 1991, p. 114; Skinner 1964, pp. 9–10; Collins 2010, pp. 125, 141; Longenecker 2016, p. 278). For those who support the believing Gentile view, but acknowledge that it is not the majority reading, see (Jewett 2007, pp. 212–13; Gathercole 2002, pp. 27–29). |
16 | For support of this reading of φύσει referring to those who perform the law, see (Martens 1994, p. 66; Kuhr 1964, p. 260; Watson 1986, p. 116; Longenecker 2016, p. 274; Hultgren 2011, p. 117). For alternative readings placing φύσει with μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα, see (Gathercole 2002, p. 30; Jewett 2007, p. 214). |
17 | Thus, the allusion to Jeremiah’s prophecy of God’s eschatological work upon his covenant people’s hearts becomes radically applied to Gentiles. Cf. (Hafemann 2019, p. 227), who, despite arguing against our view of “an innate moral law,” helpfully points to “the fulfillment of [Jeremiah’s] new covenant promise” here in Rom 2:15, in that “God has replaced the sin engraved on [these Gentiles’] hearts (cf. Jer 17:1) with an obedience to his law”. Rather than forcing these two options to be mutually exclusive, might there not be a way to combine elements of the new covenant promise of renewed hearts with those of the natural law theory? This is the hope of the authors, who tend, respectively, toward different readings of this passage. |
18 | Cf. (van Spanje 1999, p. 234; VanDrunen 2013, pp. 88–89), while emphasizing their “substantive similarities,” distinguishes Paul’s treatment of a natural law that is given to the Gentiles from the Mosaic law that is given to the Jews. |
19 | (Bornkamm 1959, p. 115): “[T]he statements in Rom 2:15 stem from the previously established non-Christian tradition in which the conscience was already understood as an inner source of judgment for humanity and had become a method and topic for self-vindication and self-condemnation” (our translation). |
20 | (Wolter 2008, p. 150) argues that the key term γράμμα in Rom 2:29, rather than designating the notion of Literalität (as it does in 2 Cor 3:6 and in Rom 7:6), designates “die Merkmale der Visibalität (ἐν τῷ φανερῷ) und der Materialität (ἐν σαρκί)”. |
21 | (Lyonnet 1968, p. 95) describes “the indispensable renewal that Paul invokes, in accord with Deuteronomy and Jeremiah, [which entails] the ‘circumcision of the heart,’ a circumcision that God alone, through his Spirit, is able to affect in the individual”. (our translation). |
22 | (Kamlah 1954, p. 278): “With these oppositions we can feel the well-known antithesis between the two aeons” (our translation). For a thorough discussion of the issues involved in the spirit–letter contrast in Paul (and particularly in 2 Cor 3:6), see (Hafemann 2005, pp. 1–7, 16–25). (Hafemann 2005, p. 21) follows (Stuhlmacher 1986) in viewing “the γράμμα/πνεῦμα contrast between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ [as leading] Paul to a γράμμα/γραφή antithesis between the Law read as a death producing demand for works and the Law read in the light of one’s encounter with Christ as ‘the comforting records of God’s leading’”. |
23 | (Fridrichsen 1922, p. 191) argues that the Stoic “Gegensatz Schein-Sein,” a contrast between seeming and real (between δοκεῖν and εἶναι), corresponds with Paul’s emphatic contrast in Romans 2 between hearing and doing, and also with his distinction between the hidden Jew and the outward one. Cf. (Wolter 2013, pp. 43–44; Käsemann 1980, pp. 74–75): “Paul can use the Hellenistic tradition in which Epictetus, for example, asks concerning the true Stoic. Here the appearance, which depends on the evaluation of spectators, is set over against the inward and essential existence”. |
24 | (Collins 2010, p. 129) particularly makes the case for a comparison between this aspect of Aristotle’s thought and Paul’s presentation of the “law unto themselves” in Rom 2:14-15. |
25 | This paper takes the traditional interpretation of Aristotle in contrast to recent interpretations (Burns 2002; Remow 2008), arguing that Aristotle did not view Antigone as an example of natural law or justice, but rather as an example of a particular cultural value that could vary between times and places. |
26 | Cf. Cic. Inv. Rhet. 2.137, which uses the same language of contrasting what is lege aut in testamento scriptum (written in the law or in the will) with the sententia quoque et voluntate scriptoris (meaning and desire of the author); and Cic. Top. 25.96, which also contrasts the scriptum and verba with sententia and voluntas scriptoris. |
27 | Cf. Cic. Inv. Rhet. 2.138, which says a law will never command what is inutilis (disadvantageous) or iniquus (unjust). |
28 | Cf. Cic. De Or. 2.134; Orat. Part. 30.104-106. |
29 | Cf. Cic. Orat. Part. 39.136-137. |
30 | Cf. Cic. Caecin. 22.63, where Cicero instead uses sententia as contrasted with verba, and 23.65-66 where he contrasts verba, litterae, and scriptum with aequitas, voluntas scriptoris, and aequus et bonus. |
