Die openbaring van God – ’n retories-kritiese interpretasie van Romeine 1:18-32

The revelation of God – a rhetorical-critical interpretation of Romans 1:18-32 M.A. Kruger’s 1983 doctoral thesis caused serious discussion in GKSA circles with regard to the differentiation between “general revelation” and “specific revelation”. Romans 1:18-32 seems to be a central pericope in th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: E. Cornelius
Format: Article
Language:Afrikaans
Published: AOSIS 2003-08-01
Series:In die Skriflig
Subjects:
Online Access:https://indieskriflig.org.za/index.php/skriflig/article/view/490
id doaj-f3a17cb07bd24ed5ae2277b80b934006
record_format Article
spelling doaj-f3a17cb07bd24ed5ae2277b80b9340062020-11-24T21:47:08ZafrAOSISIn die Skriflig1018-64412305-08532003-08-0137471973410.4102/ids.v37i4.490385Die openbaring van God – ’n retories-kritiese interpretasie van Romeine 1:18-32E. Cornelius0Skool vir Bybelwetenskappe en Bybeltale, Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir CHOThe revelation of God – a rhetorical-critical interpretation of Romans 1:18-32 M.A. Kruger’s 1983 doctoral thesis caused serious discussion in GKSA circles with regard to the differentiation between “general revelation” and “specific revelation”. Romans 1:18-32 seems to be a central pericope in the understanding of the revelation of God. A project of the Faculty of Theology, PU for CHE, focusing on this specific problem, gave birth to this article as a component of the interpretation of this pericope. The issue addressed in this article is how this pericope can be interpreted from a rhetorical-critical point of view. In my own interdisciplinary and interactional approach to rhetorical criticism, the purpose is to interpret the communicative function(s) of this pericope. It turns out that the letter to the Romans was addressed to those in Rome in order to convince them that the reason for their acceptance as God’s people lies in God’s work only and not in their imitation of the Jews. Romans 1:18-32 seems to be part of the opening of the letter body intended to be a warning for all people, including an example of what may happen if this warning is not taken seriously. The logic of the argument indicates that God’s wrath will come upon those who do not accept His revelation in creation.https://indieskriflig.org.za/index.php/skriflig/article/view/490Revelation Of GodRhetorical CriticismRomans 1 18-32
collection DOAJ
language Afrikaans
format Article
sources DOAJ
author E. Cornelius
spellingShingle E. Cornelius
Die openbaring van God – ’n retories-kritiese interpretasie van Romeine 1:18-32
In die Skriflig
Revelation Of God
Rhetorical Criticism
Romans 1 18-32
author_facet E. Cornelius
author_sort E. Cornelius
title Die openbaring van God – ’n retories-kritiese interpretasie van Romeine 1:18-32
title_short Die openbaring van God – ’n retories-kritiese interpretasie van Romeine 1:18-32
title_full Die openbaring van God – ’n retories-kritiese interpretasie van Romeine 1:18-32
title_fullStr Die openbaring van God – ’n retories-kritiese interpretasie van Romeine 1:18-32
title_full_unstemmed Die openbaring van God – ’n retories-kritiese interpretasie van Romeine 1:18-32
title_sort die openbaring van god – ’n retories-kritiese interpretasie van romeine 1:18-32
publisher AOSIS
series In die Skriflig
issn 1018-6441
2305-0853
publishDate 2003-08-01
description The revelation of God – a rhetorical-critical interpretation of Romans 1:18-32 M.A. Kruger’s 1983 doctoral thesis caused serious discussion in GKSA circles with regard to the differentiation between “general revelation” and “specific revelation”. Romans 1:18-32 seems to be a central pericope in the understanding of the revelation of God. A project of the Faculty of Theology, PU for CHE, focusing on this specific problem, gave birth to this article as a component of the interpretation of this pericope. The issue addressed in this article is how this pericope can be interpreted from a rhetorical-critical point of view. In my own interdisciplinary and interactional approach to rhetorical criticism, the purpose is to interpret the communicative function(s) of this pericope. It turns out that the letter to the Romans was addressed to those in Rome in order to convince them that the reason for their acceptance as God’s people lies in God’s work only and not in their imitation of the Jews. Romans 1:18-32 seems to be part of the opening of the letter body intended to be a warning for all people, including an example of what may happen if this warning is not taken seriously. The logic of the argument indicates that God’s wrath will come upon those who do not accept His revelation in creation.
topic Revelation Of God
Rhetorical Criticism
Romans 1 18-32
url https://indieskriflig.org.za/index.php/skriflig/article/view/490
work_keys_str_mv AT ecornelius dieopenbaringvangodnretorieskritieseinterpretasievanromeine11832
_version_ 1725899075910369280