Romans 12
ROMANS 12
LIVING THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (12:1—15:13)
As in some other letters (Gal 5–6; Col 3–4), Paul addresses specific, practical questions in the church more directly after laying the theological groundwork that demands such behavior (thus his “therefore” in 12:1). If much of Paul’s letter addresses the means of righteousness, 12:1—15:13 exemplifies what righteousness should look like in relationships. In the specific context of Israel (chs. 9–11), the issue of Jewish-Gentile relationships in Christ’s body remains a central concern (especially obvious in 14:1—15:13). Teaching about serving one another (12:9–21) and the heart of the law as love for one another (13:8–10) provides the practical principles that connect Paul’s emphasis on God’s desire to form a people of both Jews and Gentiles (chs. 1–11, esp. 9–11) with the specific tensions the Roman congregations are facing (14:1—15:7).
Consider How to Serve One Another (12:1–8)
Paul follows his praise of God’s wisdom (11:33–36) with a summons to his audience to worship, wherein they are living sacrifices. The appeal on the basis of God’s “compassion”1 in 12:1 evokes what Paul has just said about his mercy for Jews and Gentiles alike (11:30–32); both alike should respond with worship (12:1; 15:9–11) as one body (12:4–5). Because of its key function in applying Paul’s argument in chapters 9–11, plus the allusions to these verses at the strategic juncture of 15:15–16, I must grant 12:1–3 more space than I allot to many passages.
Paul exhorts believers to present their bodies as living sacrifices (12:1).2 Paul has already urged believers to “present” their bodies as slaves to God, obedience and righteousness (6:13, 16, 19). He has also warned against self-centered use of the body, without the rule of a mind enabled by the Spirit (1:24; 6:6, 12; 7:24; 8:13). Now he will show that believers can choose in their minds to present their bodies for the service of a greater “body,” the body of Christ with whom they have been united (12:4–5).3 When believers offer themselves as sacrifices, they imitate Jesus, whose death Paul has already presented as a bloody sacrifice (3:25; 5:9; 8:3). Nevertheless, believers offer themselves not only by sometimes being martyred (cf. 8:36), but while alive (“living”).4
Believers offer up their bodies as a sacrifice described by three adjectives: “living,” “holy,” and “acceptable” or “pleasing.” Old Testament sacrifices, involving inanimate things or slain animals, were not described as living. Paul adapts the ot image of sacrifice in a new direction as believers embrace Christ’s death even while living (6:2–11; Gal 2:20; Col 2:20—3:5), in accord with Jesus’s own teaching (Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). Offerings could, however, be described as “holy” to God (e.g., Lev 6:17, 25; 7:1; 10:12), and when Israel served God their offerings were “acceptable” or “pleasing” to him (Ezra 6:10; Ps 20:3; Isa 56:7; Jer 6:20; Mal 3:4). Paul describes this worship (latreia; cf. 9:4; 1 Chron 28:13) as “rational” (logikos),5 because it is with the mind that one chooses to present the body to God’s service (see 12:2–3).
In 12:2 Paul indicates how the mind is instrumental in offering the body (12:1). The renewed mind here contrasts with the depraved mind (1:28), the mind under the flesh (7:23, 25; 8:5–7).6 “Renewing” the mind involves recognizing and affirming the “newness” already initiated in Christ (6:4; 7:6), which contrasts with the thinking of this “age” (aiōn; not merely “world,” as in some translations).7 One is “transformed” to be ready to be “conformed” to Jesus’s image (8:29) by identifying not with this age but with believers’ future hope.8 Those who are in Christ have died with him to sin and will share his resurrection life (6:4–5; 8:11). They must thus view their identity in terms of their eternal destiny rather than how they are viewed by this age (6:11).
The renewed mind of 12:2 (related to the perspective of the Spirit in 8:5–7) enables believers to discern (dokimazō) God’s will.9 It does so by helping them to recognize what is, in Paul’s words, “good, acceptable, and perfect” in God’s sight.10 That these three adjectives help define God’s will, just as three adjectives (one of them the same, “acceptable”) defined the sacrifice of 12:1, suggests that Paul is still addressing the same subject: God’s will here involves how we devote our bodies to God’s service.
