Part 105
edn. (London: Hodder& Stoughton). Riesner, R. (1998), Paul's Early Period: Chronology, Mission, Strategy,
Theologf (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Roetzel, C. J. (1998), The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context, 4th
edn. (Louisville, Ky: Westminster/John Knox). Sanders, E. P. (1977), Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of
(1998), The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Elliott, J.H. (1990),'Paul, GalatiansandtheEvilEye'.CurTMi7:262-73. Funk, R. W. (1967), The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance',
Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress). Schoeps, H.-J. (1961), Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of
Jewish Religious History (Philadelphia: Westminster). Scott, J. M. (1995), Paul and the Nations, WUNT 84 (Tubingen: Mohr
in W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr (eds.), Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 249-68. Gamble, H. (1975), "The Redaction of the Pauline Letters and the
[Siebeck]). Segal, A. F. (1990), Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul
the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press). Stark, R. (1996), The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders
Formation of the Pauline Corpus', JBL 94: 403—18.
(1985), The New Testament Canon: Its Makingand Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress). Haenchen, E. (1971), The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Phila-
History (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Stendahl, K. (1976), Paul among Jews and Gentiles, and other Essays
(Philadelphia: Fortress). Stowers, S. K. (1986), Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Phila-
delphia: Westminster). Hengel, M. (1991), The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM). Hengel, M., and Schwemer, A. M. (1997), Paul between Damascus and
delphia: Westminster). Townsend, J. T. (1985), 'Missionary Journeys in Acts and European
Antioch: The Unknown Years (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox). Hock, R., F. (1980), The Social Context of Paul's Ministry: Tentmaking
Missionary Societies', Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, 433-7Watson, F. (1986), Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, SNTSMS 56 (Cam-
and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress). Hurd, J. C. (1965), The Origin ofi Corinthians (New York: Seabury). Kennedy, G. A. (1984), New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical
bridge: Cambridge University Press). Weima, J. A. D. (1994), Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Paul-
ine Letter Closings, JSNTSup 101 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). White, J. L. (1972), The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter
Criticism (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press). Knox, J. (1950), Chapters in a Life of Paul (New York/Nashville: Abing-
don-Cokesbury).
(Missoula, Mont.: SBL).
64. Romans CRAIG C. H I L L
In equal and opposite reaction, however, Romans has unwittingly encouraged generations of readers from Marcion onwards to regard Judaism as the exemplarily false religion, a creed of merit and system of works unworthy of devotion or even of toleration. The first of these conclusions lies at the heart of Protestant—Catholic debate, the second at the centre of Jewish-Christian controversy. Not surprisingly, Roman Catholics have long questioned Protestant readings of Romans (paralleling in some ways the canonical protest of Jas
A. Significance. Romans is one of the eminent texts of Western history. From Augustine to Luther, from Wesley to Earth, Christian thinkers of every era have been shaped profoundly by this, the longest Pauline epistle. Romans is commonly regarded as Paul's supreme work, the consummate expression of his mature theology. Among Protestants in particular, no book has been more highly esteemed or carefully scrutinized. Above all, Romans influenced the Reformation vision of true religion as the reception of God's grace through faith.
ROMANS 1084
their abominations, called Christians by the populace' (Tacitus, Annals, 15.44.2).
2:14-26), as Jews have long challenged the epistle's characterization of their theology. Only recently, as a consequence of post-Vatican II ecumenicity and post-Holocaust interreligious awareness, have the earlier interpretative models begun to break apart. The willingness of major scholars to cross traditional boundaries and weigh old criticisms with new seriousness is undoubtedly the most important development in modern Pauline studies. Thus, now as in the past, Romans is at the forefront of Christian theological reflection and selfunderstanding.
C. Literary Genre. Formally, Romans is identical to most other Pauline letters, including a salutation (identifying sender and recipients), a thanksgiving (clarifying the relationship between writer and reader and previewing the contents of the letter), a body (offering the substance of Paul's communication), and a farewell (including a final blessing and, if ch. 16 is genuine, personal greetings). In numerous other ways, however, Romans is different—as one might expect, knowing that it is the only Pauline letter written to a church neither founded by the apostle or his assistants, nor visited by him (note e.g. the lengthy self-descriptions in 1:1-6 and 15:16-21, and the deferential language of 1:11-13 and 15:22-4). The hallmark of Paul's other letters is their contingency; characteristically, they deal with specific issues that arose within a particular Pauline church (e.g. i Cor 1:11: 'For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there are quarrels among you'; i Cor 7:1: 'Now concerning the matters about which you wrote...'). Reading these letters is not unlike overhearing one side of a conversation. Clearly, this analogy does not apply to Romans, which is more declamation than dialogue. The letter does not address in any obvious way the Roman church's own problems. It is a single, extended theological argument, not a seriatim discussion of pastoral concerns. It thus is a letter more in form than in function. For this reason, Romans is categorized as, for example, an 'epistle' (as distinct, according to Deissmann (1927: 220), from a non-literary 'letter'), a 'Greekletter-essay' (Stirewalt 1977), an 'essay-letter' (Fitzmyer 1993), or an 'ambassadorial letter' (Jewett, cited by Fitzmyer 1993: 68-9). All such labels make the point that Romans was commissioned to a somewhat different service than the other Pauline letters. To what service, exactly, is one of the perennial issues of Pauline scholarship.
B. Provenance. 1. The Pauline authorship of Romans is not in doubt. Indeed, one might say that Romans is the 'most Pauline' epistle, since it most influences scholarly construals of Paul and most frequently is referenced in arguments about the (in)authenticity of the Deutero-Pauline letters. Also, compared to other Pauline epistles (notably Philippians and 2 Corinthians), few doubts arise concerning the literary integrity of Romans. The unity of the letter is seriously questioned only at ch. 16, which some regard as the remnant of a separate Pauline letter, appended to Romans' original conclusion in 15:33. The evidence for this view is not compelling, as is noted in the commentary on ch. 16.
2. Romans was probably composed in Corinth during Paul's final visit. Gaius, 'whose hospitality I and the whole church here enjoy' (16:23, NIV), is presumably the same figure mentioned in i Cor 1:14. In 15:23—33, Paul anticipates an imminent journey to Jerusalem, an itinerary that corresponds broadly to Acts 20:1-21:17. Thus, widespread consensus exists for dating Romans in the mid-5os CE, making it one of Paul's final letters (at least subsequent to his Thessalonian, Galatian, and Corinthian correspondence).
