Lee says: “He did not discuss the context but merely appealed to a broader theological truth.”
Is not broader theological truth one of the very important contexts with which the interpretation of a given passage has to agree? There is meaning on every level: letter, word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, chapter, book, section of canon, testament, Bible. So perhaps it might be better for Lee to claim that Bill did not discuss the immediate context (probably paragraph level). However, Lee then proceeds to discuss something that is nowhere near the passage in question within Romans, but is on the (other) bookend side of it! Is such a passage irrelevant? Of course not. I just finished saying that there was qualifying meaning everywhere in Scripture, although such a statement must be qualified by saying that not every passage is immediately relevant. Indeed, some passages may be rather convolutedly related to others.
That being said, Lee needs to prove a bit better the envelope nature of chapter 1 and chapter 15. If he is going to claim that there is some sort of envelope structure (which certainly might well be), a simple assertion that it is so is not sufficient. After all, Lee’s entire argument rests on that claim, since, if the letter is not an envelope form, then 1:5 is not in the immedate context of 15.
This is not to say that Lee has not tried to do this. However, in my opinion, it is unsuccessful in the way he has framed it. The word “Gentiles,” for instance, does not necessarily mean “out of the covenant.” Given the fact that chapters 1-3 goes to great lengths to prove that Jew and Gentile are alike under sin, and are both covenant breakers, I think that Paul’s use of the word “Gentile” in 1:5 is most certainly ethnic, not moral.
Secondly, on a broader systematic level, Lee will have to prove that he is not mixing the categories of faith and works, which his interpretation seems to do. The exegetical work will have to fit the systematic Reformed confessional faith. I realize that most people in this world would think me unimaginably narrow-minded for saying such a thing, and that most exegetes would say that I am seriously contracting the Procrustean bed of ST on the feet of exegesis, but I cling to the old ways on this one. ST most certainly has a bearing on exegesis, as the message of the Bible as a whole is the ultimate context for any particular passage.