31 | Cf. Cic. Caecin. 17.49, 19.58; Cic. Mur. 27. |
32 | In the early period of the Roman Empire, Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria continues to uphold this contrast. Many legal questions address conflicts that may arise between scriptum and verba on one side, and voluntas on the other (Inst. 3.6.88, 7.1.14, 7.1.45-7.6.9). Whenever a person breaks the written law, a number of options are available to justify the action and condemn the written interpretation (Inst. 7.1.50). Quintilian references the Pro Caecina to demonstrate that following the literal words of a law is not always the correct interpretation (Inst. 7.6.5). Instead of referring to the intent of the scriptor as Cicero does, however, Quintilian appeals to the law itself as embodying a meaning beyond the written words, the voluntas legis instead of the scriptum legis (Inst. 3.6.99-100). Although he primarily scrutinizes voluntas as opposed to scriptum, Quintilian also includes aequitas and even natura as independent principles that can be used to argue on behalf of voluntas against scriptum (Inst. 7.1.49 and 7.6.5). |
33 | Cf. Quin. Inst. that the true orator must be a vir bonus (12.1.44) who has studied both the leges that are given to all humankind by natura and the leges which are established by particular peoples and nations (12.2.3). |
34 | Cf. Matt. 5:3, Matt. 26:41, Luke 1:47, John 4:23, 1 Thess. 5:23. |
35 | Cf. Quin. Inst. 9.3.83 |
36 | Cf. Cic. Leg. 1.14.41. |
37 | Cf. Verg. Aen. 7.202-204. |
38 | Cf. Quin. Inst. 12.11.31. |
39 | Cf. (Schofield 2021, p. 114), on the twin ideas of the “moral law within” and the “divinely ordered universe”. |
40 | Cf. Cic. Fin. 3.48. |
41 | (Keener 2009, p. 48; McFadden 2013, p. 147; Pohlenz 1949, p. 82; Westerholm 1984, p. 241; Engberg-Pedersen 2000, p. 208; Wright 2001, p. 136); Romans 10:4, τέλος γὰρ νόμου Χριστὸς. |
References
- Aletti, Jean Noël. 1988. Rm 1:18-3:20: Incohérence ou cohérence de l’argumentation paulinienne? Biblica 69: 47–62. [Google Scholar]
- Alford, Henry. 1852. The Greek Testament: With a Critically Revised Text: A Digest of Various Readings: Marginal References to Verbal and Idiomatic Usage: Prolegomena: And a Critical and Exegetical Commentary. 3 vols. London: Francis & John Rivington. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, Craig. 2018. Roman Law Essentials. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Annas, Julia. 1995. The Morality of Happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Annas, Julia. 2000. Voices of Ancient Philosophy: An Introductory Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Annas, Julia. 2017. Virtue and Law in Plato and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Aquinas, Thomas. 2012. Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans. Edited by John Mortensen and Enrique Alarcón. Lander: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine. [Google Scholar]
- Arkes, Hadley. 1992. That ‘Nature Herself Has Placed in Our Ears a Power of Judging’: Some Reflections on the ‘Naturalism’ of Cicero. In Natural Law Theory: Contemporary Essays. Edited by Robert P. George. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 245–77. [Google Scholar]
- Arnold, Edward Vernon. 1958. Roman Stoicism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. [Google Scholar]
- Asmis, Elizabeth. 2008. Cicero on Natural Law and the Laws of the State. Classical Antiquity 27: 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ball, William E. 1901. St. Paul and the Roman Law. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. [Google Scholar]
- Barclay, John M. G. 1998. Paul and Philo on Circumcision: Romans 2.25-9 in Social and Cultural Context. NTS 44: 536–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, Richard H. 1998. No One Seeks for God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 1.18-3.20. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. [Google Scholar]
- Berkley, Timothy W. 2000. From a Broken Covenant to Circumcision of the Heart: Pauline Intertextual Exegesis in Romans 2:17-29. SBLDiss 175. Atlanta: SBL Press. [Google Scholar]
- Blyth, Dougal. 2010. Cicero and Philosophy as Text. The Classical Journal 106: 71–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bole, Thomas J. 2004. The Perversity of Thomistic Natural Law Theory: Reflections on Lustig’s Criticisms. In Natural Law and the Possibility of a Global Ethics. Edited by Mark J. Cherry. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 141–47. [Google Scholar]
- Bornkamm, Günther. 1959. Gesetz und Natur: Röm 2.14-16. In Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum, Band II. BET 28. Munich: Kaiser Verlag, pp. 93–118. [Google Scholar]
- Bosman, Philip. 2003. Conscience in Philo and Paul: A Conceptual History of the Synoida Word Group. WUNT 2.166. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. [Google Scholar]