Paul quickly becomes more specific about how this renewed mind guides believers’ service to God: in 12:3 he elaborates how one should “think.” Rather than boasting (cf. also 12:16), believers should recognize that God’s gifts are acts of his generosity and not merit (cf. 1 Cor 4:7), and each should recognize his or her role as part of the larger body, in which each member has a role. God has distributed to each a measure of faith (Rom 12:3). This observation refers not to a given amount of faith but rather faith for a given ministry in the body (12:6–8).
In 12:4–5 members belong not only to Christ (cf. 8:9) but to one another, each making their own distinctive contributions (as gifts) to the body. When Paul speaks of believers as members of Christ’s body, hence of one another (12:4–5),11 he is continuing the line of thought introduced in 12:1–3. Believers’ renewed minds discern God’s will about how to devote their bodies to God’s service by building up Christ’s body in the various ways that God has made each one capable (12:6–8). Ancient intellectuals commonly used the image of the body for both the cosmos12 and the state13 to indicate a sort of organic unity. Whereas some used the image for the state to reinforce hierarchy, Paul uses it to emphasize the complementarity of all members, while also continuing the image’s usual connotation of unity.14
As elsewhere (1 Cor 12:12–27; cf. Eph 4:4–13), Paul employs the image of the body’s members to emphasize the diversity of ministries with which God has graced different believers (12:6–8). Paul has just spoken of God providing gracious gifts (11:29, regarding Israel); now he speaks of God’s “grace” (charis) as a sort of empowerment expressed in “gracegiftings” (charismata; cf. also 1 Pet 4:10–11). Believers each receive grace for different ministries (12:6),15 just as Paul’s ministry to them involved the grace given him (12:3). Elsewhere we learn that believers might seek from God gifts they believe will edify the body (1 Cor 12:31; 14:1, 12). Paul’s central point, however, is that each believer has something to contribute to the proper functioning of Christ’s body. From this observation it seems not too much to infer that the body would often fail to function properly when individual members fail to recognize their value and contribute their gift, or when other members try to usurp roles not suited for their particular grace or faith. A large number of scholars argue strenuously that “proportion [analogia] of faith” in 12:6 represents a standard for faith, useful for evaluating prophecy. (Paul did use gospel teaching as a standard for evaluating teachers, 6:17; 16:17.) Nevertheless, the Greek word is commonly equivalent to Paul’s “measure” of faith in 12:3; Paul is again emphasizing that God apportions faith for different gifts to different believers.
Again as elsewhere (1 Cor 12:8–10, 28, 29–30; 14:26), Paul provides a mostly ad hoc list of gifts (Rom 12:6–8), though he values prophecy particularly highly (Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:28; 14:1).16 Dividing the gifts into “natural” (like giving) and “supernatural” (like prophecy) misses Paul’s point, since all reflect God’s activity. “Service” is a broad term potentially including ministries like Paul’s (Rom 11:13; 15:25, 31; 2 Cor 4:1; 5:18) or even any grace-gift (1 Cor 12:5; cf. Eph 4:12; Col 4:17). Whereas Paul counts “teaching” as a gift just like prophecy, prophecy probably depends more directly on inspiration for its message (in its ultimate form, often first-person declaration from God, as in Rev 2–3). Divine empowerment in teaching probably works more through divinely guided cognitive processes (on which cf. Rom 8:5–7; 12:2–3). Earlier Scripture (Rom 15:4; cf. 1 Tim 4:13) and the message about Jesus (Eph 4:21; Col 1:28; 2:7; 2 Thess 2:15) are probably important bases for teaching, although like other gifts the ministry of teaching was subject to abuse or pride (cf. Rom 2:20–21).
Whatever else “exhortation” (note parakaleō and paraklēsis, 12:8) might include, it surely includes exhortations like Paul’s own in this letter (12:1; 15:30; 16:17). One of its sources could be Scripture (15:4), although prophecy could also serve this function (1 Cor 14:3). Although “giving” (metadidōmi) can have a broader sense (cf. the same verb for Paul’s spiritual giving to them, 1:11), it may at least include money (cf. Eph 4:28). The term often translated “generosity” (haplotēs) can mean simply “sincerity,” but could apply to monetary benefaction (2 Cor 8:2; 9:11, 13). Those gifted to “lead” or “manage” (proistēmi) in house churches received respect for their position (1 Thess 5:12), though even most well-endowed homes did not seat beyond forty persons. Finally, “showing mercy” reflects compassionate help, including alms;17 Paul elsewhere associates “cheerfulness” with economic charity (2 Cor 9:7). That at least two members of the ad hoc list may be associated with financial help to others might suggest that some Roman believers had resources (cf. also Rom 15:24). Though all believers are called to share financially (12:13), God has gifted some in particular with means and the heart to do it abundantly.
