Circular Rhetoric and Logic in Romans: Exegetical Challenge

1. Circular Rhetoric and Exegetical Challenge in RomansCircular Rhetoric and Logic of ParadoxSociety of Biblical Literature International Meeting 2015Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 20-24, 2015Paul and Pauline Literature Theme: RomansElsa Tamez, United Bible Societies, Presiding7/22/2015 2:00 PM to 3:30 PM Room 111 (1st floor) Universidad Católica Argentina, San José Building Richard K. Min University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas, USA Instituto Teologico Bauptista Pablo (ITBP), Chiapas, Mexico email: rkm010300@utdallas.edu http://www.utdallas.edu/~rkm010300

2. Acknowledgements • Gopal Gupta for his support and guidance for my study and research at University of Texas at Dallas. • Hyungu Kim at Ko-Mex Mission in Chiapas, Mexico, Sam Underwood at FBC Farmers Branch, Sang-Jin Kim at Glory Baptist Church, Richard Covington at the Heights BC, Katy Barnwell at Wycliffe Bible Translators, David (Hosik) Kim at Korean Bible University, Paul Miller at Gramcord, and SeJune Hong at IBM, for research opportunity, support, and encouragement. • E. Earle Ellis for my NT Study and Harry B, Hunt for my OT study at SWBTS, Carl F. H. Henry for my study in John and Theology, John Grassmick and Eugene Merrill at Dallas Theological Seminary. • Cathy Drewry for Editorial Support. • Mi Min (my wife) for her support and encouragement, and being my first and best audience.

3. Note on Terminology These terms are used somewhat informally (interchangeably): • Cycle סבֵב) or κύκλοςin Ecclesiastes 1:6) • Self-Reference, Self-Witness, Self-Testimony (Genesis 22:16; Isaiah 45:23; Hebrews 6:13; John 8:12-20) • Idem per idem (Exodus 3:14; 33:19; 21:23–24; Matt. 5:38) (S. R. Driver, 1911; recently Lundbom, 1978) • Perichoresis (περιχώρησιςGregory Nazianzen; John 14:10) • Coindwelling, Coinherence, Circumincession in Early Christianity • Reciprocal Interiority (John 14:10, Brown 1966, 1982; Malatesta1978) • Vicious Circle (Titus 1:12) Russell 1903, Kripke 1975) • (Infinite) Loop, Coinduction, Coinductive Logic (in computational logic) • Circular Rhetoric and Paradox in the Bible (Min 2010-2015)

4. Part 1 • Introduction and Background

5. Circular Rhetoric and Paradox: Background • Russell’s Discovery - Paradox (1910 & logical atomism) A barber is “one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves." (Barber’s Paradox) Does the barber shave himself? Yes? or No? (Russell 1918 Lecture: The Philosophy of Logical Atomism) cf. “Physician, Heal yourself!” (Luke 4:24) • The Liar Paradox (Titus 1:12; cf. Romans 3:4) Even one of their own prophet has said, “Cretans are always liars.” “Κρῆτες, ἀεὶ ψευδεῖς, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί” [by Epimenides (circa 600BC), identified by Clement of Alexandria] Logical Role of the Liar paradox in Titus 1:12, 13: A Dissent from the Commentaries in the Light of Philosophical and Logical Analysis by Anthony C. Thiselton (BI 1994)

6. Two Traditional Approaches • Logical Atomism 1 (Russell, followed by Tarski): • Philosophy to provide a sound epistemological foundation • Classical Logic: to avoid circularity (paradox), to treat circular logic as invalid, and to have a hierarchy of language to prevent the circularity • Logical Atomism 2 (Wittgenstein): • Philosophy to point out linguistic mistake: “metaphysics and ethics were literally nonsensical” • Deconstructionism (Postmodernism) (by Derrida): to treat the languages as incapable and helpless. • “Is Zombie alive or dead?” • Reconstruct one’s own personal & subjective meaning of the text (for there is no such a thing as objective “truth” expressed in a text). • The rise of Post-Liberal (Narrative) Theology

7. Breakthrough by Kripke (1975) and Emerging new development with Circular Logic Kripke (1975): “Outline of a Theory of Truth”, and “Kripke-Kleene 3-valued Semantics for Logic Programs” by Fitting (1985), and various computational approaches, applications & implementations, including: Coinductive Logic Programming by Simon (2006), Coinductive Logic Programming with Negation as Failure by Min (2009), and its application to the study of Circular Rhetoric and Paradox in the Bible by Min (SBL IM 2010–2015, EABS 2014, ETS 2014). Rediscovering Circular Rhetoric and Logic in Trinitarian formulation in Early Christianity: Recent noteworthy work on Gregory of Nyssa by Stramara Jr. (1996; 1998).

8. Part 2 • Survey - Selected Examplesin the Bible Circular Rhetoric and Paradox

9. Example 1. Exodus 3:14 "I am who I am (אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה)" in Exodus 3:14. idem per idem (OT) – S. R. Driver; Lundbom

10. Example 2 - John 14:10, 11 Perichoresis (περιχώρησις)and onenessby Gregory Nazianzen, Triniterian concept & term by Athansius, and Cappadosian Fathers: coindwelling, coinherence, circumincession, cycle, periphero, anacyclosis, etc.

11. Example 3 – Titus 1:12The Liar Paradox • Romans 3:4; Psalm 116:11 • cf. “Physician, Heal yourself!” (Luke 4:24) • Self-Reference with Negation • Bertrand Russell

12. Example 4Three Paradoxes in Matthew 22:15–46 (1) Matthew 22:15-22 To Pay Tax to Caesar or not (2) Matthew 22:23-33 Marriage vs Resurrection (3) Matthew 22:41-46 David called Christ, “My Lord” in Psalm 110:1

13. A New Look at Matthew 22:15-46 • All dealing with Biblical Law & Legal Reasoning • thus the problems of Biblical Legal Reasoning (Halakoth) • Two Laws in Conflict • Matthew 22:15-22. Tax Law • the law of God vs the law of Caesar (this World) • Who is my Master (Matthew 6:24)? Whose servant am I? • Matthew 22:23-33. Marriage (Family) Law • the law of Marriage (Mosaic Law) in this age vs. in the age to come • the old law to be perished (time-expired) vs. the new law in resurrection • Old Law vs. New Law (over the old law) • Matthew 22:34-40. Linear Order in the Laws (legal precedence) • Hierarchy of the Laws, legal authority, highest law, legal precedence and superseding law, to avoid circular paradox but provide a linear order • Matthew 22:41-46. Law of Inheritance (for Title of Lordship) • the law governing the Son of God in flesh vs. divine (Psalm 110:1)

14. Part 3 • Circular Rhetoric and Exegetical Challenge in Romans (1) “From faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 (2) Romans 3:4 with the Liar paradox in Titus 1:12, (3) “In Christ" and "Christ in you" in Romans 8:10, (4) “Already" and "not yet" in Romans 8:29–30, and (5) Romans 9:15–18 in the light of Exodus 33:19.

15. (1) "from faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 • ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν • Circular lexical pattern (ἐκ + A + εἰς + A) • frequently found in Greek texts between the Homeric era to 600 A.D. • Quarles notes in approximately 340 cases. • The idiomatic use and meaning may vary emphasis, repetition, range, or duration (in time or space, of thing or person), iteration, or even cycle.

16. (1) "from faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 Five possible meanings for ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (1) from God's faithfulness to man's faith, (2) from one's faith to the other's faith from a person to person, from preachers to hearers, from Old Testament believers to New Testament believers, from OT faith to NT faith, from Abraham to Rahab as a panoramic or spectacular array of the faithful people from one end to the other end. (3) dispensational interpretation (from OT to NT) (4) “from faith to faith” as growing and intensifying. "from faith" as the source or the origin of faith cf. John 1:37 => 2:11 => 16:30–31 => 20:8 => 20:31 (5) through faith and faith alone, or simply faith.

17. (1) "from faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 • The same lexical pattern (ἐκ + A + εἰς + A) is found twice in • 2 Corinthians 2:16 with "death" and "life," and • Psalm 84:7 with "strength" (LXX) • Two cases in 2 Corinthians 2:16 should settle the recent debate for the case of Romans 1:17. • Faith vs Faithfulness • Barrett (1970) points out, "to ascribe different meanings to the same word in one phrase is very harsh," as it is similarly noted by Black (1988), to be ruled out.

18. (1) "from faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 • For the case of God's faithfulness, • it could be better meant if one takes it as "from God's faithfulness to Christ's faithfulness" instead of "from Christ's faithfulness to man's faith." • Further within Paul's theological framework of God's sovereignty (ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα) in Romans 11:36. • Note that Jesus Christ is not only divine, but also fully a man of faith, and is faithful to God (cf. Galatians 3:25)

19. (1) "from faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 • The spectrum of the various kinds of faithful people is exemplified by those in the Old or New Testaments. • Those who preached (including Jesus Christ himself in Matthew 4:23) or received, • Those prophets or the apostles, • Those highly or lowly regarded moral representatives ranging from Abraham to Rahab. • From OT believers to NT believers, or • Faith in/from OT Law to NT Gospel

20. (1) "from faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 • The one-and-only-one answer (?) is still debatable for what this circular expression (ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν) in Romans 1:17 may mean exactly. • Within the framework of circular rhetoric, various proposals noted by the early church fathers and commentators could be considered viable within a permissible and creative framework of a preacher or a commentator (e.g., an interpretive model-set). • Matthew 22:15-22 To pay tax to Caesar or not

21. (1) "from faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 • With this understanding, ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν as a circular and idiomatic expression, • faith (πίστις) in Romans 1:17, is then • emphatic, intensive, repeating, iterative, perpetual, continuing, complete, thorough, arrayed, being panoramic, or overarching (in various aspects of faith) • that is, nothing but faith and faith alone.

22. Part 3 • Circular Rhetoric and Exegetical Challenge in Romans (1) “From faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 (2) Romans 3:4 with the Liar paradox in Titus 1:12, (3) “In Christ" and "Christ in you" in Romans 8:10, (4) “Already" and "not yet" in Romans 8:29–30, and (5) Romans 9:15–18 in the light of Exodus 33:19.

23. (2) Romans 3:4 with the Liar Paradox in Titus 1:12 • The liar paradox (πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης) Romans 3:4, citing Psalm 116:11 (כָּֽל־הָאָדָ֥ם כֹּזֵ) cf. The Liar paradox in Titus 1:12 • Circular Rhetoric with Self-Negation • Self-Reference plus Negation • to assert what is true by denying oneself (or itself) • Charge against Paul himself • Misanthropist and very Negative Self-Image • I am a liar and you too, and all of us! • Anthony C. Thiselton, "The Logical Role of the Liar Paradox in Titus 1:12, 13: A Dissent from the Commentaries in Light of Philosophical and Logical Analysis," Biblical Interpretation 2 (1994): 207–223

24. (2) Romans 3:4 with the Liar Paradox in Titus 1:12 • Man’s confession & God’s conviction (John 16:8-11) • Romans 3:9–18. No one is righteous. • John 8:44 and 1 John 1:8–9 (even for all Christians) • Many paradoxes in the Bible use self-negation despising conventional wisdom. • Much more difficult expressions in the Bible are: • self-denial discipleship to deny oneself and to follow Jesus Christ (Mark 8:34), • saving by losing one's life or losing by saving one's life (Mark 8:35), and • the first to be the last and the servant of all in servant-leadership (Mark 9:35).

25. Part 3 • Circular Rhetoric and Exegetical Challenge in Romans (1) “From faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 (2) Romans 3:4 with the Liar paradox in Titus 1:12, (3) “In Christ" and "Christ in you" in Romans 8:10, (4) “Already" and "not yet" in Romans 8:29–30, and (5) Romans 9:15–18 in the light of Exodus 33:19.

26. (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8:10 & "In Christ" • "Christ in you (χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν)" in Romans 8:10, • “In Christ” and its variants (in Romans) – 21 times ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησου 3:24, 6:11, 8:1, 8:2, 16:3 ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ (ἡμῶν) 6:23, 8:39 ἐν Χριστῷ 9:1, 12:5, 16:7, 16:9, 16:10 ἐν κυρίῳ 16:2, 16:8, 16:11, 16:12a, 16:12b, 16:13, 16:22 ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ 14:14, 15:17

27. (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8:10 & "In Christ" • This pair-expression ("in Christ" and "Christ in") in Romans • provides a comprehensive conception of Paul • for the mutual-indwelling relationship of Christ and Christians. • The pair-expression in Romans is clearly circular (at least in lexical level), and comparable to what is noted in John (e.g., John 14:20; 15:5; 17:23, 26). • Question: Is “Christ in” significantly different from “In Christ” in meaning (in Romans, or in Paul, or in NT)?

28. (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8:10 & "In Christ" • No Difference?: The phrase ("Christ in" [you/me]) has been treated essentially equivalent or parallel to the phrase ("in Christ") among the majority of the contemporary Pauline scholars. • Bultmann voiced: "It makes no difference whether Paul speaks of the believers being in Christ or of Christ's being in the believer.“ Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1, trans. Kendrick Grobel (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951), 328;

29. (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8:10 & "In Christ" • A handful of scholars have voiced their differences or distinctions between these two phrases. Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, trans. W. Montgomery (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1931 [1929]), 122–25; Ernest Best, One Body in Christ: A Study in the Relationship of the Church to Christ in the Epistle of the Apostle Paul (London: S.P.C.K., 1955), 9, n. 2, 22; C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: University Press, 1977), 56–57; J. A. Ziesler, Pauline Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 50; N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 45; and Barcley, "Christ in You," 105–35. • William B. Barcley, "Christ in You":A Study in Paul's Theology and Ethics (Lanham, MD: University of America, 1999).

30. (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8:10 & "In Christ" • The meanings of the "in Christ" phrase are rich and comprehensive, usually presented with six+ major theses - being in union with Christ (e.g., Romans 6:5) or - being baptized into one body of Christ (e.g., Romans 12:4–5; Galatians 3:27–28; 1 Corinthians 12:12–13; Col 3:10–11) (1) Corporate expression of Christians in Christ, (2) the Adam-Christology or Adam-Christ anthropology, (3) Membership in the body (church) of Christ who is the head, (4) Eschatological temple (house, building), (5) typological husband in marriage with his wife (or the virgin), (6) Metaphor of being clothed in Christ, (7) Adoption in Christ, and so on.

31. (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8:10 & "In Christ" • Bousset provides an insightful difference between Paul's Christ mysticism and the Hellenistic religion with similar rhetoric, but pantheistic implication. That is, • The lexical pattern ("X in the Christ" or "the Christ in X" where X is, for example, a Christian or Christians) does not grant a pantheistic or panentheistic implication (to say that "X is the Christ" or "the Christ is X") whether the expression is provided reciprocally or not. • Wilhelm Bousset, KYRIOS CHRISTOS: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus, trans. John E. Steely (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2013 [1913]), 164–69. Bousset notes the expressions in Hermetic prayers for being completely pantheistic (for example, "Come to me, Hermes, as children come into the body of women. . . . I know you, Hermas, and you know me. I am you and you are I," and "For you are I and I am you. Your name is mine and mine is yours. I am your image.") • Based on this ground, four points are noted.

32. (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8:10 & "In Christ" • First (1), in the framework of Adam-Christ anthology (Adam-Christology), • we note the pair-expression of "in Christ" and "Christ in" in Romans, but always with the phrase "in Adam." • There is never a phrase such as "Adam in" or with any human being (except the Christ or Satan, or non-human object such as sin, death, or the Kingdom of God). • This observation may hint the difference between "in Christ" and "Christ in" for further study.

33. (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8:10 & "In Christ" • Second (2), in the framework of the two-stage coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 17:17–24), • a clear difference and distinction exists between the case of the invisible Kingdom of God within a person ("the Kingdom of God in X") • and the case of the visible Kingdom of God on the day of the Son of Man ("X in the Kingdom of God"). • Clearly, the invisible Kingdom of God is present in all those who witness the power of the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:28; Luke 11:20).

34. (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8:10 & "In Christ" • Third (3), Satan (or demonic beings) enters into a man ("Satan in X"), as well as a man is in or under the rule of Satan (Eph 2:1–2; John 8:34, 44). • For example, Satan enters into Judah (John 13:27). • Judah was already in (under the influence of or being tempted by) Satan, who inserted an evil thought into Judah's heart to betray Jesus (John 13:2). • A similar case of an evil spirit being in and later coming out of a slave girl by Paul is noted in Acts 16:16–18.  

35. (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8:10 & "In Christ" • Finally (4), in the framework of Temple-House anthropology, • a man is like a temple or a house in which the Holy Spirit or evil spirit(s) may come and dwell (Rom 8:9, 11; Matt 12:43–45). So does Christ (John 2:19–22). • Abundant biblical examples exist of a man possessed by evil spirit(s) dwelling in the man, and evil spirit(s) being cast out of a man (Matt 8:28–34). • Further, John notes that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit shall dwell in the believer (John 14:17, 23).

36. (3) "Christ in You" in Romans 8:10 & "In Christ" • Based on these four observations, we may conclude safely that a substantial difference and distinction exists between "in Christ" and "Christ in" • in this circular rhetoric and expression in the Bible, and is consistently applied to the letters of Paul and so in the framework of Romans. • Gal 2:20; 4:19; 2 Cor 13:5; Col 1:27; Eph 3:17 • as well as in Johannine Literature, and then to New Testament in general.

37. Part 3 • Circular Rhetoric and Exegetical Challenge in Romans (1) “From faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 (2) Romans 3:4 with the Liar paradox in Titus 1:12, (3) “In Christ" and "Christ in you" in Romans 8:10, (4) “Already" and "not yet" in Romans 8:29–30, and (5) Romans 9:15–18 in the light of Exodus 33:19.

38. (4) "Already" and "Not Yet" in Romans 8:29–30 • The passage in Romans 8:29–30 presents another mystery and paradox for those in Christ. • We have already surveyed and discussed extensively with a handful cases of "already" and "not yet" in tension. • In addition, the temporal-modal mystery and paradox in Romans 8:29–30 is closely related to the cases in this study • for example, the two-stage coming of the Kingdom of God (Luke 17:20–30), • the human Christ who was "not yet" come in contrast to the divine Christ who was "already" existed before John the Baptist (John 1:15, 30), • the Son of God, both human and divine, in the lordship-relationship with David (Ps 110:1 in Matt 22:41–46), and • in the order of priesthood-relationship with Melchizedek (Ps 110:4 in Hebrews 7).

39. (4) "Already" and "Not Yet" in Romans 8:29–30 • Paul presents the divine providence for those whom God foreknew, predestinated, called, justified, and glorified. • These five verbs προέγνω, προώρισεν, ἐκάλεσεν, ἐδικαίωσεν, ἐδόξασεν • are given in past tense (aorist) as if all are done and completed. • Essentially, God is in His total control and sovereignty from the beginning to the end over all things (Romans 11:36). • All the passages in Romans 8 clearly for those (in Romans 8:29–30) who are either already in Christ or not yet in Christ (or what is already or not yet done or fulfilled).

40. (4) "Already" and "Not Yet" in Romans 8:29–30 • To avoid any potential exegetical or theological difficulty, one conventional option is to label these divine actions in past tense as prophetic past or gnomic (time-less). • Within this temporal-modal framework, one may explore viable variations or alternatives in exposition, to be flexible and consistent within the theological framework of Romans. • Is this acceptable? exegetically and hermeneutically

41. “Already” and “Not Yet” in Tension Classical Examples in Contemporary NT Studies Two-Stage Coming of the Kingdom of God“Already” and “Not Yet” in Tension (Luke 17:20-30)Salvation History (Heilsgeschichte) by Oscar Cullmann

42. “Already” and “Not Yet” in TensionThe Testimony of John the Baptist (John 1:15, 30) • The similar circular rhetoric of “already” & “not yet” in the testimony of John the Baptist (John 1:15,30) • The passage is composed of three simple and distinctive prepositional phrases, in either temporal or spatial (in rank or order) meaning, to generate an interesting enigma and paradox in exegesis. • ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος (2) ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν (3) ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν

43. “Already” and “Not Yet” in TensionDivine-Human relationship in Matthew 22:41-46 Christ - Whose son is he? Son of David. Paradox of Lord-Servant (Father-Son) RelationshipWhat is Human vs Divine relationship in crash!

44. “Already” and “Not Yet” in TensionMelchizedek and the Son of God in Hebrews 7 • Melchizedek and the Son of God 1 Οὗτος γὰρ ὁ Μελχισέδεκ, βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ, ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου, … 3 ἀπάτωρ ἀμήτωρ ἀγενεαλόγητος, μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων, ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές. … Melchizedek is (made) alike the Son of God 15 καὶ περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλόν ἐστιν, εἰ κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα Μελχισέδεκ ἀνίσταται ἱερεὺς ἕτερος, 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest.

45. “Already” and “Not Yet” in TensionA Difficult Problem in 1 John 3:9 & 5:18 vs1:8-10 • Sin-state of Christian in need of Confession for the forgiveness of God (1 John 1:8-10) versus • Sinless-state (impeccable state) of Christian (1 John 3:9, 5:18) • How to Harmonize these conflicting passages? Or is it even possible? • 1 John 3:9 one “born of God” in circular logic Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτιἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται. • Does sin have a different meaning (aspect) to one “before” and “after” being born of God? • What sin can “one born of God” never commit? Sin of not believing in Jesus Christ the Son of God our Propitiation

46. (4) "Already" and "Not Yet" in Romans 8:29–30 • One appealing case for Romans 8:29–30 is a temporal-modal framework of: (1) all the five actions are being declared by God before the creation of the world, and (2) the five actions are spread over a linear timeline. • For (2), the first two actions are considered to have occurred before the creation of the world, the next two actions in this present age, and the last action in the future of the eschatological timeframe. • As a result, in the temporal-modal framework of what is divine versus human, various paradoxical and intriguing questions would emerge in the context of Romans.

47. (4) "Already" and "Not Yet" in Romans 8:29–30 • One appealing case for Romans 8:29–30 is a temporal-modal framework of: (1) all the five actions are being declared by God before the creation of the world, and (2) the five actions are spread over a linear timeline. • foreknew, predestinated, called, justified, and glorified • προέγνω, προώρισεν, ἐκάλεσεν, ἐδικαίωσεν, ἐδόξασεν • The first two actions are considered to have occurred before the creation of the world, • the next two actions in this present age, and • the last action in the future of the eschatological timeframe.

48. (4) "Already" and "Not Yet" in Romans 8:29–30 • As a result, in the temporal-modal framework of what is divine vs human (declarative vs effectual, promised vs fulfilled, …) • various paradoxical and intriguing questions would emerge in the context of Romans.

49. Part 3 • Circular Rhetoric and Exegetical Challenge in Romans (1) “From faith to faith" in Romans 1:17 (2) Romans 3:4 with the Liar paradox in Titus 1:12, (3) “In Christ" and "Christ in you" in Romans 8:10, (4) “Already" and "not yet" in Romans 8:29–30, and (5) Romans 9:15–18 in the light of Exodus 33:19.

50. (5) Romans 9:15, 18 in the light of Exodus 33:19 • Two passages in Romans 9:15 and 9:18 present an exegetical challenge and theological difficulty in the Bible. • Both passages present God's will and action accordingly in the frame of circular rhetoric and logic. • The passage in Romans 9:15 repeats what God said to Moses in Exodus 33:19 that God will have mercy on whom God has mercy, and that God will have compassion on whom God has compassion. • The relational quality of God's compassion and mercy could be good and positive, especially for those in God's compassion and mercy.