3. The letter is written 'to all God's beloved in Rome' (1:7). The city of Rome was the seat of government of the Roman republic (?5th cent.—31 BCE) and empire until 330 CE, when Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople. During the second and first centuries BCE, Rome gradually came to dominate the countries of the Mediterranean basin, including Judea, which was conquered in 63 BCE by the Roman general Pompey. The city of Rome was vast, home to approximately i million persons. Augustus and subsequent emperors erected monumental public works, including amphitheatres, squares, temples, forums, and libraries. Although the wealthy inhabited comfortable villas, the great majority of people were poor and lived in large tenement houses, some as tall as six storeys (HBC 882). The Jewish community of Rome was substantial; it is estimated that between 20,000 and 50,000 Jews lived in the city by the beginning of the first century CE (ABD 1048). How or when Christianity came to Rome is unknown. By mid-century, when Paul wrote Romans, the church already enjoyed a substantial reputation (1:8). A dispute within the Jewish community over Christian claims appears to stand behind the Emperor Claudius's expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 49 CE (see Acts 18:2). According to Suetonius (Claudius, 25.4), 'the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus', probably a mistaken form of the word Christus (Christ). Local Christians were sufficient in number and reputation in 64 CE that Nero could scapegoat them for the fire of Rome. 'Nero fastened the guilt and afflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for
D. Purpose. 1. Paul offers few clues as to his purpose in writing to the church at Rome. He states in EIO-II that he prays for the Roman Christians and longs to see them, 'that I may share with you some spiritual gift to strengthen you—or rather so that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith... [and] that I may reap some harvest among you as I have among the rest of the Gentiles.' In 15:15, he states that 'on some points I have written to you rather boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.' In 15:23—9, Paul informs his readers of his travel plans: he soon will deliver the collection to 'the saints at Jerusalem' and then visit Rome on his way to Spain, where he will engage in further missionary work (v. 20). He hopes not only to see the Roman Christians but also 'to be sent on by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little while' (v. 24). Similarly, in w. 28-9, Paul states that T know that when I come to you, I will come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ.' In 15:30—1, Paul urges his readers to pray for the success of his impending trip to Jerusalem, 'so that by God's will I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company.' Taken together, these statements probably indicate that Paul hoped to win the support of the Roman church for his missionary venture in Spain, and
1085 ROMANS
ship between Paul and other Jewish Christians. Does 15:31 indicate that Paul would have to defend himself to the church as well as to the Jewish authorities of Jerusalem? If so, on what issues? F. C. Baur (1873-5: i. 109-51) asserted a century and a half ago that the leaders of the Jerusalem church (notably, Peter and James) actively opposed Paul for admitting uncircumcised Gentiles into the church. It is the heirs of Baur today who make the most of Paul's conflict with the Jerusalem church. By their reading, Paul's defence in Romans of the equality of Jew and Gentile is aimed squarely at the Jerusalem Christians. This presents a heroic, classically Protestant portrait of Paul as the lone champion of Christian freedom. Despite its popularity, this hypothesis is not corroborated by the New Testament. The only substantial evidence strongly supports the contrary view, that the Jerusalem church accepted Gentiles qua Gentiles as Christian believers (e.g. Ga 2:1-10; Acts 15; see Hill 1992: 103-92). This does not mean that there was no disagreement between Paul and other Jewish-Christian leaders. Paul sanctioned disobedience by Jews of certain Jewish (particularly food) laws (see i Cor 9:20-1), an attitude that did not endear him to many in Israel, Christian or otherwise. It is instructive that it was over food laws that Paul confronted Peter at Antioch (Gal 2:11-14); it was not the circumcising of Gentiles that precipitated the crisis but the observing of dietary laws that, in Paul's mind, recreated the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Likewise, it is the issue of law observance on the part of Jewish Christians that is mentioned in association with Paul's final visit to Jerusalem in Acts (21:21, 28). Also, one should bear in mind that Paul was bidding for the practical support of the Roman church. Interjecting a dispute with the mother church (whose authority Paul himself acknowledged; e.g. Gal 2:2) hardly seems politic. Moreover, any such self-defence is subtle to the point of invisibility (cf, by contrast, the defence of 2 Cor 11—13 or me record of his public confrontation in Gal 2:11—14). Therefore, while Paul's impending Jerusalem visit may have been a factor in his composition of Romans (as in ROM 0.3.1), it is highly doubtful that Romans originated as an apologia directed at the Jerusalem church.
that as 'minister to the Gentiles' (Gal 2:7), he assumed a measure of pastoral responsibility for the Gentile Christians in what was, after all, the greatest city of the known world. The letter thus would have both strategic and didactic functions, to introduce and recommend Paul, and to teach and exhort his readers in the Christian faith, as Paul understood it.
2. Could not Paul have met these objectives in fewer than the 7,000 words of Romans? Was there some larger task, demanding a more extensive response? The traditional explanation is to regard Romans as Paul's theological last will and testament', a summary of his theology composed near the end of his career. But Paul expected both an ongoing apostolic occupation and an approaching eschatological consummation (13:11—12). Moreover, Romans is not a good compendium of Pauline teaching; much that is contained in Paul's other letters is absent. Why did Paul write at such length about these particular issues, most notably, the law and Judaism? Scholars have looked both to Paul's own circumstances and to the circumstances of the Roman church for answers.
3.1. What do we know about Paul's situation that might be relevant to the composition of Romans? Surely the most important datum is the recent, bitter controversy at Galatia; the letter to the Galatians includes most of the primary topics and much of the key language of Romans. Many scholars date Philippians even closer to Romans (55 CE, according to Jewett 1979). Phil 3 (probably a warning based on Paul's Galatian experience; see Hill 1992: 155—8) is reminiscent of both Galatians and Romans ('flesh... circumcision... zeal... righteousness under the Law', etc.). Thus the theology of Romans does not appear ex nihilo. Paul had ample cause to weigh these matters and to regard them as both important and urgent.
3.2. A second key factor is Paul's awareness of the relative failure of the church's 'Jewish mission' (Gal 2:7-8). Paul speaks of his 'sorrow and unceasing anguish' for his 'kindred according to the flesh' (9:2). It is clear that Jewish unbelief is a theological and not just a personal problem for Paul. God acted in Christ to fulfil divine promises to Israel, but the concrete result is a Gentile church. Can God be righteous, faithful to God's own nature and commitments, and not save Israel? (Indeed, God's righteousness is the unifying theme of the entire letter. See ROM 1:16-17.) m the face °f his impending trip to Jerusalem, the problem must have appeared acute. Has God failed? And is not Paul, who calls Gentiles 'children of Abraham' (4:16) and who says that 'Christ is the end of the law' (10:4), the enemy of Israel? Is Paul's a righteous gospel? Hays (1989: 35) has noted with insight that Romans is 'an intertextual conversation between Paul and the voice of Scripture' in which the apostle 'labors to win the blessing of Moses and the prophets'. Gentile biblical scholarship has tended to de-Judaize Paul, thereby trivializing these struggles and rendering the central place of Rom 9—11
4. The other approach is to look to the circumstances of the letter's recipients for explanations. How much Paul knew about the situation in Rome is the subject of considerable debate. His most likely source of information was Priscilla and Aquila, who, according to Acts 18:2, came to Corinth from Rome as a consequence of Claudius' expulsion of the Jews (49 CE). They are mentioned by Paul himself in i Cor 16:19 an(^ (if authentic) Rom 16:3. Also mentioned in ch. 16 are several other Roman Christians. Still, it is not obvious how Paul's acquaintance with such persons might have shaped this letter. Paul made a considerable effort to introduce himself and his gospel to the Roman church, a clear signal that he regarded his audience as strangers. Many scholars attempt to link the epistle's contents to a Roman context by suggesting that the Jewish believers who returned to Rome following Claudius' death were not accorded due respect by their Gentile coreligionists, who even went so far as to deny positions of authority to returning Jewish leaders (Marxsen 1968: 95-104; Beker 1980: 69—74). Hearing of the Gentile Christians' conduct, Paul composed this letter, at least in part as an attempt to unify the Roman church. Passages such as 11:17-21 ('do not
(on the fate of Israel) nonsensical.
3.3. A number of scholars have argued that it is Paul's impending trip to Jerusalem that most influenced his writing of Romans (e.g. Manson 1948, Jervell 1971). It is evident from 15:30-2 that Paul himself anticipated trouble in Jerusalem. Accordingly, Romans is often seen as a rehearsal of the arguments that Paul would make on his own behalf in Jerusalem. The shape of this theory varies from scholar to scholar, depending mostly upon prior conclusions about the relation-
ROMANS 1086
vaunt yourselves over the branches [the Jews]') were written to teach the Gentile believers proper humility. (In tension with this purpose is the tendency of these same scholars to equate the 'weak' of ch. 14 with returning Jewish believers who continued to observe food laws: see Dunn 1988: ii. 798; cf. the counter-argument in Nanos 1996: 85—165.) This reconstruction, while not impossible, is open to question at every point (see e.g. the strong challenge of Stowers 1994). The most that can be said with certainty is that Paul wanted to demonstrate that the Gentile church had not supplanted Israel, and therefore that Gentiles had no reason to boast in their present status (11:17-36). The argument could have been formulated in response to a Jewish-Gentile conflict in the Roman church, but such a conflict is not required to explain it. Perhaps Gentile Christians in the capital city faced special temptations to triumphalism, but that tendency could hardly have been unique, as subsequent history thoroughly demonstrates.