- Briones, David E. 2019. Paul and the Giants of Philosophy: An Introduction. In Paul and the Giants of Philosophy: Reading the Apostle in Greco-Roman Context. Edited by Joseph R. Dodson and David E. Briones. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Bruce, Frederick F. 1985. Romans: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. [Google Scholar]
- Brunt, Peter A. 2013. Studies in Stoicism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Burns, Tony. 2002. Sophocles’ Antigone and the History of the Concept of Natural Law. Political Studies 50: 545–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bussey, Peter J. 2020. Natural Law—‘God’s Law in our Hearts’. Science and Christian Belief 32: 5–28. [Google Scholar]
- Citti, Francesco. 2015. Quaedam iura non lege sed natura: Nature and Natural Law in Roman Declamation. In Law and Ethics in Greek and Roman Declamation. Edited by Eugenio Amato, Francesco Citti and Bart Huelsenbeck. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, Boaz. 1966. Jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative Study. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, vol. 1. [Google Scholar]
- Collins, C. John. 2010. Echoes of Aristotle in Romans 2:14-15: Or, Maybe Abimelech Was Not So Bad After All. Journals of Markets & Morality 13: 123–73. [Google Scholar]
- Covell, Charles. 1992. The Defense of Natural Law: A Study of the Ideas of Law and Justice in the Writings of Lon L. Fuller, Michael Oakeshot, F. A. Hayek, Ronald Dworkin and John Finnis. London: St. Martin’s Press. [Google Scholar]
- Crowe, Michael Bertram. 1977. The Changing Profile of the Natural Law. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. [Google Scholar]
- Deenick, Karl. 2018. Righteous by promise: A Biblical Theology of Circumcision. NSBT 45. Downers Grove: IVP Academic. [Google Scholar]
- Dodd, Charles H. 1932. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. London: Hodder & Stoughton. [Google Scholar]
- Dodd, Charles H. 1946a. Natural Law in the Bible—I. Theology 49: 130–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodd, Charles H. 1946b. Natural Law in the Bible—II. Theology 49: 161–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Domingo, Rafael. 2018. Roman Law: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Dyck, Andrew R. 1996. A Commentary on Cicero: De Officiis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar]
- Dyck, Andrew R. 2004. A Commentary on Cicero: De Legibus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar]
- Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. 2000. Paul and the Stoics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd. [Google Scholar]
- Ervin, Howard M. 1984. Conversion-Initiation and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. [Google Scholar]
- Forschner, Benedikt. 2016. Law’s Nature: Philosophy as a Legal Argument in Cicero’s Writings. In Cicero’s Law: Rethinking Roman Law of the Late Republic. Edited by Paul J. du Plessis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 50–68. [Google Scholar]
- Foster, John Bellamy, Brett Clark, and Richard York. 2008. Critique of Intelligent Design: Materialism versus Creationism from Antiquity to the Present. New York: Monthly Review Press. [Google Scholar]
- Fridrichsen, Anton. 1922. Der wahre Jude und sein Lob: Röm 2.28f. Symbolae Arctoae 1: 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuchs, Joseph. 1991. The Natural Law in the Testimony of the Church. In Moral Theology No. 7: Natural and Theology. Edited by Charles E. Curran and Richard A. McCormick. Mahwah: Paulist Press, pp. 5–16. [Google Scholar]
- Gathercole, Simon J. 2002. A Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2.14-15 Revisited. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 85: 27–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenwood, David. 1971. Saint Paul and Natural Law. Biblical Theology Bulletin 1: 262–79. [Google Scholar]
- Hafemann, Scott J. 2005. Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: Paternoster. [Google Scholar]
- Hafemann, Scott J. 2019. Paul: Servant of the New Covenant—Pauline Polarities in Eschatological Perspective. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. [Google Scholar]
- Hall, Jerome. 1985. Paul, the Lawyer, on Law. Journal of Law and Religion 3: 331–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harvey, John D. 2017. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: Romans. Nashville: B&H Academic. [Google Scholar]
- Hayes, Christine. 2015. What’s Divine about Divine Law? Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Hultgren, Arland J. 2011. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