Loving Everyone (12:9–21)
In 12:9–21 Paul offers “paranesis,” a series of loosely fitted exhortations, most of them widely paralleled elsewhere in the ancient world.18 Although by their nature such exhortations are of general significance, Paul still writes with the Roman believers in mind. In 12:9–13 he urges loving and serving fellow believers; in 12:14–21 he addresses relationships with people more generally, preparing for relationships with the state in 13:1–7. Paul frames 12:9–21 with exhortations to choose “good” rather than evil (12:9, 21); he has already shown that what is “good” is the will of God (12:2), and will continue encouraging them to do “good” in 13:3–4.
Because of the limited size of this commentary and the number of individual exhortations, I address only some of these individually. First, in 12:9–10 Paul addresses the character of sincere love (a theme revisited in 13:8–10), which expresses itself in part in honoring others above oneself (a value that ran counter to most conventional Mediterranean values for men.)19
In 12:10–12 Paul employs an accepted form of repetition (here, starting each Greek clause with a dative noun) to drive home his emphasis rhetorically: three clauses in 12:10–11 end with -oi, and seven successive clauses in 12:11–13 conclude with plural participles ending in -ontes or -ountes.20 Scholars debate whether Paul in 12:11 speaks of being fervent “in spirit” or “in the Spirit” (cf. Acts 18:25). Because “spirit” in Romans usually refers to God’s Spirit (sometimes even when linked with dispositions or abstract nouns, 8:2, 15), I think it is more likely God’s Spirit here. “Serving” the Lord recalls Paul’s earlier emphasis on slavery to God (cf. 6:22; 7:6; 14:18). In 12:12, “rejoicing in hope” and “enduring in affliction” recall especially 5:2–5. Paul has modeled “persevering in prayer” (12:12) in his prayers to see them (1:10), and will seek them to keep praying for him (15:30).
In 12:13, “sharing with the needs of the saints” prepares for Paul’s mention of his misson to provide for the needy saints in Jerusalem (15:25– 27).21 The term translated “hospitality,” one of the highest of ancient social values, meant providing for strangers, often by taking them in.22 (As such a practice could be dangerous even in antiquity, Jewish travelers often carried letters of recommendation.) At least one case of such provision may be for Paul when he visits (15:24, 28).
In a culture that emphasized honor and shame, blessing those who cursed you might not come naturally. Although many ancient thinkers valued nonretaliation and avoiding revenge (12:14, 17, 19–21),23 the wording of 12:14 could reflect Jesus’s teachings (Luke 6:28; cf. Matt 5:44).24 Perhaps Paul’s focus on nonretaliation and blessing those who curse addresses a local issue (not impossibly related to the Jewish conflict over messiahship and consequent expulsion from Rome, reported in a garbled way in Suetonius Claud. 25.4). The value of sharing others’ joys and sorrows was common25 (though rather than weeping with mourners, philosophers, in contrast to Paul here, often advocated not weeping); the most typical examples were weddings and funerals. Paul probably echoes a Jewish tradition about mourning with those who mourn (Sir 7:34–35), and the practice would certainly encourage unity.26
In 12:16 Paul reinforces warnings against wrong thinking that leads to disunity, twice using “think” (phroneō) and once phronimos; in other words, appropriate perspectives are crucial (cf. 8:5–7). “Thinking the same” (NRSV “live in harmony with one another”) recalls the sound thinking that does not exalt oneself (12:2–3). The call to harmony that the phrase entails was a frequent ancient topic (including in the form of “being of one mind”),27 and is particularly relevant for this ethnically divided congregation (cf. 14:1—15:13, esp. 15:6; 16:17; cf. 1 Cor 1:10–12; Phil 2:1–3). Whatever else Paul’s warning against conceit in 12:16 includes, it includes the corporate sense of superiority expressed by either Gentiles looking down on Jews (11:20) or the reverse, presumably as well as boasting in one’s own gifts (12:3). “Associating with the lowly” again challenges ancient society’s emphasis on honor, but follows the way of Jesus (cf. e.g., Mark 9:35–37; 10:42–45). Not counting oneself “wise” contrasts with those who became fools by this means (Rom 1:22), perhaps including the Greeks’ belief in their own ethnic superiority (1:14), and certainly Gentile disdain Jews (11:25, with similar wording).