God, however defined. Obviously, regarding Judaism in this way necessitates a rethinking of Paul. For example, earlier interpreters could assume that Paul had formulated his ideas about the law in response to the legalism of normative Judaism. One school saw Paul's response as a correction of Jewish abuses; the law, no longer 'misused', was still valid (Cranfield 1979: 862). Others believed that Paul rejected out of hand any notion of the law's validity since he recognized that the law itself was a primary source of human alienation (Bultmann 1952—5: i. 247). Unfortunately, both approaches account for Paul's position by making reference to a Judaism that never existed. A popular counter-proposal suggests that Paul's target was not works righteousness at all but 'Jewish national [self-jrighteousness' (e.g. Dunn 1988: i. pp. bod—bodi, 42—3, etc.). This move appears to vindicate Paul—he is still right about what is wrong about Judaism—but it misses the point of Sanders's critique. In effect, it substitutes a new bad Judaism for the old, now discredited bad Judaism of traditional interpretation. But the problem is not in our
5. Knowing the context of a statement is of first importance in determining its meaning; unfortunately, such contextual data are substantially lacking with respect to Romans. Consequently, the inherently conjectural nature of one's interpretation should be acknowledged. Sufficient evidence exists to allow for the formation of fairly detailed hypotheses; sufficient gaps in that evidence ensure that even careful hypotheses will be substantially speculative. To a large degree, we do not know why this epistle was written, and any interpretation based upon the presumption of such knowledge will be inherently circular. Because the commentary below assumes no single 'reason for Romans', it will not attempt to advance one interpretation against all others. Instead, it will seek to delineate the plausible range of interpretation. This is an admittedly confined ambition, but one that corresponds to the real limitations within which any interpreter of Romans labours.
(previously) faulty identification of Judaism's deficiency (whose depiction in Paul varies and so is infinitely interpretable); the problem is in Paul's either/or reasoning that requires that Judaism be nullified for Christ to be necessitated (see ROM E.6). Were the disorder Jewish pride, the remedy would be Jewish humility. But for Paul the only adequate curative is Christian faith, which means that the only actual complaint is Jewish unbelief, however variously it may be explained or characterized from the Christian side (see ROM 2).
2. It is at this point that the second methodological principle, that of taking apparently contradictory material at face value, has been fruitfully applied. What does it mean if Paul's arguments about the law do not entirely cohere? Among other things, it may indicate that Paul did not think his way to Christian faith, that his conclusions about the law are not the result of his own pre-Christian wrestling with its supposed inadequacies. As Sanders (1977: 442-7) put it, Paul 'reasoned backwards'. He did not move from consideration of the law to Christian faith; instead, having come to faith in Christ, Paul attempted to understand as a Jewish Christian the Judaism in which he had been raised. Thus Paul never was entirely able to repudiate the law. It was, after all, God's law and as such must serve a divine, albeit negative, purpose. Two fundamental convictions, that God is the God of Israel and that God provides salvation only in Christ, were thus held together in uneasy tension, and most of what is commonly considered under the rubric 'Paul and the Law' can be understood as part of an ongoing attempt to effect a reconciliation between the two.
E. Issues of Interpretation. 1. A generation ago, one might have asserted that the exegesis of Romans was complete in its essentials, pointing to the common interpretative tradition that extended from Augustine to Bultmann and Earth. Whatever consensus might have existed prior to 1977 was fractured by the publication that year of E. P. Sanders's Paul and Palestinian Judaism (see Raisanen 1983: 1-15; Dunn 1988: i. pp. Ixiii—bodi). Sanders offered a critique of Pauline scholarship based on two methodological assumptions: (i) a religion ought to be understood in its own terms through an analysis of its own primary sources; and (2) an author's argumentation must not be unnaturally synthesized by later expositors; contradictory statements and approaches, where they occur, should be allowed to remain (Sanders 1977: 12). Application of the first assumption leads one to question any construal of Judaism based on the often polemical references to it in Christian writings, including the NT. The popular picture of first-century Judaism as a religion of sterile legalism, supercilious piety, and haughty self-righteousness is not supported by Jewish documents. When allowed to speak for themselves, first-century Jews are not heard advocating a religion of merit, the photo-negative of a uniquely Christian notion of salvation by grace. Functionally, Judaism and Christianity are quite similar: one 'gets in' by means of God's gracious calling; one then is obligated (not least by gratitude) to obey the will of
3. If Judaism was not the false religion of works righteousness, if the law did not function within Judaism as a means to salvation, what are we to make of Paul's argument? It may be claimed that Paul has set up Judaism as a straw man, the foil to all that is deemed good and true in Christianity. It seems more reasonable, however, to think that Paul is describing something quite real: not Judaism as non-Christian Jews knew it but Judaism as it would be experienced by Paul's Gentile-Christian converts. Within Judaism, one was not circumcised to earn membership in the people of God. Instead, circumcision marked a son of Israel's participation in God's gracious, pre-existing covenant. The situation is wholly
1087 ROMANS
theology and the tensions between Pauline theory and practice.
different, however, if the subject is an adult Gentile Christian. If he accepted circumcision under compulsion, he would, by implication, be saying that his faith in Christ is insufficient to save, an inadequate basis for participation in God's covenant. For him circumcision would therefore become a work, and Judaism a religion of works righteousness. (The same dilemma occurs when an adult Christian joins a denomination that does not recognize his or her baptism. For that person, baptism becomes an entry requirement, an indispensable 'work', however it may be construed theologically by existing church members.) Paul's argument, including his tendency to oppose the law and Christian faith as antithetical religious systems, makes a good deal more sense when viewed in this way. This does require, however, that we no longer regard Paul as an objective, disinterested observer of Judaism.
5. It is important to note that Paul worked with the concepts available to him. Chief among these is the idea that the law is a single entity, given by God. This presents Paul with an insuperable difficulty. He knows by God's acceptance of Gentiles (demonstrated by gifts of the Spirit; Gal 3:2—5) that obedience to laws that distinguish Jews from Gentiles (namely circumcision, food laws, sabbath and other 'days') is no longer required. However, the law being a unity, it is necessary to challenge it in toto. In theory, this is no problem, because Christians possess the Spirit and have no need for a 'written code' (2:27). In practice, what Paul expects of his converts is a fairly typical Jewish morality, which he can assume for himself but which comes less naturally to his Gentile associates. Consequently, Paul is put in the awkward position of legislating rules of behaviour ad hoc, since he no longer has the law to draw upon for authorization. Therefore, he is forced, in effect, to reinstitute Jewish laws with Christian warrants (e.g. see Rom 1:20; i Cor 6:15-17; and 10:20-1). Thus it is erroneous to suppose that Paul created a law-free religion. Christianity, like Judaism, has always had norms (again, mostly Jewish); for that reason, Christians, as much as Jews, can be guilty of reducing religion to rule-keeping. In short, it is quite possible that the argument of Romans would have looked very different had Paul been able to divide the law explicitly into categories (clarifying what is rejected and what is retained), as Christians ever since the second century (e.g. Epistle of Barnabas) have attempted to do. Certainly, subsequent Christian ambivalence—even animosity—towards the Hebrew Bible would have been lessened had Paul taken such a course.