- Jantzen, Benjamin C. 2014. An Introduction to Design Arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Jewett, Robert. 2007. Romans: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, Alan F. 1982. Is there a Biblical Warrant for Natural-Law Theories. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25: 185–99. [Google Scholar]
- Kamlah, Ehrhard. 1954. Buchstabe und Geist: Die Bedeutung dieser Antithese für die altestamentliche Exegese des Apostels Paulus. EvTh 14: 276–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Käsemann, Ernst. 1971. The Spirit and the Letter. In Perspectives on Paul. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, pp. 138–66. [Google Scholar]
- Käsemann, Ernst. 1980. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
- Keener, Craig S. 2009. Romans: A New Covenant Commentary. Eugene: Cascade Books. [Google Scholar]
- Kremer, Jacob. 1980. ‘Denn der Buchstabe Tötet, der Geist aber macht lebendig’: Methodologische und hermeneutische Erwägungen zu 2 Kor 3,6b. In Begegnung mit dem Wort. BBB 53. Edited by Traugott Holtz. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, pp. 219–50. [Google Scholar]
- Kuhr, Friedrich. 1964. Römer 2.14f. und die Verheissung bei Jeremia 31.31ff. ZNW 55: 243–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linebaugh, Jonathan A. 2011. Announcing the Human: Rethinking the Relationship Between Wisdom of Solomon 13-15 and Romans 1:18-2:11. New Testament Studies 57: 214–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, Anthony A. 1986. Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
- Long, Anthony A. 2006. From Epicurus to Epictetus: Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [Google Scholar]
- Longenecker, Richard N. 2016. The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
- Lyall, Francis. 1981. Legal Metaphors in the Epistles. Tyndale Bulletin 32: 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyonnet, Stanislaus. 1968. La circoncision du Coeur, celle qui relève de l’Esprit et non de la letter (Rom 2:29). In L’Evangile, hier et aujourd’hui. Edited by Pierre Bonnard. FS F. J. Leenhardt. Geneva: Labor et Fides, pp. 89–94. [Google Scholar]
- Maritain, Jacques. 1991. Natural Law in Aquinas. In Moral Theology No. 7: Natural and Theology. Edited by Charles E. Curran and Richard A. McCormick. Mahwah: Paulist Press, pp. 114–23. [Google Scholar]
- Martens, John W. 1994. Romans 2.14-16: A Stoic Reading. New Testament Studies 40: 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadden, Kevin W. 2013. Judgement According to Works in Romans: The Meaning and Function of Divine Judgment in Paul’s Most Important Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. [Google Scholar]
- McKenzie, John L. 1964. Natural Law in the New Testament. Biblical Research 9: 3–13. [Google Scholar]
- Middendorf, Michael P. 2013. Concordia Commentary, A Theological Exposition of Sacred Scripture: Romans 1–8. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House. [Google Scholar]
- Moo, Douglas. 1991. Romans 2: Saved Apart from the Gospel? In Through No Fault of Their Own?: The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard. Edited by William V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, pp. 137–45. [Google Scholar]
- Morris, Leon. 1988. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: William B, Eerdmans Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
- Muntz, William S. 1913. Rome, St. Paul, and the Early Church: The Influence of Roman Law on St. Paul’s Teaching and Phraseology and on the Development of the Church. London: John Murray. [Google Scholar]
- Pohlenz, Max. 1949. Paulus und die Stoa. Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älten Kirche 42: 69–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powell, Jonathan G. F., ed. 1995. Introduction: Cicero’s Philosophical Works and their Background. In Cicero the Philosopher. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–36. [Google Scholar]
- Powell, Jonathan G. F. 2001. “Were Cicero’s Laws the Laws of Cicero’s Republic?”. In Cicero’s Republic. Edited by Jonathan G. F. Powell and John A. North. London: Institute of Classical Studies. [Google Scholar]
- Remow, Gabriela. 2008. Aristotle, Antigone and Natural Justice. History of Political Thought 29: 585–600. [Google Scholar]
- Remus, Harold E. 1984. Authority, consent, law: Nomos, physis, and the striving for a ‘given’. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 13: 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riggsby, Andrew M. 2010. Roman Law and the Legal World of the Romans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Sandbach, F. H. 2018. The Stoics. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. [Google Scholar]
- Sanders, Ed Parish. 1983. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. [Google Scholar]
- Schnelle, Udo. 2005. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Translated by M. Eugene Boring. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group. [Google Scholar]
