Sandy - a helpful analysis! But that won’t stop me quibbling

Granted (yes, pun intended!), a pattern clearly exists. However, if I were arguing the ‘conventional’ line, I can support my argument by saying:

a) the breach of the pattern demonstrates the surprising, undeserved nature of grace

b) the pattern is broken anyway by v. 13c, so clearly Paul is not constrained by his pattern…perhaps even, he’s keen to break it

c) in light of all the sober warnings against apostasy, the ‘comfort’ is all the more comforting!

None of this is conclusive, and I’ll have to think about the rest of your suggestion, but I thought it worth a mention.

Incidentally, I can cite a parallel where I think a pattern is deliberately broken to establish the danger/certainty of apostasy: Deuteronomy 28. So perhaps what I takes with my left I gives back with my right!

Ah, but if this was the expected pattern continuing, would Paul need to supply a reason?!

I’m not really arguing with your exegesis…I think just saying that the larger context (ie the letter) seems stronger than the parallelism evidence.

Deut 28: it’s the waffle version of parallelism. There are clearly sections in the blessings and the curses that are linked to each other, it’s just that there are other bits in between. What’s striking about the chapter is the way that after the ‘waffle parallelism’ is finished, there’s another pile of verses outlining in not very hypothetical terms what will take place when they turn away.

(But one man’s waffle is another man’s ice cream cone. It may be true only in my eyes!)

As for an example, I’ll be cheeky and cite the Good Samaritan. I got there by thinking that parables in general often trade off the back of such disrupted patterns, but once I’d got my example I got lazy (too much going on at the minute, I’m afraid). I’m sure there must be others…;-)