4. Other distinctive aspects of Paul's thought bear significantly on our understanding of Romans. The first concerns Pauline eschatology. In general, Paul has a decidedly future or 'not yet' orientation, reminiscent of the Gospel of Mark. In the undisputed Pauline epistles, salvation is always a future category; the paradigm of present Christian life is the cross, not the resurrection (e.g. i Cor 1:18; 2:2; Rom 6:5; 8:18). Present experience of the Spirit is a foretaste or seal (2 Cor 1:22) of what is to come (i Cor 13:8-12). There is one very important exception, however, one issue in relation to which Paul consistently invokes a realized eschatology: the Gentiles. For Paul, the prophetic expectation that Gentiles would be incorporated into Israel in the last days is already being fulfilled, not least in his own ministry. (Note, for example, how Paul's description in Rom 15:25—6—see also the quotations in w. 9—12—draws on Isa 66:18—22.) In Rom 11:25—7 Paul explains this 'mystery': present Jewish unbelief has effected a reversal of the eschatological timetable; contrary to expectation, it is the Gentiles who will enter first, after which God will act to save 'all Israel'. Much of what is peculiar to Pauline theology is derived from this perspective: admission of Gentiles is not foreshadow; it is substance. That puts Pauline theology on a fundamentally different footing from that of other Jewish-Christian leaders, and it explains how both Paul and the 'pillar apostles' (James, Cephas, and John: Gal 2:9) could have agreed to the practice of Gentile admission while utterly disagreeing as to its consequences. If there is now one people in Christ, without distinction between Jew and Gentile (Gal 3:28), then the church exists in a radically new age, from which one can radically critique what went before—especially the law, whose very stipulations drew the boundaries between Jew and Gentile. (An inevitable consequence of a realized eschatology is an increased sense of theological distance between insiders and outsiders, especially between Christians and (non-Christian) Jews; note the many pejorative references to 'the Jews' and 'the world' in Johannine literature.) The categories of Paul's thought that are derivative of the 'Gentile issue' share in the same logic, e.g. Paul's idealized Christian anthropology, according to which believers are essentially different from other people: they 'walk in the Spirit' and so fulfil the 'just requirements of the law' (Rom 8:4). It is always worth asking what reality Paul presupposes within a given argument. When a question relates in some way to Gentile admission, Paul's thinking shifts towards realized eschatological categories, a fact that explains many of the ambiguities within Pauline
6. Finally, it is vital to understand that Paul consistently organized the relationship between Judaism and Christianity in such a way that non-Christian Judaism must be negated. Gal 2:21 reveals a great deal about the working of Paul's mind: T do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.' In other words, it is a zero-sum game. If God intended to save through Christ, it must have been necessary; therefore, one could not be saved apart from Christ, that is to say, through the regular practice of Jewish religion. The either/or structure of Paul's argument explains an otherwise astonishing fact: were Romans our only source, we might well conclude that Jewish theology knew nothing of mercy, grace, love, forgiveness, or atonement. As the logic stands, these necessarily become Christian categories (as do 'grace and truth' in Jn 1:17). It is interesting to note that Paul cited God's acceptance of Abraham on the basis of faith in both Gal 3 and Rom 4 and then passed in silence over virtually all subsequent Jewish history (the mention of David in Rom 4:6 being a rare exception). Needless to say, the existence of any preor non-Christian Judaism in which one might find right relationship with God creates a severe problem for Paul. On the one hand, he wants to argue that God saves only in Christ and that Judaism, apart from Christ, is a way of'sin' and 'death' (Rom 7:9—11); on the other hand, Paul feels compelled to cite precedents in Judaism for God's saving modus operandi. The question is, can one have it both ways? Paul might have argued on the basis of essential continuity: the God of the Jews, always a God of salvation, has worked this saving purpose ultimately in Christ (an argument somewhat
ROMANS 1088
ently elsewhere in the NT (e.g. Mt 1:1; 9:27; Mk 11:10; 12:35; Lk 1:27, 32; 2:4; 2 Tim 2:8; Rev 3:7; 5:5). Also lacking support elsewhere in Paul is the early Christian idea that Jesus was appointed or designated (horisthentos; see TDNTv. 450-1) Son of God at the resurrection (v. 4; cf. Acts 2:36; 5:30-1; 13:33). 'With power' (whether traditional or Pauline) probably modifies the title 'Son of God' and not the verb 'declared' (Fitzmyer 1993: 235; Cranfield 1979: 62; contra NIV 'declared with power'), emphasizing Jesus' exalted status. ('According to the spirit of holiness' is a Semitism; cf. Ps 51:11.) It also might indicate that, at least for Paul, the resurrection enhanced an already existing sonship (Dunn 1988: i. 14). In citing Jesus' twofold pedigree, in flesh and in spirit, Paul makes the claim that Jesus is the anticipated Jewish Messiah—and more (as in Mk 1:1). It is Paul's expectation that these common (and apparently longstanding) Christian affirmations will be shared by his readers.
similar to that of Hebrews). Instead, Paul's argument traces the line of essential discontinuity, which is precisely what Marcion and other despisers of Judaism have found congenial in his thinking. One must ask if it is possible to affirm what Paul affirms (the religion of grace) without necessarily denying what Paul implicitly denies (that Judaism itself is such a religion).
Salutation (1:1-17)
Although the basic shape of the salutation is the same in all Paul's letters (an indication of the sender(s) and recipient(s) followed by a short blessing), the form is flexible and was adapted by Paul to each letter's purpose. For example, Paul wrote Galatians in part as a defence of his divinely sanctioned apostolic authority; thus he identifies himself as 'an apostle neither by human commission nor from human authorities' (Gal 1:1). The salutation in Romans is distinguished by its lengthy description of'the gospel of God' for which Paul was set apart (w. 2—6). Such details establish Paul's credentials and identify common ground with his audience.
The phrase 'obedience of faith' (also mentioned in 16:26) is ambiguous. It may refer either to faith that is an expression of obedience or to obedience that is an expression of faith. Possibly, Paul intended both meanings. Clearly it is the bringing of persons to faith in Christ that is the primary goal of the Pauline mission. It is no coincidence that Paul can refer synonymously to the Jews' unbelief in 11:20 and to their disobedience in 11:31 (Cranfield 1979: 66). Elsewhere in Romans, however, Paul uses 'obedience' in the more conventional sense (5:19; 6:16; 15:18; 16:19). An interesting parallel occurs in 2 Cor 9:13, where Paul says that the Corinthians' generosity is an expression of their 'obedience to the confession of the Gospel of Christ'. The fact that Paul includes in this mission the Roman Christians themselves (v. 6) indicates at the very least that he is talking about more than the evangelization of Gentiles.
As in Phil 1:1, Paul refers to himself as a 'slave' or 'servant' (doulos) of Jesus Christ (a designation paralleled, for example, in Jas 1:1, 2 Pet 1:1, Jude i). It was customary for Jews to regard themselves or their leaders as 'servants of God' (Ps 19:11; 27:9; Nehi:6;2 Kings 18:12; Isa 20:3; Jer 7:25; Deut 32:36; etc.), and Israel itself is frequently identified as God's servant (Jer 46:27; Ezek 28:25; Isa 44:I» 45:4J £tc.) (Dunn 1988: i. 7). The Christological appropriation of OT language about God is a consistent and revealing feature of the NT writings (e.g. cf Phil 2:10—11; Isa 45:23). Also noteworthy is Paul's tendency to balance a statement about Christ with a statement about God. He wished the Romans 'grace... and peace from [both] God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ' (v. 7); likewise, Pau mentioned that he was 'set apart for the gospel of God... [which is] concerning his Son' (w. i, 3) and offered thanks to 'God through Jesus Christ for all of you' (v. 8; cf. Rom 8:9: 'Spirit of God... Spirit of Christ').
'Grace to you and peace' is the typical Pauline greeting (i Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; etc.; it is also used in i and 2 Pet 1:2 and Rev 1:4). It elegantly combines the Christian word 'grace', charis (replacing the similar Greek greeting chairdn; cf. Acts 15:23; 23:26; Jas 1:1), and the Jewish greeting 'peace' (salom). It thus incorporates both Gentile and Semitic as well as Christian and Jewish elements.
The mention of prophets, scriptures, and David (w. 2-3) sounds a deliberate note of continuity with Israel's past. The connection between Paul's contemporary proclamation to Gentiles and God's ancient promises to Israel is of central importance in Romans (see esp. chs. 9-11). (On the plural 'scriptures', see Hays 1989: 34).