- Schofield, Malcolm. 2021. Cicero: Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Schreiner, Thomas. 1993. Did Paul Believe in Justification by Works?: Another Look at Romans 2. Bulletin for Biblical Research 3: 131–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sedley, David. 2007. Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
- Seifrid, Mark A. 1998. Natural Revelation and the Purpose of the Law in Romans. Tyndale Bulletin 49: 115–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skinner, B. G. 1964. New Testament Ethics and Natural Law. Church Quarterly Review 165: 8–17. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, Jonathan Z. 1987. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
- Spicq, Ceslas. 1938. La Conscience dans le Nouveau Testament. Revue Biblique 47: 50–80. [Google Scholar]
- Stępień, Jan. 1980. La conscience dans l’anthropologie de Saint-Paul. RHPR 60: 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stuhlmacher, Peter. 1986. Vom Verstehen des Neuen Testaments: Eine Hermeneutik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. [Google Scholar]
- Thielman, Frank. 2018. Romans: Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. [Google Scholar]
- Thiessen, Matthew. 2014. Paul’s Argument against Gentile Circumcision in Romans 2:17-29. Novum Testamentum 56: 373–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thorsteinsson, Runar M. 2003. Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans 2: Function and Identity in the Context of Ancient Epistolography. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. [Google Scholar]
- Thorsteinsson, Runar M., Matthew Thiessen, and Rafael Rodríguez. 2016. Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans: The Problem of Identification. In The So-Called Jew in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Edited by Matthew Thiessen and Rafael Rodríguez. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, pp. 1–38. [Google Scholar]
- VanDrunen, David. 2013. Natural Law and Mosaic Law in the Theology of Paul: Their Relationship and its Social-Political Implications. In Natural Law and Evangelical Political Thought. Edited by Jesse Covington, Bryan McGraw and Micah Watson. Plymouth: Lexington Books, pp. 85–108. [Google Scholar]
- VanDrunen, David. 2014. Divine Covenants and Moral Order: A Biblical Theology of Natural Law. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
- van Spanje, Teunis Erik. 1999. Inconsistency in Paul?: A Critique of the Work of Heikki Räisänen. WUNT 2.110. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. [Google Scholar]
- Vonglis, Bernard. 1968. La lettre et l’esprit de la loi dans la jurisprudence classique et la rhétorique. Paris: Sirey. [Google Scholar]
- Watson, Francis. 1986. Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Watson, Gerard. 1996. The Natural Law and Stoicism. In Problems in Stoicism. Edited by Anthony A. Long. London: Athlone Press, pp. 216–38. [Google Scholar]
- Weinreb, Lloyd L. 1987. Natural Law and Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Westerholm, Stephen. 1984. ‘Letter’ and ‘Spirit’: The Foundation of Pauline Ethics. New Testament Studies 30: 229–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westerholm, Stephen. 2022. Romans: Text, Readers, and the History of Interpretation. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
- Wolter, Michael. 2008. Von der Entmachtung des Buchstabens durch seine Attribute: Eine Spurensuche, ausgehend von Röm 2,29. In Sprachgewinn (FS Günter Bader). Edited by Heinrich Assel and Hans-Christoph Akani. AHST 11. Berlin: Lit Verlag, pp. 149–61. [Google Scholar]
- Wolter, Michael. 2013. ‘Spirit’ and ‘Letter’ in the New Testament. In The Spirit and the Letter: A Tradition and A Reversal. Edited by Paul S. Fiddes and Günter Bader. London: A&C Black, pp. 31–46. [Google Scholar]
- Wright, Nicholas Thomas. 2001. The Law in Romans 2. In Paul and the Mosaic Law. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 131–50. [Google Scholar]
- Yates, Jonathan P. 2008. Romans 2:14-15 in the Latin Tradition Before the Pelagian Controversies. Augustiniana 58: 27–74. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wilson, L.A.; Blois, I.D. A Stoic Reading of Internal Obedience in Romans 1:18–2:29. Religions 2023, 14, 579. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14050579
Wilson LA, Blois ID. A Stoic Reading of Internal Obedience in Romans 1:18–2:29. Religions. 2023; 14(5):579. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14050579
Chicago/Turabian StyleWilson, Laurie A., and Isaac D. Blois. 2023. "A Stoic Reading of Internal Obedience in Romans 1:18–2:29" Religions 14, no. 5: 579. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14050579
APA StyleWilson, L. A., & Blois, I. D. (2023). A Stoic Reading of Internal Obedience in Romans 1:18–2:29. Religions, 14(5), 579. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14050579