As noted above, nonretaliation (12:17–20) appears in other ancient sources. Its unanimity in early Christian sources,28 however, is striking and suggests a common background in Jesus, whose submissive death dependent on God set the example for his early followers. Being considerate toward outsiders’ views of what was right (12:17) offers another element of getting along with outsiders. It reflects a popular ethic,29 yet also prepares Paul’s audience for his emphasis on respecting stricter opinions among fellow believers, when possible, in 14:13–21.
In contrast to some Judean nationalists, some Pharisees (vindicated by the outcome of the war in 66–70 that began less than a decade later) would have shared Paul’s emphasis on living at peace with others (12:18).30 Paul, like many other thinkers, intends it as a principle for relationships more generally, including regarding issues of division in the Roman church (14:17, 19; 15:13, 33). Here, however, the context’s emphasis lies on relations with nonbelievers. His “insofar as you are able” recognizes that believers cannot control how others act toward them; a few years later, in fact, Christians’ enemies in Rome had many of them killed.
One reason to avoid avenging oneself was that God would avenge those who left the matter with him (12:19).31 (A song I learned while serving in some African-American churches summarizes this basic sentiment: “If I hold my peace, let the Lord fight my battles, victory, victory shall be mine!”) Paul backs up his claim with a quotation from Deut 32:35, a context he has used heavily in Romans.32
In 12:20 Paul quotes Prov 25:21–22 (which goes on to add that the Lord will reward the person who shows kindness to their enemy).33 Scholars debate whether burning coals on an enemy’s head in 12:20 refers to the enemy’s conversion or embarrassment (the “positive” approach held by Origen, Augustine, Jerome and others) or to their destruction (the “negative” approach held by John Chrysostom). Many commentators prefer the former approach, and it is possible to construe 12:21 in terms of winning over enemies.34 Nevertheless, the Egyptian background sometimes cited for the former approach is too rare and chronologically distant,35 and the Lord’s “vengeance” of 12:19 probably points toward fiery judgment here for those who do not repent. Other Pauline uses of “fire” refer to the judgment (1 Cor 3:13, 15; 2 Thess 1:8), and burning coals can stand for judgment in his Bible (2 Sam 22:9, 13; Pss 120:4; 140:10).36 Granted, Paul does contrast 12:19 and 12:20 (signified by the strong “but,” alla, in 12:20); on either reading, acts of kindness in 12:20 provide an alternative to acts of vengeance in 12:19. But while one could overcome evil with good (12:21) by converting the evil to the good, such an outcome cannot be guaranteed (cf. 12:18; 1 Cor 7:16). One can, however, overcome evil by refusing to come down to its moral level, not retaliating in kind, an approach that fits this context.
1. Speakers and authors often swore or urged hearers “by” a deity (cf. deēsis in Rowe 1997: 139; e.g., Isaeus Menecles 47).
2. On spiritual sacrifices, see e.g., Pss 50:14, 16, 23; 51:16–17, 19; 69:30–31; Hos 6:6; Mic 6:6–8; Sir 35:1–3; Wis 3:6; 1QS 3.4, 6–9, 11; 8.3; 9.4–5; 10.6; 4Q403 frg. 1, col. 1.39– 40. Some Jews writing for Diaspora audiences accommodated Hellenistic philosophy by rejecting animal sacrifices (Sib. Or. 4.29–30; Philo Good Person 75). Nevertheless, the image of spiritual sacrifices was not itself inherently incompatible with literal ones (e.g., Let. Aris. 170, 172, 234). Some pagan thinkers felt that deities desired less or no sacrifice (Dio Chrysostom Or. 13.35; Lucian Demon. 11; Maximus of Tyre Or. 2.1–2; Porphyry Marc. 17.282–84; Pyth. Sent. 20); others mocked it altogether (e.g., Lucian Sacr.); a number rejected animal sacrifice (Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 1.1, 31–32; 4.11; 5.25; 8.7; idem Ep. Apoll. 27; Diogenes Laertius 8.1.22; Iamblichus V.P. 11.54; 18.85; 24.108; 28.150), though society as a whole continued these practices.
3. Cf. perhaps the divine mind that welcomes Jew and Gentile alike (11:34).
4. Paul himself ministers as a priest, offering the Gentiles (to whom he is sent) as his offering (15:16, also an “acceptable” one, albeit using a different term than in 12:1), but again without blood.