Thanksgiving (1:8-17)
The thanksgiving is used here, as in Paul's other letters, to express goodwill towards his audience and to remind them of (or, in the case of Romans, to establish) the terms of their association, matters that fall broadly under the heading of 'relationship maintenance'. The thanksgiving also serves to introduce the reader to key ideas and terminology, deliberately signalling the letter's overarching themes (see e.g. i Cor 1:4—9; Phil 1:3-11; i Thess 1:2-3:13; Philem 4-7). It is to the thanksgiving that one should look first for an indication of Paul's own sense of purpose in writing. (The exception is Galatians, which—not surprisingly, given its polemical edge—contains no thanksgiving.) (1:8-15) Relationship Maintenance Strictly speaking, Paul is establishing, not maintaining, his relationship with the Roman Christians; nevertheless, he stresses that his interest in and concern for them are not new. He has long known of and prayed for the church at Rome and has been encouraged
Many scholars think that the core of w. 3-4 came from prePauline Christian tradition, possibly in the form of an early Christological formulation (Byrne 1996: 43; Dodd 1932: 4—5). A pair of descriptions of the Son are set in parallel, distinguished by the contrasting Pauline terms 'flesh' and 'spirit':
who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the
spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead
Jesus' human or earthly ('according to the flesh') status as a descendant of David (see 2 Sam 7:11—16; Davidic lineage is a staple of messianic texts: Isa n; Jer 23:5—6; Ezek 34:23—4; etc.) is mentioned only here in Paul's writings but figures promin-
io8g ROMANS
jected? For Paul, neither conclusion is possible. Instead, he sets out to demonstrate that the righteousness of God is evident precisely in God's acceptance of Gentiles (chs. i—8), and that the inclusion of Gentiles does not invalidate God's election of Israel (chs. 9—11).
by reports of its faithfulness. Paul indicates his hope that he 'might at last succeed in coming' to Rome (v. 10). In v. 13 he states that 'I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented)'. Paul's journey to Rome is not an afterthought; his readers should not feel slighted. The reason for the delay is spelled out in 15:22—4: Paul's missionary activity in Asia and Greece (that is, amongst 'the rest of the Gentiles', v. 13) had only recently been completed. Rome, the natural destination of the 'apostle to the Gentiles' (Gal 2:7), is now fully in view.
The question, 'Has God abandoned Israel?', is long familiar to Judaism. At root, it is the question of theodicy, in this case, of the evident gap between God's promises and Israel's reality, felt most acutely in time of national defeat and occupation. Richard Hays (1989: 34—83) has demonstrated powerfully that Paul used as source for his reflections in Romans the prophets and lament psalms that dealt with God's apparent abandonment of Israel. It is striking that these materials are laden with references both to God's righteousness and to God's universal salvation (e.g. Ps 97:3 (LXX); Isa 51:4-5; 52:10). It should therefore come as no surprise that Paul initiates the argument of Romans with a quotation from Hab 2:4, which not only supplies key terminology for the letter (ROM 1:17) but does so in the context of a hard-won prophetic affirmation of God's paradoxical faithfulness.
The language of 1:1—15 is highly diplomatic. Paul balances assertions of his apostolic authority with statements concerning his regard for and reciprocity with the Roman Christians. Paul is not the founder of Roman Christianity and so cannot assume charge over it. It is worth noting, however, that even in Paul's own churches he had no real power. Paul could exercise authority only in so far as he could persuade his audience of his right to do so (the rhetoric of Galatians and 2 Corinthians providing the best examples; see Holmberg 1978: 193—204).
v. 14, instead of dividing humanity into 'Jew and Gentile' (or 'Jew and Greek', v. 16), on this one occasion Paul uses the standard Hellenistic categories 'Greeks and barbarians' (TDNT i. 546—53), which by this time had come to refer to 'all races and classes within the Gentile world' (Dunn 1988: i. 33). It is not clear whether 'wise and foolish' directly parallels 'Greeks and barbarians' (cf the opposing conclusions of Cranfield 1979: 83; Fitzmyer 1993: 251). In either case, the point is made that the gospel transcends such distinctions. Paul is a 'debtor' (i.e. 'one under obligation'), presumably by his calling, to proclaim the gospel to all Gentiles, including, of course, the Romans themselves. It is less likely that Paul also meant to express his personal indebtedness to individual Gentiles (Morris 1988: 63). A further point is that even the most cultured among the Gentiles is in need of the gospel and (in the light of v. 16, immediately following) that the gospel is in no way threatened by human wisdom. (The contrast between earthly wisdom and divine power (v. 16) is especially prominent in i Corinthians, e.g. 1:18—19; 2:4~5-)
The link to the remaining, paraenetic section of Romans (chs. 12—15) has been obscured by the Protestant inclination to consider justification in exclusively juridical terms. The notion that Christians are different from others primarily in their legal standing before God owes much to a traditional
(Augustinian/Lutheran) (mis)reading of Rom 7—8. The Pauline meaning of 'justification' is much broader and evidences a quite different eschatological orientation (see ROM 8). The word dikaioun ('to justify'; first used in 2:13 and then repeatedly throughout chs. 2—10) means literally 'to righteous'; it comes from the same root as dikaiosune, 'righteousness.' It means both 'to treat as righteous' and 'to make righteous' (Kasemann 1980: 25). In other words, God both forgives sin and converts sinners in 'righteousing' the unrighteous. The relational character of righteousness (e.g. seen as God's faithfulness to Israel, above) covers both being established and being equipped as a fit partner in right relationship (e.g. in 8:2—4). Th£ same point is made by calling the gospel 'the power of God for salvation'. Thus, the entirety of Romans may be seen to be centred, in three parts, on the theme of God's righteousness:
(1:16-17) Theme Paul advances now to a statement of his theme: God saves all (both Jew and Greek) in the same way (by faith) by the same means (the gospel), thus demonstrating God's righteousness (God's fairness and fidelity). As this statement indicates, 'righteousness' denotes something more than 'justice' (see Stuhlmacher 1994: 29-32). Dunn (1988: i. 41) terms it 'covenant faithfulness' and traces the idea to the Psalms (e.g. 31:1; 51:14; 98:2) and Deutero-Isaiah (e.g. 45:8, 21; 46:13; 62:1-2) (cf. Hays, below). In Rom 3:21-6, Paul returns to the idea that 'the righteousness of God [now] has been disclosed' (v. 21). How? Not by condemning sinners, as justice demands, but by justifying them, as God's character requires. In view particularly is God's covenant obligation to Israel (see 11:27, 29: 'And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins ... for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable'). The question of God's faithfulness (one might even say 'God's consistency') is at stake. God has worked salvation in Christ 'first' for the Jews (v. 16); nevertheless, many Jews have not believed. Does the fact of an increasingly Gentile church demonstrate either that God's plan has been thwarted or that God's people have been re-
Chs. 1-8 God's righteousness evident in the treatment of Jew and Gentile Chs. 9—11 God's righteousness evident in the treatment of Israel Chs. 12-15 God's righteousness evident in the lives of believers.
It is not required that one probe Paul's psyche to explain the statement in v. 16 that he is 'not ashamed' of the gospel. These words echo 'the very same prophecies and lament psalms from which Paul's righteousness terminology is also drawn' (Hays 1989: 38), e.g. Ps 24:2; 43:10 (LXX); Isa 28:16 (quotedin Rom 9:33); and, of particular note, 50:7—8: T know that I shall not be put to shame; he who vindicates me is near' (also recalled in 8:31-9).
v. 17, 'through faith for faith' (ekpisteos dspistin) is a difficult phrase to interpret. Most often, it is taken to refer to the exclusiveness of the requirement of faith (sola fide)', hence the NIV's 'faith from first to last'. Because pistis can also
ROMANS 1090
mean 'faithfulness' (as in 3:3, its next occurence beyond this section), it is possible that Paul had in mind God's pistis (faithfulness) which engenders, is manifest in, or is recognized by (eis, unto) human pistis (faith) (cf. Earth 1933: 41; Edwards 1992: 42-3). In support of this reading, one should note that the repetition of a word to play on its double meaning is a popular convention and that ek (from) used with the verb 'reveal' is most readily 'understood as denoting the source of the revelation' (Dunn 1988: i. 44). An even more important consideration is the content of the revelation: God's righteousness. Given the full sense of the term 'righteousness' (above), it is reasonable to imagine Paul saying that God's righteousness is revealed in (God's) faithfulness to (human) faith. 'The one who is righteous will live by faith' is a quotation from Hab 2:4. Here Paul made use of one of only two verses in the HB that link 'faith' and 'righteous(ness)'.
