The Divine-Human Relationship in Romans 1–8 in the Light of Interdependence Theory

Description

Yoonjong Kim analyse the divine-human relationship in Paul’s theology, focusing on Paul’s portrayal of the relationship in Romans 1–8. Kim stresses that previous studies of this relationship have not paid sufficient attention to the fact that it is not static, but rather exhibits progression and development towards a goal. To address the significance of the human agent’s role in the relationship, Kim employs a social psychological theory – interdependence theory – offering a consistent analytic framework for diagnosing the interactions in a dyadic relationship in terms of the dependency created by each partner’s expectations of outcomes. Kim explores several key stages of the divine-human relationship and the direction in which the relationship develops throughout Romans 1–8, in order to highlight the significance of the human partners in the course of the development. He focuses in particular on betrayal (1.18–3.20), restoration (3.21–26; 5.1–11), the oppressive relationship with Sin (5.12–8.11), and the investment for the future (8.12–39), and concludes that although the foundation of the relationship rests on God’s initiative, the divine outworking guides the relationship so that it facilitates mutual participation of the human partners in the restoration and development of the relationship toward the ultimate goal. Cover page Halftitle page Title page Copyright page Contents Figures Abbreviations Abstract Acknowledgements 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Scholarship on the divine- human relationship in Romans 1–8 1.2.1 Divine and human agency 1.2.2 Apocalyptic Paul 1.2.3 Χάρις in Paul 1.2.4 Covenantal relationship (N.T. Wright) 1.2.5 Summary and prospect 1.3 The procedure of the study 2 Methodology 2.1 Introduction 2.2 An outline of IT 2.2.1 Reward and cost 2.2.2 Comparison level and comparison level for alternatives 2.2.3 Outcome table 2.2.4 Various powers in the relationship: Partner control, joint control and actor control 27 2.2.5 Four features of interdependence 2.2.5.1 Degree of dependence 2.2.5.1 Degree of dependence 2.2.5.2 Mutuality of dependence 2.2.5.3 Basis of dependence 2.2.5.4 Covariation of interests (correspondence of outcomes) 2.2.6 Transformation of motivation: From “given situation” to “effective situation” 2.3 Why do we need IT? 2.4 Methodological considerations: Toward a use of IT for the interpretation of Romans 1–8 2.4.1 On historical-cultural validity: The issue of the individual and IT 2.4.1.1 Understanding the individual in antiquity 2.4.1.2 Paul’s understanding of the individual 2.4.1.3 The concept of “outcome” and self-interest 2.4.2 Placing the divine- human relationship into the framework of a dyadic relationship 2.4.2.1 Human beings: As group and as single entity 2.4.2.2 Can God be like a human actor? 2.4.3 Using text as source 2.5 Conclusion 3 Diagnosing Human Corruption: Human Sinfulness as Betrayal (Rom. 1:18–3:20) 3.1 Introduction 3.2 The broken relationship between God and humanity (1): Betrayal by the wrong calculation (Gentiles) (Rom. 1:18–32) 3.2.1 Betrayal in IT 3.2.2 The relational characteristic of human sin: Subversion and animosity (Rom. 1:21–32) 3.2.3 The reason for betrayal: Different calculations of “outcomes” (humanity’s perspective vs. Paul’s perspective) 3.2.3.1 The calculation by humanity: The reason for leaving 3.2.3.2 The calculation by Paul: The reason for remaining 3.2.4 Summary 3.3 The broken relationship between God and humanity (2): Breaking “social norms” (Jews) (Rom. 2:1–3:8) 3.3.1 The function of “social norms” in IT 3.3.2 Aspects of brokenness: Unfaithfulness to the law and circumcision as “social norms” (Rom. 2:1–5; 2:17–3:8) 3.4 The universality of brokenness (Rom. 3:9–20) 3.5 Conclusion 4 The Relational Significance of Jesus’ Death (1)—“Making Amends for Sins”: Jesus as ἱλαστήριον and the Process of Forgiveness (Rom. 3:21–26) 4.1 Introduction 4.2 The process of forgiveness in IT 4.3 Recompense and forgiveness (and reconciliation) according to ancient perspectives 4.4 Forgiveness in Rom. 3:21–26: From an interpersonal perspective 4.5 Situating Rom. 3:21–26 within the process of forgiveness in IT: God as “victim,” humanity as “perpetrators,” sin as “betrayal” and ἱλαστήριον as “amends” 4.5.1 Three different outlooks on ἱλαστήριον: Expiation, propitiation and the mercy seat 4.5.2 Suggesting an alternative way to understand ἱλαστήριον: ἱλαστήριον and “amends” 4.5.2.1 “Amends” and expiation 4.5.2.2 “Amends” and propitiation 4.5.2.3 “Amends” and the mercy seat 4.5.2.4 Summary 4.6 “Through faith” (διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως) and mutual participation 4.7 Conclusion 5 The Relational Significance of Jesus’ Death (2)—The Meaning of God’s Self-Sacrifice in Christ’s Death (Rom. 5:1–11) 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Understanding God’s self-sacrifice in Christ from an interpersonal perspective 5.2.1 The pattern of “martyrdom” 5.3 “Self-presentation” and “attribution”: The process of communication for “transformation” 5.3.1 Self-presentation 5.3.2 Attribution 5.4 The results from the transformation: Positive outcomes for God and for the (long-term) relationship 5.5 Contextual evidence: Christ’s death as a gift72 5.6 Conclusion 6 History of Slavery and History of Salvation: An Investigation of the Sin-Human Relationship(Rom. 5:12–8:11) 6.1 Introduction 6.2 The identity of Sin in Romans 5–8 6.2.1 Sin as a personified cosmic power 6.2.2 Sin as a malicious slave master 6.3 Romans 7 in the light of IT–The issue of the “I” (Rom. 7:7–25) 6.3.1 “Non-voluntary relationship” in IT 6.3.2 Reading the monologue of the “I” in the light of “non-voluntary relationship” in IT 6.3.2.1 An alternative option for the “I” and the required cost: The reason for remaining in the abusive relationship with Sin (Rom. 7:1–6) 6.3.2.2 The solution for the abusive relationship – The implication of the Christ-event for the termination of the Sin-human relationship (Rom. 6:1–11; 8:1–11) 6.4 Conclusion 7 Investment for the Future: The Meaning of Endurance Throughout Suffering (Rom. 8:12–39) 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Framing suff ering and glory: Suffering as “cost” and glory as “reward” (Rom. 8:17–18) 7.3 Relational implication of enduring suffering (1): An expression of fidelity 7.4 Relational implication of enduring suff ering (2): In the light of the “investment situation” in IT (Rom. 8:12–30) 7.4.1 Forgoing immediate interests (Rom. 8:12–17) 7.4.2 Necessity of mutual commitment (Rom. 8:18–30) 7.4.2.1 The use of familial language 7.4.2.2 The use of συν – compounds 7.5 Strategies for sustaining the relationship 7.5.1 Persistence objectively warranted by a goal (Rom. 8:26–27, 31–39) 7.5.2 Persistence promoted by proximity (Rom. 8:18) 7.5.3 Persistence promoted by mounting exit costs (Rom. 8:6, 13) 7.5.4 Persistence promoted by trust and commitment (Rom. 8:31–39) 7.5.5 Relationship maintenance mechanisms (Rom. 8:14–17) 7.5.6 Increasing locomotion (Rom. 8:13–14, 18, 24–25) 7.6 Conclusion 8 Conclusion 8.1 Summary of the study 8.2 Implications of the study Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors