Even new Bible professors there, I got the sense, if they had not studied at Asbury as a grad student, could be mystified at a completely unique language used scarcely anywhere else in the academy. What do you make of a label like, "recurrence of particularization with filial language"? I don't think I really got a sense of what all that stuff was about until I adjuncted for Asbury a few times 10-15 years ago.
But I continue to find these categories incredibly helpful. I'm also teaching Romans online right now. I try to spare the lingo and of course these observations are spread out over weeks. But when I look at Romans, I am now cursed to see:
- Romans 1:16-17 as the key verses of this book ("generalization of 1:16-17 in 1:18-11:36").
- I can't help but see 1:18-5:11 as a movement from the problem--"all have sinned" (1:18-3:20) to the solution--"the faithfulness of Jesus Christ" (3:21-4:25)
- ... with Romans 3:20-31 as the greatest encapsulation of how salvation works in the whole Bible ("generalization of the solution in 3:21-4:25")
- ... and Romans 5:1-11 as the conclusion to this whole section ("generalization with logical causation").
Who will free me from this body of IBS-eze??? I'm convinced that these are all valid patterns. But who will have a clue what I am talking about?