5. While it can mean “spiritual” in the sense of “nonliteral” (perhaps 1 Pet 2:2), the meaning in this context is clearly “rational” (cf. 12:2–3), its normal sense.
6. See also Keener 2008a: 226.
7. Various Jewish writers contrasted the present age with the future one (cf. e.g., 4 Ezra 7:50, 113; 8:1; 2 Bar. 15:8; t. Ber. 6:21; Pe’ah 1:2–3; Sipre Num. 115.5.7; Sipre Deut. 31.4.1; 307.3.2–3; Ferch 1977).
8. Paul’s teaching here is consistent with 2 Cor 3:18, where those who view God’s glory in Christ are internally “transformed” into his glorious image (in context, in contrast to Moses, who was transformed externally). Moses also provides the background for the verb in Mark 9:2; Matt 17:2 (see Moses 1996), though cf. also the more general concept of mental transformation (Seneca Ep. Lucil. 94.48).
9. Clearly this does not mean they will always know what God will do (1:10; 15:32), but they should often have a sense what they should do (cf. perhaps God’s purposes in history, 11:34). In 2:18, a Jew who knows the law is supposed to be able to know “God’s will” and “test” (dokimazō) or discern what is best; in 1:28, Gentiles who refused to “acknowledge” (dokimazō) God were delivered to an adokimos mind.
10. Good was a standard moral criterion (e.g., Musonius Rufus 1, p. 32.22); Stoics also spoke of cognitively discerning what is good (e.g., Epictetus Disc. 2.24.19; Arius Didymus Epit. 2.7.5b1, p. 12.13–15) or pleasing (Arius Didymus Epit. 5i, p. 32.25–30; cf. Wis 9:10); others spoke of thinking on what is good (cf. Phil 4:8; Iamblichus Pyth. Life 5.26).
11. Intimate unity or friendship with one another is sometimes expressed in terms of identity (Cicero De or. 31.110; Diodorus Siculus 17.37.6; Philostratus Hrk. 48.22).
12. Mainly Stoics (Seneca Lucil. 95.52; Epictetus Disc. 1.12.26; Marcus Aurelius Med. 7.13).
13. First attributed to Menenius Agrippa (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 6.86.1–5; Livy 2.32.9–12; Plutarch Cor. 6.2–4; Dio Cassius 4.17.10–13), but often used subsequently (Sallust Rep. 10.6; Cicero Rep. 3.25.37; idem Phil. 8.5.15; cf. Aristotle Eth. nic. 1.7; T. Naph. 2:9–10).
14. Ancient writers sometimes used the image of the body apart from or together with its “head,” just as Paul also can use these images separately or together (1 Cor 11:3; 12:12; cf. Eph 1:22–23; Col 1:18; 2:19).
15. Greek tradition also recognized that “God” gave different enablements to different individuals (Homer Il. 13.730–34; for animals, cf. Phaedrus 3.18.10–15); special human abilities were also attributed to the benevolence of other deities (e.g., Xenophon Cyn. 13.18; Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 397, §135D). On different abilities, see also Aristotle Pol. 3.7.2–3, 1282b (though in support of hierarchy).
16. On these gifts, see further e.g., Turner 1998; Keener 2003a.
17. The term involves helping the needy (sick, poor, etc.; T. Iss. 5:2; T. Benj. 4:4; Cranfield, Romans, 2:627). Paul’s normal use of the term for God’s activity, including in Romans, seems relevant, if at all, at most as a model here.
18. See e.g., Diogenes Laertius 1.70; Dicta Catonis passim; Ps.-Phoc. passim; geographically distant, cf. even the structure of Confucius’s Analects. For link words with the context in Romans, see Talbert 2002: 280.
19. On “brotherly love” (philadelphia), see e.g., Plutarch Frat. amor.; (dramatically) 4 Macc 13:23–27; Klauck 1990; deSilva 2000: 166–67; for the love in philostorgia, e.g., Fronto Verum Imp. 2.7.6. For valuing another’s honor as one’s own, see m. ’Abot 2:10; ’Abot R. Nat. 15, 19 A; 29, §60B.
20. Paul also connects 12:13 and 12:14 with the same verb diōkō, though using it in two different senses (“pursue” and “persecute”).