atonement, such a redemption necessary? If Christ is the solution, what precisely is the problem? Clearly, it is the job of 1:18—3:20 to inform us. Specifically, this section functions to justify Paul's own summary in 3:22/7-23: 'For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.' 1:18—32 All are without Excuse The structure of the argument in 1:18-3:20 is not obvious. Commonly, 1:18-32 is read as an indictment of Gentile wickedness and 2:1-3:20 as the extension of that indictment to the Jews (Fitzmyer 1992: 269—71). Paul's approach is probably more subtle. In a sense, 1:18—32 sets a trap for the imaginary Jewish interlocutor introduced in 2:2. The description of human wickedness seems to be aimed exclusively at Gentiles; it appears to assume the typical contrast between Jewish probity and Gentile depravity. Nevertheless, nowhere does Paul indicate that he is describing only Gentiles; indeed, the Jewish/Gentile distinction is not made explicit until 2:9. Moreover, elements of w. 18—31 hark back to the darker moments and practices of Israel's past. It is especially likely that the worship of the golden calf (and perhaps the Israelites' subsequent revelry) of Ex 32 is in view. In Acts 7:41, Stephen referred to that incident and concluded, 'God... handed them over to worship the host of heaven'. Paradidomi ('handed over') is the same verb used by Paul in w. 24, 26, and 28 in reference to God's judgement. (The idea might go back to the OT passage quoted in the subsequent verses of Acts 7 (42—3), Am 5:25—7, which criticizes Jewish idolatry in the wilderness and speaks of God 'deporting/sending away' (metoikizo) the Jews to Damascus.) Also, Paul borrows language from Ps 106:20 and Jer 2:11, both of which deal with Israelite idolatry. Pious readers might accept God's judgement on conduct such as Paul describes, not realizing that they themselves stand under the same condemnation. Ch. 2 is written to make this point explicit.
(The other is Gen 15:6, another of Paul's crucial prooftexts; see 4:3; Gal 3:6.) Although many commentators support the NRSV's rendering, in which ek pisteos ('by faith') modifies the verb 'live' (Murray 1979: 33; Fitzmyer 1993: 265), an equally strong argument can be made for the translation, 'The one who is righteous by faith will live' (see e.g. Kasemann 1980: 32; Sanders 1977: 484; Cranfield 1979: 101—2). ('Live' here, in contrast to Habakkuk, would refer to resurrection life.) After all, Paul speaks in Phil 3:6 of a contrasting 'righteousness under (en) the law.' Similarly, it is possible that pistis here, as in the previous verse (and the LXX of Hab 2:4, 'my faithfulness'), refers to '(God's) faithfulness'. Again, the double meaning may be deliberate.
God's Righteousness Evident in the Treatment of Jew and Gentile (1:18-8:39)
Surprisingly, Christ is mentioned only once (2:16, on the future judgement) in 1:18—3:20. Indeed, almost nothing is distinctly Christian in the remainder of the first and the whole of the second chapter of Romans. The background to these materials is Hellenistic Judaism; unquestionably, Paul's description of the human condition in w. 18—32 borrows heavily from popular Hellenistic-Jewish descriptions of Gentiles. (The highest concentration of parallels occurs in the Wisdom of Solomon, almost certainly known to Paul.) Like Paul, Jewish apologists characteristically attacked Gentile idolatry and sexual misconduct. ('For the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication', Wis 14:12; cf. w. 22—7.) Some also claim that behind ch. 2 lies an otherwise unknown Hellenistic synagogue sermon (see below). It is reasonable to suppose that Paul used stock materials to construct a foundation upon which the more distinctive elements of his argument would be built. This strategy is reminiscent of his citation of the Christological formulae in 1:3-4, which served to establish common ground with his readers.
v. 18, 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against... those who... suppress the truth'. For Paul, the problem is not that God is unknowable; the problem is that humanity does not want to know God (cf. Wis 13:1—9). Accordingly, the idol worshipper does not seek to do the will of God; he seeks a god to do his will. Creature dethrones creator, and cosmic order is turned upside down (v. 24). 'Three times (w. 23 25, 26) human beings are said to have "exchanged" or "substituted" one reality for another' (HBC1136). God's response in each case is to 'give up' or 'hand over' humanity to its own desires (w. 24, 26, 28). For Paul, sin carries within itself its own punishment (Achtemeier 1985: 40), and the sinner's most terrible judgement is to be left alone, w. 26—31, while it is true that Paul saw the reversal of the created order manifest in homosexual relations, it is notable that his list also included such transgressions as covetousness, envy, boastfulness, and gossip. It would be difficult not to locate oneself somewhere in this catalogue—which, of course, is just the point. The knowledge of God that humanity suppresses is a moral knowledge. They 'know God's decree, that those who practise such things deserve to die', and still they disobey and even applaud the disobedience of others (v. 27). Humanity is utterly 'without excuse' (v. 20), especially the excuse of ignorance.
Beginning in 3:21—6, Paul returns to an explicitly Christian vantage point. Interestingly, the same paragraph reintroduces the theme of righteousness (w. 21,22,25, and 26; like 'Christ', 'righteousness' is mentioned only once in passing (3:5) in the previous chapter and a half). God's righteousness has been disclosed 'through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe' (v. 22). The work of Christ is characterized as 'a sacrifice of atonement by his blood' that brings 'redemption' to those who believe (w. 24—5). But why is such a disclosure, such an
Of course, Paul's fictive conversation partner (see below) would not plead ignorance. But does a Jew's knowledge of God put him or her in a superior position? Can knowledge of
1091 ROMANS
ard. Others reason that when speaking of those who 'do good' (etc.), Paul 'is implicitly referring to Christians' (Fitzmyer 1993: 297). The first proposal seems heavy-handed; in effect, it trades coherence for consistency. The second notion, that the chapter approves only Christian good works, is certainly possible, although it does little to commend Paul as a fairminded observer of human behaviour. Alternatively, Hays (1989: 42) has suggested that Rom 2 be read in the larger context of Ps 61 (quoted in v. 5), which 'renders an account of God fully consonant with Paul's emphasis on God's kindness and forebearance'. An entirely different approach is advocated by E. P. Sanders (1983:123), who thinks that Paul made use of a source or sources ('homiletical material from Diaspora Judaism') that contributed the desired argument for God's impartiality (and Jewish sinfulness) but included elements strikingly at odds with Pauline theology (ibid. 123-35). m general, Rom 2 reads well as a sermon preached to Jews to encourage a higher standard of Jewish conduct. (Indeed, change 'Jew' to 'Christian' and 'circumcision' to 'baptism', and the text reads like a sermon exhorting church members to live up to their calling; cf. Mt 7:21-3.) It is noteworthy that Rom 2 deals with matters known to be at issue within firstcentury Judaism, such as the question of'righteous Gentiles' and the nature of true obedience (ibid. 134).
God's law deliver from God's judgement? It is to such questions that Paul's description of the human condition in w. 18—32 has been leading.
(2:1-3:20) The Impartiality of God Scholars since Bultmann have made much of the similarities between Paul's rhetoric in Romans and the diatribe, a form of argumentation in which a Cynic or Stoic philosopher taught students by 'debating' an imaginary opponent (Bultmann 1910; Stowers, 1981). Although some scholars question whether or to what extent the diatribe was an established rhetorical form, there can be no doubt that diatribe style is present in Romans (Fitzmyer 1993: 91). At numerous points beginning in ch. 2 (also 3:1-9; 3:27—4:25; 9:19—21; 10:14—21; 11:17—24; 14:4—12), Paul addresses and even responds to the objections of an interlocutor (most often with an impassioned 'By no means!' (me genoito); 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1, n). The effect is to pull the reader into the 'conversation' on Paul's side. Rhetorically, the diatribe confers argumentative dynamism without ceding authorial control. It remains in the rhetor's power to choose what questions to ask and what answers to accept.
Because Paul's dialogue partner of 2:1—16 is not identified explicitly, some commentators have isolated this section from 2:17-3:20, in which Paul plainly addresses a Jewish interlocutor (Barrett 1957: 43; Morris 1988:107; Ziesler 1989: 80-1). It is more likely that the whole of 2:1—3:20 speaks to perceived Jewish attitudes and that any ambiguity as to the object of 2:1— 16 is expressly eliminated by the direct address of v. 17. Stuhlmacher (1994: 39) made the intriguing suggestion that Paul delayed identifying the interlocutor for dramatic effect; 2:17 thus functions like Nathan's statement to David in 2 Sam 12:7: 'You are the man!' (In fact, Ps 51, understood to be David's penitential prayer, is quoted in Rom 3:4.)
A second problem concerns the description of Jewish sinfulness in Rom 2. In 3:9, Paul states that 'we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin'. Paul concludes that since Jews share the same plight as Gentiles, they require the same solution, namely, Christ (3:216). How does Paul make his case? Given the longstanding tendency of interpreters to read Paul as if he were an existentialist—that is, one concerned with internal states and interior conflicts (see Stendahl 1963)—the actual argument of Rom 2 is surprising. Paul does not say that while most Jews most of the time meet the external demands of the law (cf. Paul's larger claim for himself in Phil 3:6), they nevertheless continue to sin inwardly, for example, by being proud of their obedience. Such a critique would not be entirely new; something like it existed in the Jesus traditions (e.g. Mt 5:21—4, 27— 30; 6:1-5; 23:25-8; Lk 11:37-44). That argument would put Jews and Gentiles on equal footing without necessitating that all Jews (or even hypothetical, representative Jews) be shown to be as badly behaved as Gentiles, which seems to be the point of 2:21-4. The lack of a clear conception or language of interiority is consistently problematic for Paul. Even Rom 7, which is usually read in this way, speaks of sin as an external power that causes one to do or not do what is right (7:15). Surely, the Jews of Paul's day were not characteristically thieves, adulterers, and temple robbers.
The juxtaposition in w. 28—9 of the mere outward and the true inward practice of Judaism is precedented in passages such as Deut 10:16, 30:6, and Jer 4:4, 9:26, which use the 'circumcision of the heart' metaphor to describe those whose inner commitments are consistent with their (outwardly obvious in the case of males) status as God's covenant people. The truly surprising employment of Scripture comes in v. 24, which uses Isa 52:5 to argue that Israel itself is so disobedient as to be the cause of Gentile blasphemy. This is 'a stunning misreading of the text' (Hays 1989: 45). In fact, Isa 52 celebrates Israel's rescue from the injustices ofthe nations. (Israel has been 'oppressed without cause'; 'my people are taken away without cause', Isa 52:4, 5.)
Numerous other difficulties are associated with the interpretation of Rom 2, some of which bear significantly upon one's understanding and evaluation ofthe entire letter. The first, most glaring problem is the repeated assertion that one is justified (v. 13) or receives eternal life (v. 7) on the basis of one's deeds. (The notion that God equitably judges people according to their works is common in the HB; however, such passages do not have in view the issue of eternal destiny. Inv. 5, Paul specifically quotes the LXX of Ps 61 (62):i3 and Prov. 24:12.) This idea appears flatly to contradict Paul's numerous other statements that one cannot be saved by one's works (e.g. 3:20; 4:2; 9:32; 11:6). One way out of the dilemma is to say that Paul wrote only of a theoretical justification; in fact, he realized that no one actually measures up to the proposed stand-
A third difficulty is that the obvious solution to the problems posed in 2:1—29 is mat Jews simply become better Jews. If Jews commit sinful acts, repentance and atonement are available to them within Judaism. Damnation is neither the sole nor the expected alternative to perfect obedience. In this context it is worth noting that when all is said and done, Paul's one substantial and consistent accusation is thatthe Jews have rejected their Christ. What confuses are the numerous ways such rejection can be characterized (as disobedience, unbelief, works righteousness, etc.) and the numerous deficiencies to which it can be attributed (hardheartedness, pride, self-
ROMANS 1092
same word is used to refer to the 'mercy seat', the top of the ark of the covenant, on which the blood of the sin offering was sprinkled annually on the Day of Atonement. It might (also) have as background the notion of the efficacious sacrifice of martyrs, as one finds in 4 Mace 17:22. 'Redemption' (apolutrosis) originally connoted 'freedom by ransom'. In the NT, the word is used to emphasize a change in one's position that is effected entirely at God's initiative and expense. It does not require a literal 'payment' by God (e.g. to the devil), as sometimes featured in later soteriological speculation (EDNT 138-40). v. 24, which states that believers are 'justified by his [God's] grace as a gift', captures a great deal of Pauline theology in a few words. Quintessentially for Paul, justification is gift, not reward (see 4:1-4; 5:15-17). It originates in God's mind, is motivated by God's character, and is 'purchased' by God's work in Christ. It is neither human invention nor human achievement; hence, it is gracious, unmerited. Obviously, it occasions no opportunity for human boasting (v. 27; see 2:17, 23; 4:2; cf the 'positive boasting' in 5:2-3, n; 15:17); one may as well boast of being born as boast of being justified. (Not surprisingly, boasting is a prominent Pauline theme, especially in i and 2 Corinthians, e.g. i Cor 1:29-31; 3:21; 4:7; 5:6; 2 Cor 11:12,16-18, 30; 12:1, 5-6; cf. the favourable boasting in i Cor 9:15-16; 15:31; 2 Cor 1:12; 5:12; 7:4, 14; 8:24; 9:2-3; 10:8, 13,15—17; 11:10; 12:30.) v. 25, the statement that God, in 'divine forbearance', 'passed over the sins previously committed' raises many questions. What does it mean to 'pass over' sin (from paresis; lit. the 'passing by' = 'letting go unpunished'; see BAGD 626), and whose sins specifically have been passed over? Did God simply not judge former sins, or was their judgement postponed, perhaps until the cross? What evaluation of Judaism and of its sacrificial system lies behind this verse? Commentators have ventured answers to these and related questions, but no one account of the passage has proved persuasive. It is clear at least that Paul regarded the death of Christ as the one final and essential sacrifice, the basis for all human salvation. Paul does not provide us with enough information to judge how, to what extent, and on what basis he considered such salvation to have been operative in the past.
assertion, etc.). Apart from faith in Christ, no amount of Jewish obedience, faith, or humility is going to satisfy. However it is described, this by definition is a problem that cannot have a (non-Christian) Jewish solution.
The ground shifts in 3:9, where Paul states that 'both Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin'. This statement removes the possibility that, unaided by God, either Gentile or Jew could be righteous (contra 2:7,13, etc., but consistent with 7:7-24). A compilation of OT proof-texts in 3:10-18 then describes humanity's utter depravity (Eccl 7:20; Ps 5:10; 10:7; 14:1—3/53:2—4; 36:2; 140:4; Isa 59:7—8/Prov 1:16). Thus the problem is not so much that humans sin as that humans are incapable of not sinning. Christ is necessary for Jew as well as Gentile because only he can break sin's power. This claim demonstrates how Paul's thinking could at times steer him in the direction of a realized eschatology (see ROM E. 4); Christians are now 'in the Spirit' and please God while others remain 'in the flesh' and cannot please God (8:3—8). This approach equalizes Jew and Gentile and so makes Christ necessary. One might object that this line of reasoning succeeds only by overstating the differences between believers and unbelievers, in particular, between Christians and Jews. Is it really the case, either in outward behaviour or inward disposition, that Christians as a group sin less than Jews? Are the rules of the church experienced so differently from the laws of the synagogue? Certainly, it would have been possible to argue for the necessity of Christ without negating Judaism as an instrument (or at least a prior instrument) of God's grace. Despite the demurral of 3:1-2, Paul's point is that with respect to the actual state of their relationship to God, Jews enjoy no advantage over Gentiles. One must ask, 'What then was the point of Judaism?' That question, in one form or another, is the central concern of the next several chapters.
(3:21—31) The Revelation of God's Righteousness w. 21—6 are the capstone of Paul's introductory argument; Stuhlmacher
(1994: 57) refers to the paragraph as 'the heart of the letter to the Romans'. Here Paul revisits the grand theme introduced in the Thanksgiving: the righteousness of God. The divine character—faithful, gracious, forgiving, and merciful—has been disclosed in Christ, specifically in Christ's death, a sacrifice for sin 'effective through faith'. Altogether apart from human initiative, God has done what God always intended to do ('attested by the law and the prophets') and so is proved righteous. It is instructive that Ps 143, quoted (v. 2, significantly emended) in Paul's statement of judgement in Rom 3:20, maintains that one is preserved by God's righteousness (Ps 143:1, 11-12), the very subject of w. 21-6 (see Hays 1989: 51-2). Paul is deeply conscious of the interplay of God's condemning justice and God's justifying righteousness, already evident in Scripture.
v. 26, it is essential to note that the faith of which Paul speaks in w. 27—31 (and in Romans generally) is specifically 'faith in Christ' (see also 4:23-4). Although Paul may contrast works with faith and unbelief with faith, the unspoken and yet insistent polarity is between Jewish faith in God apart from belief in Christ and Christian (whether Jewish or Gentile) faith in God including belief in Christ. In other words, it is one's response to Jesus that ultimately is at issue, however the argument may be framed. Paul believed that God was in Christ and that to believe in God now means perforce to believe in Christ; the two 'faiths' are inseparable. Accordingly, it is only Christian faith that is legitimated as faith. (One can observe the same dynamic clearly at work in Johannine literature, e.g. in Jn 5:23 and i Jn 5:10—12.) Logically, this move eliminates the problem of present Jewish (but non-Christian) belief in God; it is not actual (one might say 'sufficient') faith. Thus Paul can speak of faith in God as if it were a uniquely Christian attribute. At the same time, this approach introduces a problem: what to do with pre-Christian Jewish faith
That the death of Jesus decisively altered the human situation (described in 1:18-3:20) is assumed but not explained. Almost certainly, the language Paul used concerning Christ's atonement was common to first-century Christianity and required little elucidation. (See i Cor 15:3, where the statement that 'Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures' is included in the tradition that Paul himself received.) v. 25, 'expiation' (hilasterion: 'sacrifice of atonement', NRSV) probably has in view the Jewish sacrificial system. In the LXX, the
io93 ROMANS
ing before God was a gift, not an attainment (see ROM 3:24). This occurred prior to the giving of the law, prior even to the requirement of circumcision. This first instance of human righteousness thus becomes the paradigm for all subsequent instances. It is very likely that Paul wrote Rom 4 with a view to popular Jewish treatments of the Abraham story that focused on the patriarch's obedient example, which in some cases even argued for his attainment of merit (e.g. 4 Ezra 9:7; 13:23). A similar reading is present in Jas 2:18—26, which may have been formulated to counter (possibly second-generation) abuses of Pauline theology. The two sides actually make different, not opposite, points. Essentially, Paul uses the Abraham story to answer the question, How does one get 'in' (e.g. right relationship with God)? Much more characteristically, the story is used in James to exhort believers (those already 'in') to behave in a certain way, in this case to demonstrate their faith by their actions. It is entirely possible to laud Abraham's good behaviour (e.g. in obeying God's command to leave his home, Gen 12:1) without implying that Abraham was thereby sinless or perfectly righteous, which issue was not under consideration. In fact, many contemporary Jews could have accepted Paul's basic point: like Abraham, one enters into covenant with God at God's initiative and by means of God's grace. The doctrine of justification by faith is not without Jewish antecedents; the real controversy concerns, not the necessity of faith, but the content or object of faith.
(that is, unless one claims that those such as Abraham and David, both commended in Romans, already believed in Christ). The press of this difficulty may well account for Paul's statement in v. 25 (above) concerning God's former dispensation of forgiveness.
In v. 27 Paul contrasts a law 'of works' with a law of faith'. The shift in the use ofnomos (law) is curious and has led many to translate the word in this instance as 'principle' (i.e. the principle of faith by which boasting is excluded). Barrett (1957: 83) has argued convincingly that, for Paul, nomos occasionally 'means something like "religious system", often ... but not always, the religious system of Judaism'. Such an interpretation makes sense both here and at numerous other points in Romans, v. 31, Paul asks, 'Do we then overthrow the law by this faith?' As a Jew himself, Paul cannot answer, 'Yes'. The law is still God's law. There must be some sense in which Paul's teachings (which, let us not forget, abrogate certain specific commandments; e.g. Rom 14:14) actually 'uphold the law', perhaps the law rightly understood or the law in its deeper purpose. We do not have to wait long to discover something of what the apostle had in mind.
(4:1—25) The Example of Abraham Paul has just stated that he upholds the law (3:31) and that the righteousness of God, which he proclaims, is attested in 'the law and the prophets'
(3:21). It is time to make good on these claims. Religious arguments, like legal arguments, often begin with an appeal to precedent. In most democracies, a lawyer can do no better than to appeal to the nation's constitution (and, thereby, to its founders). Constitutional interpretation is both the most basic and the most consequential matter of law. Generations of case law can be overturned by a single ruling of unconstitutionality. Paul makes his first and strongest argument by appealing to the founding figure of Judaism, Abraham. What goes for Abraham, he can assume, goes for all. God's covenant with Abraham is the core of the Jewish 'constitution', subsequent 'amendments' notwithstanding. Summoning Abraham to his defence is both an inspired and (in the light of the controversy in Galatia, which seemed to revolve around the interpretation of the Abraham story, especially the commandment of circumcision in Gen 17:10; see Gal 3) probably necessary strategy. The appeal to Abraham has the added benefit of preempting an opponent's appeal to Moses (see Gal 3:17). 'The promise ... did not come to Abraham or his descendants through the law' (4:13). According to one possible interpretation, Paul (see ROM 10:5) effectively rules 'unconstitutional' Moses' later understanding of the relationship between the law and eternal life (e.g. that 'the person who does these things will live by them', Lev 18:5, my emphasis).
The fact that Abraham had not yet been circumcised (that comes two chapters later, in Gen 17) allows Paul to claim that Abraham is exemplar to and ancestor of all faithful persons, both Jews and Gentiles (3:9—12). As proof-text, Paul cites Gen 17:5 (T have made you the father of many nations', w. 17—18). Gentile Christians were for Paul (and probably for most other Jewish Christians) 'children of Abraham'. It is not difficult to imagine how such claims might have rankled with nonChristian Jews, how they could have been seen to threaten the integrity, ultimately even the existence, of Israel. It is likely that such claims underlie many of the instances of persecution recorded in the NT (see Gal 5:11 and 6:12).
v. 15, the sentiment 'the law brings wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation' is echoed in 5:13: 'sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law' (cf the 'passing over' of sins prior to Christ in 3:25). It also anticipates the argument of 7:7—24 ('if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin, v. 7). Presumably, the point is that 'law makes sin into transgression' (Byrne 1996: 158). Under the law, one not only sins, one sins with explicit knowledge that one is sinning. Paul makes no attempt to co-ordinate these statements with the earlier argument that Gentiles are fairly judged by God, having 'what the law requires written on their hearts' (2:15).
The basic argument of Rom 4 is comparatively simple and direct. According to Gen 15:6, Abraham 'believed the Lord; and the Lord reckoned it to him as righteousness'. (What Abraham actually believed—namely, God's promise that he would have offspring—is not in view nor, naturally, is a consideration of what 'reckoning righteousness' might have meant in its original context.) Abraham was not, of himself, righteous; instead, because of his faith, he was treated (dogisthl: 'was credited'; a 'bookkeeping term figuratively applied to human conduct' as in Ps 106:31; i Mace 2:52; and Philem 18; Fitzmyer 1993: 373) as though he were righteous. His stand-
w. 19—21, the quality of Abraham's faith is vividly described. Abraham believed God against all opposing considerations and contrary appearances. The final reality was God's fidelity: God would do what God had promised. The character of faith as trust is nowhere more clearly depicted in Paul's writings, w. 23-4, the content of justifying faith is spelled out more fully: belief in God who 'raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over (paredothe) to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification'. This description of Jesus sounds formulaic and therefore traditional; ultimately, it is