21. Employing some of the same vocabulary; although koinōneō could involve “sharing” more generally, early Christians often employed it in an economic way (also Gal 6:6; Phil 4:15).
22. On ancient hospitality, see most fully Koenig 1985.
23. E.g., Seneca Dial. 3.6.5; 4.32.1; Musonius Rufus 10, p. 76.18—78.28; Maximus of Tyre Or. 12; Diogenes Laertius 6.1.3; Sir 28:1–4; 1QS 10.17–18; CD 9.3–6; Ps.-Phoc. 77; Jos. Asen. 23:9; 29:3; b. Ber. 17a; Shab. 88b, bar.; Flusser 1988: 485, 506. But some limited this to their own community (cf. Sipra Qed. pq. 4.200.3.6; Stendahl 1962) and valued vengeance (e.g., Jdt 9:2; 1 Macc 2:67; T. Levi 5:3).
24. For Jesus tradition in Rom 12–14, see e.g., Hunter 1961: 46; Davies 1980: 138; Ladd 1974: 514; Kim 2002: 264–69; Wenham 1984: 15–17. Even so, epistolary genre did not lend itself to many direct citations (Stuhlmacher 1991: 16–19; Gerhardsson 1991), and the textual nature of Scripture afforded simpler quotation material.
25. E.g., Tob 7:7–8; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.205; T. Jos. 17:7; cf. friendship in Dio Chrysostom Or. 1.30–31; Fronto De nepote amisso 2.7; Marshall 1987: 46. In another culture, cf. the example of Confucius (Analects 7.9; 9.9; 10.16).
26. Perhaps Gentile believers did not mourn when Jewish believers were expelled; but the practice would now build unity whatever the previous local particulars.
27. Cf. e.g., Xenophon Mem. 4.4.16; Lysias Or. 2.24, §192; Cicero Phil. 6.1.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 7.53.1; Musonius Rufus 8, p. 64, line 13; Dio Chrysostom Or. 39.8; Menander Rhetor 2.3, 384.23–24; most fully Mitchell 1991: 60–79 (see here esp. 76, 79). Cf. traditional Jewish equivalents in Ezra 3:9; Mek. Bah. 1.108–10.
28. See discussion in Talbert 2002: 292–93.
29. Hesiod Op. 760–64; Isocrates Demon. 17; Nic. 54 (Or. 3.38); Polybius 22.10.8; Cornelius Nepos 25 (Atticus), 6.4; Quintilian Inst. 2.2.14; Plutarch Cic. 29.7; m. ’Abot 2:1; 3:10; t. Ber. 3:3; t. ’Abod. Zar. 6:6.
30. Supporting peace with others, see e.g., m. ’Abot 1:12 (attributed to Hillel); Git. 5:8–9. Also others, e.g., Marcus Aurelius Med. 5.31; Diogenes Laertius 7.1.123.
31. Cf. Josephus J.W. 5.377. The divine vengeance in Rom 12 would be eschatological, as at Qumran (1QS 9.23; Flusser 1988: 199; also in 2 En. 50:4).
32. Haacker (2003: 100) notes especially Deut 32:21 in Rom 10:19; 32:43 in 15:10; 30:12–14 in 10:6–8; and 29:4 in 11:8.
33. An audience in Rome could easily envisage giving drink; most of the city’s residents lacked potable water near their residences (Carcopino 1940: 38–39).
34. Some did value turning enemies into friends (cf. Diodorus Siculus 21.21.9; 27.16.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 5.30.2; Suetonius Jul. 73; Diogenes Laertius 8.1.23; Iamblichus Pyth. Life 8.40; Prov 16:7; Let. Aris. 227; Ps.-Phoc. 142).
35. Whether or not it is useful for the original proverb, this background (and any orally transmitted sense of the proverb) would not be available to Greek readers in Rome. For shaming an enemy with kindness, cf. ANET2 422; more useful background (on reapplying the language of burning coals) could be Gen. Rab. 50:11 (though Sipre Deut. 45.1.2 applies the proverb to conquering the evil impulse by doing good).
36. Paul cited Ps 140:3 with reference to the wicked in Rom 3:13; Ps 140:10 refers to judgment on the wicked. For wrath on heads, see e.g., Ezek 9:10; 22:31; Jdt 9:9. For various positive readings of the verse, see e.g., Käsemann, Michel, Cranfield, Dunn, Byrne, Jewett; for the much less common negative reading adopted here, see Stendahl, Schreiner.